If you do not believe nonbinary people are truly nonbinary
If you perpetuate transphobic rhetoric
Lucifer is not your friend
He belongs to the trans satanists and there’s nothing you can do about it
Considering that most angels were not actually all that humanoid and were often entirely frightening… I would assume Lucifer had the ability to alter themselves to whatever suits the situation. So I suppose non binary would cover it.. although putting human aspects to them that are above human standards is something I have always found limiting. But I agree with the sentiment above. I just have a lot of thoughts on the depiction of angels both normal and fallen.. especially when they supposedly look like this.. on a good day..
I feel this is where our views differ then, which is sensible seeing as we are not members of the same religion.
While Lucifer is much greater and more complex than any mortal being, that does not mean he lacks human features all-together. To me, Lucifer has always represented the meeting of the Earthly and the Heavenly in perfect balance. So for every features he has that is beyond human understanding or comparison, he has another feature in common with humanity. His associations with sexuality, strong emotion, and survival are good examples of this.
In addition, while the term nonbinary is of human creation, what it covers is vast and perfectly capable of covering concepts like a shifting gender, or a non-existent gender, or a gender completely beyond our comprehension even. All “nonbinary” means is “not solely male nor female”. All angels easily fall into that category. Nonbinary is a term that rejects limits rather than setting them.
I will say though, with all due respect, that as a trans person I don’t appreciate the implication that gender is connected to appearance or form. What angels appear as or are depicted as should be irrelevant to a discussion of gender, because even humans of any gender can appear in a thousand different ways that may or may not be deemed passable for their gender. I find the notion that an angel’s gender would be at all connected to appearance to be much more limiting than the term nonbinary.
I meant no disrespect and I assume our clash is due to differing sides of religions. As angels are described in the Bible they rarely are humanoid of nature and this wouldn’t even be considered to have a gender let alone a form that humans could comprehend. How one identifies is entirely up to oneself. My addition to the post was not that looks define gender but that angels have shifting aspects that can be both humanoid and not and therefore fit nicely under non binary if it is their choosing. My other statement was that because they are higher beings that only we can really hold them to human standards and that they may not even consider themselves anything other than “angel” or “seraphim”. It’s more of a conversation about text and what angels are. I’m sorry for hijacking your post. I meant no disrespect:
Mm, that is my point though: nonbinary means anything that is neither entirely female or entirely male. Literally all other possibilities of gender or the lack-thereof are nonbinary. To identify as simply “angel” without gender is to be nonbinary, as one is not identifying with male or female at all. It can be a term one voluntarily picks and identifies heavily with, but that is not a requirement. So that is why I feel that angels are nonbinary, canonically, because of the bible’s descriptions of them.
But you’re right in that this discussion was not the point of this post, it was made to make other trans Satanists and Luciferians feel safe and welcome in our community, as well as send the message that hate will not be tolerated in the name of Lucifer. It is best that we agree to disagree. Thank you for your apology. Consider it water under the bridge.
OK, I am gonna chime in but first I have to say this. No disrespect is meant to either @luciformspiral or @christowitch . Particularly @christowitch I would imagine you would have a very different relationship to The Bible than us Luciferians, and I respect that, so my reading and the passages I emphasize and the importance I place on what was written when may vary a lot from your interpretations. I really appreciate both of your input, and hope that you can find something of use in mine.
That said, there is Biblical support for angels assuming gendered human forms, and possibly for even reproducing with humans.
In Genesis 18, Abraham has some male-appearing, humanoid visitors who turn out to be angels.
Finally, although the Book of Enoch is pseudepigrapha, Genesis does refer to the story of the Nephilim, who are considered to have been the product of a sexual union between angels and humans:
Genesis 6:1–6 Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (bene Elohim) saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.
Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God (bene Elohim) came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Now we can argue a lot about what “sons of God” means and whether it actually refers to angels. More on this here.
This summary on the appearance of angels in the Bible seems to indicate that the idea of angels as terrifying creatures with lots of wings and eyes comes from Revelation 4:8. Revelation is of course one of the newest texts in the Bible, and older texts seem to generally have less trippy-looking angels.
Angels being invisible definitely happens a lot. (Angels having big swords also happens a lot. And people falling down on their faces when they see angels is a thing that happens all the time.)
This is not to say that angels are in fact innately gendered, or generally sexual. I don’t believe that one bit, but based purely on what scripture says, I’d have to admit that angels seem to spend a lot of time appearing as human dudes. (Which could be for a lot of reasons involving interacting with patriarchal human societies.)
(Of course I also believe, in the absence of explicit scriptural support, that Lucifer was the serpent of Eden, so I guess that means I believe fallen angels can look like snakes, which would tend to indicate that angels can look like whatever the heck they want.)
So, TL:DR, just wanted to point out that the Bible says various things about the corporeality/humanoid-ness of angels at different times.
Feel free to let me know where I am wrong. I definitely don’t claim to know The Good Book backwards and forwards, although I aspire to. The devil can quote scripture, after all.
Church of the Morningstar 