Dear OP,
If you ever post again please try to break your muddle of nonsense into readable paragraphs.
That headache inducing blob of type that was completely unreadable.
Congratulations to all of you that got through it all
ETA: salutations
Yep. As an unforgettable poster once said (I forgot who), “Paragraphs are your friend” 
[QUOTE=askeptic]
I guess the whoosh is on me…
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps, but the intended target was angel-guy Sera’naphsus. I fully expected him to point out that I had as many words spelled wrongly as he, but within much less content.
At that point, I could concede the point, such as it would be, but point out that
I’M NO ANGEL!**
[QUOTE=askeptic]
eta:apropos of nothing this is my first post from my iPhone.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps we may discuss Comparative Cellphones sometimes?
TBJ
Dang, for a superior race, they really rub it in.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Dang, for a superior race, they really rub it in.
[/QUOTE]
MacIan screamed. “Ah!” he cried. “Now I know who you really are. You are not God. You are not one of God’s angels. But you were once.”
– G. K. Chesterton: The Ball and the Cross
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
like there’s something called ‘food cake’, implying there are other, non-food types of cake too - perhaps lightweight throwing cake or automatic tire damage cake.
[/QUOTE]
Please do not eat the urinal cakes.
Maybe angel-food cake* was imagined to be the food of the angels (plural, generic) while Devil’s-food cake is imagined to be the food of the Devil (singular, specific). Sort of like how “dog food” (no apostrophe) becomes “the dog’s food” once you give it to a specific dog.
*Notice how judicious use of hyphens eliminates that whole “food cake” awkwardness?
The origin of “Devil’s Food” is mixed up with “deviled,” connotating spicy.
[QUOTE=Humble Servant]
The origin of “Devil’s Food” is mixed up with “deviled,” connotating spicy.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, cite?
When describing a devil’s-food cake, “spicy” is not a word that comes to mind. “Tempting” or “sinfully delicious,” perhaps. The most likely explanation is that the name was influenced by “angel food.”
Here’s a link:
And here’s a Staff Report:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdeviledeggs.html
“Mixed up with deviled”–doesn’t mean that a whole buncha related ideas including sinful/red/non-angel weren’t on people’s minds when it got its name. 
Oh Dear, looks like L’il Ed’s been into the sloe gin again.
Wikipedia is of the opinion that the historic sequence of names was:[ul]
[li]“Angel cake”[/li][li]“Devil’s food cake”[/li][li]“Angel food cake”.[/li][/ul]
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Is it just me, or does ‘Angel Food Cake’ grate on your nerves too? It just seems so grammatically awkward and redundant.
[/QUOTE]
That’s because it was originally “Angel’s Food Cake.” From the 1870’s.
[QUOTE=Sera’naphsus]
For instance, I am a Seraph of the Seraphim.
[/QUOTE]
My wife used to work for a Seraph in one of her regular series of dreams. Maybe you know him: Mort Coil, of The Mort Coil Show on the Hereafter’s TV network. For a while she was an intern but she got promoted to booking guests, both living and dead. Unless the potential guest is/was completely insane or an insatiable publicity hound they usually won’t appear, at least not a second time, because Mort is an abusive and jerkish column of fire.
St. Catherine of Siena runs the station and, lemme tell ya, another 600 years of austerities and not bathing haven’t helped her personality or smell.
[QUOTE=samclem]
That’s because it was originally “Angel’s Food Cake.” From the 1870’s.
[/QUOTE]
Cooking historians seem to be under the impression it went from “angel cake” to “angel food,” with nary a mention of “angel’s food.”
[QUOTE=John W. Kennedy]
Wikipedia is of the opinion that the historic sequence of names was:
* "Angel cake"
* "Devil's food cake"
* "Angel food cake".
[/QUOTE]
Wikipedia is a good starting point for researching almost any topic, but it’s just plain wrong about a lot of things. “Angel food” has been around at least since the end of the 19th century. “Devil’s food” seems to be a 20th-century invention.
[QUOTE=TWDuke]
Cooking historians seem to be under the impression it went from “angel cake” to “angel food,” with nary a mention of “angel’s food.”
[/quote]
Well, research into words, even cooking terms, is a state of the art business. I can find a mention of “Angel’s Food Cake” in 1878 in the Alton, IL. newspaper. I can find articles in the same paper, from 1879-1881 calling it “Angel Food Cake.” I can find fewer articles in the same period, but in more newspapers in more locations calling it “Angel Cake.” So, the terms were all there in and about the same time period. I won’t disagree that it probably was known to more people as “Angel Cake” in that time frame.
. Wikipedia is certainly as you describe it–a good starting point.
While Wiki found Devil’s Food Cake from 1902, I can find it from 1893 in newspapers. So, for sure, it came way later than Angels.
Interesting and enlightening. At least I was right about Wikipedia being wrong.
(That’s one thing I love about this message board. No matter how a thread starts out it can end up fighting ignorance in all kinds of unexpected ways.)
If the first known appearance of the one is 1896, and the first known appearance of the other is 1902, I should say it’s unsafe to be absolute about the priority either way.
[QUOTE=elelle]
Oh Dear, looks like L’il Ed’s been into the sloe gin again.
[/QUOTE]
Well, he can’t catch the fast gin.
<rimshot>
RR
Well, I immediately thought schizophrenia, but in the link Revenant Threshold provided I see that our seraphic buddy has already thought of that & explained why he can’t accept that he is, so fair enough.
[QUOTE=Sera’naphsus]
I just wanted to share a few comments on the relevancy of one aspect of “What’s up with Angels”.
Your staff report mentioned the ranks of angels. Well, technically, there are ranks, but as an angel progresses in the so called scope of rank, there is a measure of responsibilty to other angels in duty per se and not a matter of commanding any so called lower ranks. As far as angels go, don’t confuse rank with your various earthly military regiments. For instance, I am a Seraph of the Seraphim. Now, I may be conscious of another rank’s mission, it is not my duty to command them on their mission, but it is my duty to be aware of how the mission is going and aid in support for the success of the mission. Essentially, it is the responsibility of the higher supposed ranks to protect the supposed lower rank and so on. Each respective angel class is responsible for the creation of their respective missions. However, all angels have to report to what is known as the Angleic Council. The Angelic Council is responsible for deciding which missions will be added to the supported list for missions to be completed. There are two angels from every class on the Council for the sake of proper representation of each class. The respective missions brought to the council are deliberated on and the options are weighed for the importance of the mission itself.
Just a couple more things. I think what is important is not neccessarily to question the ranks of angels, but why we developed into ranks at all. Before the fall of the angels and the perversion of souls, there were no official ranks to speak of. We were angels in servitude to souls as they peacefully existed in Heaven and what I dream of as Paradise. As a preventative measure of the pending fall of our fellow angels, supposed ranks were created with the intention of angels seeking to undue what our fallen brother and sister angels were about to do to souls. That’s right! The plight of the supposed human folly is the planned affect of the fallen angels upon souls because you souls were created second, but we were only creasted first because God wanted representatives that could work closer to souls than God could being the creative source and power. Essentially, no soul could withstand being in God’s presence at that juncture in their creation after the creation method took place. This is why no soul has a true perception of what God is and it seems their respective belief or faith comes from some supposed religious story called the bible. What you souls do not realize is that God, when creating and afterwards, proclaimed that it would never be a commandment to worship God. Which is what makes your bible nonsense. We angels know that your bible as it stands was nothing more than a futher affect or perversion from the fallen and a clever one at that. Given that it has duped you souls into a life of servitude, whether it be to some God you still know nothing about or to your own self satisfaction and egotic premise. You souls were the created kings and Queens of Heaven and the fallen agents have reduced you to levels we remaining angels never thought possible. It was, however, planned that souls were going to be capable of entertaining God’s presence over a period of being the soul respectively. The fallen worked in affect and sooner than this could have transpired and thus lives and exists the plight of us angels to try and enlighten you souls into reaching the higher perspective and for more positive and loving experiences. Please do not question whether we exist or not, we know we do! What you should question is whether or not your negatives exceed your positives, whether or not you loved more than you were loved. What you should question is whether or not you acted to the best of your positive side for the affect of loving others. Most importantly, you should remember that being the souls you are, God made us because of you! That’s my point! Its a moot point to argue over whther or not beings exist to help you. We will be there when we need to be, trust me. And, whther or not you believe we exist at all. I hope by now you can see that it doesn’t matter what you believe some things are true whether you believe in them or not, whether a strong argument can be created or not. I hope by now too, that you see what our counterpart, Sera’maelhk has done with the help of the fallen agents. Don’t be confused by certain labels given angels. My name is Sera’naphsus and that probably won’t make a difference to anyone and I do not care, but I was an angel first and it is in that capacity that I come to you now, just an angel. Remember too, that most of the angelic names you might come across in your books were intended to confuse. Like the one about Michael and Satan. First, I can honestly say there was no archangel Michael and no victimized Satan. That story originated because of Sera’maelhk who is the original fallen angel that instigated the fall. He, as an incarnate, created that story because he wanted to create sympathy for his disposition. Think about it, there are no true victims. And that angelic battle and war in Heaven never became to bloodshed. It was nothing more than a huge gathering where it was more a battle of angelic mind and influence, perverted versus the not perverted.
You know what truly amazes me is how many people have jumped on the religious band wagon because of the promise of peace and streets of gold and jewels. I have to be apologetic when I say that there is no gold and jewels of Heaven. So if you want to decieve yourselves by some promise made to you by the demonic persuasion, then by all means all you have to do is die to find out what I am saying is true. Heaven is a place of seemingly grassy plains and hills. Anything further I do not think I can convey in a manner of it being undserstood until you souls decide to open your hearts to God. Only then will you find out what God had and still has in store for you. Come on, you actually think that life is living and eventually dying, just eating and surviving. No, this is what Sera’maelhk had planned for you because he knew what would happen if you could be influenced. Sera’maelhk knew this life on earth would make you servants!
I am Sera’naphsus and GOD approved this message!
[/QUOTE]
Cite? 
