jason boyett on the creepiness of guardian angels

guardian angelmy friend jason boyett has a great post on the creepiness of guardian angels. it’s quite good. if you don’t follow jason’s blog, you should.

of course, i don’t buy the concept of guardian angels at all. the last thing christianity needs is a larger pantheon. somehow we went from the monotheistic concept of ‘one god’ to a trinity, then to angels, demons, saints, and now to personal guardian angels to serve us individually in our consumer-based, me first, ‘spiritual but not religious,’  ‘i can be religious without the church/community’ world. the espousal of guardian angels is the pinnacle of a self-centered christianity and betrays one’s concealed doubt that god alone is not big enough to do the things the faith traditionally says he can do.

as always, boyett communicates his thoughts with a smirking sense of humor, making it all the more enjoyable. check it out.

8 Responses

  1. Oh now now now….

    If God were supposed to be the type of “all in all” that you are proposing, why the heck put parents on this earth? And who needs a government, doctors, lawyers, professors, farmers, pastors etc….

    After all, God is one and definitely strong enough to supply all of our needs himself, right? Heck, who needs other people then? It should just be me and God.

    But now tsk tsk, look where that has brought us…right back to me-centered Christianity. ;)

  2. emerson, tsk tsk. your logical fallacy equates humans with gods. it is quite obvious that the judeo-xn divine realm grew over time from the worship of a singular god (although not always practiced, say in the example of asherah and the kuntillet ‘ajrud inscription), to a more dichotomous approach where someone/thing besides god must be responsible for evil (perhaps job’s ‘ha satan’ gave rise to what later became just ‘satan’), to a host of demons and angels, followed by a centuries-long debate over whether or not jesus was, in fact, divine, and if so, of what ‘substance’, followed by saints, and, well… you get the picture. equating the growth of specialized divine personalities to earthly social and vocational counterparts is a fallacious stretch to defend some believers’ need for a multiplicity of divine beings to manage the universe.

  3. You know…just throwing it out there. It seems rather swollen-headed to inculcate a doctrine wherein (apart from God, whoever he/she/it may be) the only monuments of sentience in this cosmos are humans. Seems a little bit-ironically- me centered.

    Angelic beings are a later addition in Israel’s history? What do we make then of the creation texts which have God saying,” Let US make man in OUR image…..” Isn’t this some sort of heavenly counsel between the One God and his angelic hosts?

    Oh but let me guess, the plural features in this text are later redactions, added during a time when angelology had fully developed. Since we are discussing logical fallacies, might I commend your own magniloquent fallacy of presenting whole lines of argument that simply can never be falsified?

  4. ‘let us make man in our image’ – either 1) this reflects a period of early polythism in israel’s history communicated orally to the period of its writing, or, 2) these are late texts from the exilic/post-exilic period where the plurality of the heavenly realm (either due to persian or some other influence) had already begun to replace a strict monotheism or henotheism.

    so regarding your guess, you are not far from the kingdom ;-)

  5. Didn’t you say that the “judeo-xn divine realm grew over time from the worship of a singular god (although not always practiced, say in the example of asherah and the kuntillet ‘ajrud inscription), to a more dichotomous approach…” implying that Israel’s early theology had no time for polytheism?

    Seems like we’re stuck with the redaction option, or the option of an early Israelite theology of a crowded cosmos (my humble suggestion).

    Getting back to the Genesis narrative, there is also that enigmatic text about the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of men.” Sounds like the Israelites bore some consonance with that early mythic view that kings/rulers of territories are elected and/or begotten to be sons of God.

  6. “Let US make man in OUR image”

    I wonder what the original Hebrew writes. This could be the “royal we”. As in a monarch’s “We are not amused”. If King James was an absolute monarch probably using the “royal we” I’d presume that God certainly would, and it would be translated as such. Or it could be the trinitarian godhead speaking.

  7. The sons of God referring to Angels! ‘We’as in God and the Angels. God is above all and commands over all and Angels are messengers! Angel in biblical Hebrew is mal’ak which means messenger. The are nine different kinds of Angels in the bible. Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Archangels and Angels. Angels being referred to as ‘watchers’. So yes I believe we have guardian angels. They deliver the messages from God, we are supposed to head the warning. Also Angels in the bible aren’t presented as cute, the Seraphim which is closest to God appear with 6 wings and 4 heads. So guess I could see why someone might be frightened.

  8. as I said, pantheon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: