> So the question is, do they use a term which could reasonably be =
> *translated* "angel". And to answer that, we have to ask, once again, =
> "How are you defining 'angel'?"
> A Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) scholar would define "angel" as =
> meaning "bodiless, non-human spirit which serves God". =
The contemporary Christians I've heard preach on the subject mostly defin=
e
an angel as 'a messenger of God' and usually make the point that this can=
be an ordinary person as well as a spirit. Also, at least some mainstrea=
m
Christians would say that fallen angels (and other kinds of demons if the=
re
are such) are all created by God, because Hell cannot make anything new. =
For one take on this see the 'Screwtape Letters' by CS Lewis.
I think one thing that's clear from this discussion is that even our
world's three great monotheistic religions, which share much of their
Scriptures, include a variety of ideas about and definitions of angels an=
d
demons. How much less likely is it that there is any common view among
Gloranthans?
AR itself says (page 7) that the current classification system that goes under Anaxial's name is an expanded version of his original scheme, and that other classification systems are also used in Glorantha.
In the Divine Comedy (not in the Inferno, one of the other two books that=
are much less read) Dante meets the shade of a Pope who in life produced =
an
elaborate scheme describing the orders of angels and their duties. When =
he
came to the afterlife he found that his scheme was completely wrong, and
the poet says this was 'the funniest thing he'd ever heard'.
So IMG there is no one definition of these terms that all Gloranthan scholars would use.
Andrew
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail