Thu, Nov. 6th, 2003, 01:50 am
Tomorrow I get to do my first solo teleconference since the time I called the accounting head of Her Majesty's treasury stupid.
I'm not going to chicago after all, at least not for a month or two at the soonest, february at the latest (assuming it happens at all). My tomorrow night the Frenchman is more or less out of my life for ten months and it is entirely likely that I am going to get a little drunk, nay fucking paralytic
in celebration. Everyone is meeting in some pub or other for a few drinks so I plan on coming home first to get loaded up on whatever is lurking at the back of the cupboard, I'm pretty sure Vodka, White Rum, Cherry Brandy, some sort of herbal banana liquer and golden nuggest breakfast cereal should do the trick. The irony is that I'm going to be in too good a mood to tell him what I actually think of him - I can only hope I'm in a good enough mood to be sick on him I guess.
I'm reading the dictionary of angels at the moment, I never realised there were quite so many of them. Warren Ellis posted a short story today where he mentions that 10,500,000 angels gathered every day to greet the new dawn and looking at the figures in the book it's not all that unbelievable since there were supposedly 400,000,000 of them to begin with (133,330,000 of those fell after the war). The most interesting little fact I read so far was that according to revelations itself there are still demons in heaven - heaven it would seem has bad neighbourhoods too. The church doesn't tend to acknowledge that bit since they don't want people thinking there's a chance that once they die they'll end up in heaven's equivalent of Rialto or Detroit.
Wed, Nov. 5th, 2003 07:01 pm (UTC)
The most interesting little fact I read so far was that according to revelations itself there are still demons in heaven - heaven it would seem has bad neighbourhoods too.
Interesting. Mind showing me where you found that? In my experience of reading Revelations, it speaks of a war in Heaven, but no resident demons. There's a good deal of stuff that happens on earth, too, with many-horned dictators and such.
Thu, Nov. 6th, 2003 01:26 am (UTC)
For one thing I think it's in the King James version, I can't find the quote just right now but I'll dig it out later this evening when I'm not surrounded by people who might be wondering what the hell I'm doing reading a book on angels in work.
Thu, Nov. 6th, 2003 04:20 am (UTC)
Heh. I don't tend to shout my faith to the four winds at work, but conversations with my friend/coworker plus the fact that I often pull up biblegateway.com for reference sometimes easily gives me away.
Anyway, yeah- please let me know when you find it. Peace!
Thu, Nov. 6th, 2003 04:46 am (UTC)
I think it might just send out some mixed signals for them...
"But... you're reading about angels? don't you hate all living beings or something?"
Thu, Nov. 6th, 2003 05:32 am (UTC)
The first reference I see here belongs in second corinthians, chapter 12 verses 2-4 where Paul was caught up and brought to the third heaven where he "heard unspeakable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter".
Supposedly one of the angelic orders, the Watchers, have good and evil angels in their ranks and the evil ones live on the third level of heaven whereas the good ones are on the fifth. I can't find the specific reference I mentioned before and unfortunately I didn't have my notebook handy at the time so I didn't write it down. Once I do I'll IM you with it.
Thu, Nov. 6th, 2003 05:52 am (UTC)
iresprite: Re: Righto
*nods* Cool! Thanks. Just as a note on that verse- every other translation I see uses the following phrasing: "He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell." I think that you could interpret that as "diabolically unspeakable" or "diviniely ineffable". While I don't think there is any limit to the sorts of evil human beings can expres or enact, I do believe that there are good things that are, in our current form, impossible to express. That's my own interpretation.
I also don't tend to put a lot of stock into the cataloguing of angels done by kabbala (or by islam), but that's just me.
Thu, Nov. 6th, 2003 06:02 am (UTC)
mr_wombat: Re: Righto
Yeah, I mean they only predate your religion by what?... a bajillion years? :)
That said, I like it, it's nice to think such things exist and they're not big remote things. I suspect that might be one of the reasons that don't play such a big part of the christian thing, having a personal relatioship with God seems to be a relatively new thing and when I was being brought up he was a bit like the government. He cared for you, even personally, but the odds are you weren't going to get to sit down with them for a chit chat any time soon. Angels were closer and easier to relate to.
Thu, Nov. 6th, 2003 06:10 am (UTC)
iresprite: Re: Righto
That's interesting- I hadn't considered that angle. To me, and from what I know of the kabbala (and how manty people view it), it was a way to command the divine, essentially. If you could get a couple of angels in your pocket, you could work some serious mojo. It didn't seem like angels were meant as compassionate companions or drinking buddies, you know?
I totally understand that kabbala predates Christianity... but Christianity rose out of the religion that promoted it. Since Christ didn't seem to think it was necessary, I tend to be cool with my personal relationship.
I'd also like to point out that a good number of biblical figures had chit chats with God, and many of them didn't involve being smote. ;) On the other hand, I'm sure it was difficult to see that as being anything but God talking to Very Special People. I imagine that's probably why Christ's talk about the sparrows and the lilies of the field were such a big deal to people who were used to a big remote God.