7 thoughts on “There are no female angels in Christianity, Islam or Judiasm

  1. Well, to be fair, there aren’t any angels at all. So discussing their genitals is a bit like discussing the reproduction of dwarves or elves.

    Nowadays most people use Tolkein as a source for dwarves and elves, and the Bible for angels. Biblical angels are described as male, given male pronouns and called bene elohim, “sons of god”. So Judaic believers, also Bible-believing Christians, are pretty much stuck with an all-male set of angels. Same with Islam.

    So it’d be simplest to assume that, in the minds of the people who wrote the Bible’s references to angels, Michael, Gabriel and so on were male, and male means “has a cock and balls”. Even if (says Matthew 24:36) they don’t use them.

    That leaves two other options. People can stick with Biblical angels but ignore the male pronouns, the references to angels being “sons” etc, and get a bit selective and creative in their reading. They can argue their way into believing in non-gendered angels within a Christian, Judaic or Islamic framework if they like. It’s not my problem.

    That’s okay, if boring. The other thing people can do is make up their own angels, and have their angels as gendered or asexual as they want them to be.

    I bet there’s a nice American lady writing a book right now about how she met her guardian angel, and he got her back into her groove, sexually, with lots of health advice and vigorous fucking. Vigorous and spiritual.

    Aliens used to see to the sexual needs of Californian and mid-Western loners, in the 1950s and 1960s, so I’m sure the angels are ready to step up and do the same.

    Anyway, be all that as it may, the girl in the picture is very pretty.

  2. Angels aren’t hobbits. They don’t produce semen; nor do they have ovaries. Angels are not made of flesh and blood. They are ethereal–not corporeal.

  3. Which angels? They’re like hobbits in the most important way, which is that they’re imaginary. With hobbits, the source is Tolkein, and with angels the earliest source (that I know of) is the Tanak, or Old Testament.

    One difference when it comes to angels is that there are multiple sources. They were used as minor characters in the New Testament, Quran, and other religious texts, and then in Dante and Milton, and – jumping forward a bit – in pop culture stuff like “Hellblazer”.

    Old Testament angels, the “bene elohim” (sons of god) saw human woman, the daughters of men, and thought they were sexy. So they had sex with the human women and fathered children. That’s in Genesis 6:4, recounting the origin of the nephilim.

    Milton’s angels don’t have sex, but they seem to have physical weight and heft. Hellblazer’s angels, fallen and otherwise, have sex. Quranic angels, or “messengers” are male but don’t seem to have sex. Pick whatever you prefer.

    American ladies keep meeting angels, and if there hasn’t yet been a book in which some deeply spiritual woman recounts her passionate sexual affair with an angel, I’m sure it’s being written as we speak. (If it isn’t, maybe I should lock myself in a room one weekend and write it myself. He’d be a very bossy sort of angel. He’d have her face-down on the carpet, and then make her tidy her bathroom cupboards.)

    So when you make any statement about “angels”, you have to say whose angels you mean. That’s the key difference between angels and hobbits: hobbits are still somewhat controlled by the Tolkein estate, but anyone can make up stuff about angels.

  4. Pingback: The porn star gurn: photos in this blog 3 | Jerusalem Mortimer: Between the Lines

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *