The following brilliant analysis of one of the statements in Baubles of Blasphemy was sent to me to refute my error and to set me straight. In this apologetic work, we learn that I was correct but that god either does or does not have sex and that angels either do or do not have sex and that language doesn’t mean anything and names don’t mean anything and that the sexless author of the refutation has never encountered a television named Robin.
Reader’s views are invited.
From: One Two
Subject: Minor edit for you: angels are sexless, not male
I read today your webpage about Santa Claus at
Generally I enjoyed and agreed with what you write.
As a minor complaint, however, you assert that “there
are no female angels–check your bible, you can win
bets on this” — which is true, in the limited sense
that nearly all translations of the Bible refer to all
spiritual beings as if they were males. However, the
mere fact that the authors and translators, working
within the confines of our limited human languages,
chose this form of expression does not mean that any,
much less all, angels *are* males.
Sex designations are used as differentiators for
reproductive function. It is quite impossible for
angels to have a sex unless both (a) at least two
sexes of angels exist and (b) angels reproduce
themselves sexually (instead of, for example, being
created by G-d or using an asexual reproductive
process). One can no more have a “male angel” without
at least the possibility of the existence of a female
angel than one can have a “male television” or a “male
It would, I think, be more accurate to say only that
all spiritual beings mentioned in the Bible are
*described as* being male.
Thanks for your attention.