Talk:Angel

Edits on Section "Background"
Hellow, regarding the question formulated by User:Mikeblas: The previous source was not removed, but trimmed. I did so for two reasons 1. the part about angels being necessary to close a gap between humanity and God because of seperation, indeed mentioned in the source, appears to be a Christian projection, given that, at least Islam, there is no change between the relationship between mankind and God, at least on an epistemic level, after "the Fall". This is evident from a lot of main articles, and hard to find a specific source for, since the concept is just not referred to in the Islamic conception of angels, God, mankind. You cannot prove the rejection of something that isn't even attested. 2. The part trimmed had some extensive details on possible parallels between Jewish angelology and Persian angelology. The implicit message that Judaism gradually adopted Persian angels, is too simplified. The core message which is generally agreed upon, has been left untouched and integrated into the added text of the article. A citation challanging the simplefied account has been added as well in the lower paragraph, along with the previous source. If I accidentally removed something important or notable, please let me know. with best regards VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be possible to represent both points of view? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sects and self-promotion
Is there any justification for the inclusion of Swedenborgianism and Mormonism? It seems to fail inclusion per undue weight and reliable sources. The notability of these sects needs to be demonstrated by reliable sources. However, most (if not all) sources used are related to the very sect they promote. If there is no substantial evidence for the significance of these sects, they should be removed. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)