Is there a difference?

I get confused reading some of the stuff on this forum. I thought angelkin was an incarnated angel, but most people are acting like there is some sort of difference. What is the difference between an incarnated angel and angelkin? And angels and celestials?

I remember working under a guy, I think there were a few people over him, there was some kinda rank structure, but I wouldn't exactly think of him as a deity. Of course I may have different views of what a god is than some. I'm pretty sure I wasn't under the Christian God though. I/we [my group] refused to do something that was asked of us that we thought was wrong and we were kicked down and our souls fragmented, others fled to join us when they saw what was going on. Thats the short version of what I remember.

Introduce yourself, please. After our members have had the chance to welcome you properly, we'll be happy to answer any questions you have.

Incarnated angels and angel kin are basically the same thing. The main difference between angels and celestials is that angels tend to be associated with a specific deity, while some celestials are not. Basically all angels are celestials but not all celestials are angels.

Celestials is a catch-all phrase for beings created by higher entities such as dieties as well as those that consider the stars their origin.
Angels are celestials in the service of a specific diety. For the most part, due to the overwhelmingly strong connotations do most celestials as well as many otherkin consider only celestials in service of the judeo/christian god or yhwh to be the ones to take the label "angel".
"more or less"

Freetha Wrote:Celestials is a catch-all phrase for beings created by higher entities such as dieties as well as those that consider the stars their origin.
Angels are celestials in the service of a specific diety. For the most part, due to the overwhelmingly strong connotations do most celestials as well as many otherkin consider only celestials in service of the judeo/christian god or yhwh to be the ones to take the label "angel".
"more or less"

QFT.

Some angels identify as celestials, some do not. Some celestials identify as angels, some do not.

Some people (eg me) try to avoid using either term as much as possible as there are so many assumptions attached to them.

Archer Wrote:Some people (eg me) try to avoid using either term as much as possible as there are so many assumptions attached to them.

And instead stick with a label that makes me think you have fourteen eyes and should get the hell out of my galaxy :-p

Gesigewigus Wrote:

Archer Wrote:Some people (eg me) try to avoid using either term as much as possible as there are so many assumptions attached to them.

And instead stick with a label that makes me think you have fourteen eyes and should get the hell out of my galaxy :-p

Lol, some celestials are like that, and sometimes scary people are fun to hang around. As long as you're just as dangerous as they are, but in a happy shiny sort of way. They hate that for some reason...

Actually it reminded me of the recent Dr. Who episode with the swarming shadow creatures that ate people like piranhas.

Point...was there a point? Oh yeah, me too.

Gesigewigus Wrote:

Archer Wrote:Some people (eg me) try to avoid using either term as much as possible as there are so many assumptions attached to them.

And instead stick with a label that makes me think you have fourteen eyes and should get the hell out of my galaxy :-p

I think you will find they themselves stated that shadows was not an accurate name for them, and not remotely close to what they called themselves, so I stand by this use <!-- s;-) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";-)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;-) -->

Besides, getting the hell out of this galaxy or not, they still knew how to make humans (etc) shadow-touched! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s -->

Archer Wrote:I think you will find they themselves stated that shadows was not an accurate name for them, and not remotely close to what they called themselves, so I stand by this use <!-- s;-) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";-)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;-) -->

Besides, getting the hell out of this galaxy or not, they still knew how to make humans (etc) shadow-touched! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s -->

Huh, I never caught on about the Shadow-touched. So what are you a Shadow-touched Centauri? :-p

Anyways, derailing too much.

Frankly, I don't think there is a difference between AngelKin and Incarnated Angel. I mean, an Incarnated Angel is labeled as "Kin" or "Otherkin", and AngelKin is just a conjunction of that.

I once read an explanation for the difference between angelkin and incarnated angel, but it sounded like elitist bull to me so I generally ignored it. Something about how an incarnated angel could only have one kin type because they were too important to waste on intermediate incarnations or some such. IMO, they're made to be used, not to sit and look pretty on some shelf, and not all of those uses have to be monopolized by humans.