There is nothing to say that what is solely conceived of affectively in the hearts and minds of individuals is somehow 'wrong'.
If they conceive that angels can be 'seen' they have to mean they see them 'in their own terms, affectively, in their own hearts and minds.'
No one can disprove their 'vision'.
Others can legitimately call it delusional thinking, or criticise, but they cannot disprove the authenticity of the individual's inner experiences.
On the other hand, to claim, as a result of inner experiences only, that 'angels', OR Jesus and Mary, ACTUALLY 'visited' in objective reality beyond themselves is easy to tackle experimentally, and to validate or not, objectively. Of course, the latter has never been done of anyone.
A St Joan may claim the authenticity of her voices... but no one can prove her wrong... or right!
That is why she was convicted 'doctrinally' and not 'objectively' by a theocratic court with a political purpose. Only if she claims they stand before for all to see, and the audience cannot see objectively and materially, is there room for valid criticism.
We must be aware of these differences.
We should not condemn those who claim to consort with angels or be visited by Jesus and Mary. The fact is there is no proof. We are reliant upon the speaker declaring their experience.
The fact is they can no more prove what they say, than someone like me can disprove what they say.
If on the other hand an individual declares and affirms they have an objective Archangel standing beside them, outside of themselves... I have a right to say that is nonsense if I cannot objectively perceive the Archangel or put the Archangel to objective and empirical tests and neither can anyone else. That will then be termed a delusion, an irrationality on the part of the person standing beside their Archangel. Their 'self-validated perception' is objectively false.
For them to simply claim that I need to share their belief in the Archangel in order to perceive, then they are being dishonest and irrational. If they say the Archangel is actually and objectively there... and it isn't... belief questions don't come into the matter.
Indeed, this is why there is confusion when someone says they KNOW angels exist.
What they really mean is that they conceive the angels exist, for them, forgetting that means just for them, because that is all they can ever validate and attest to (to themselves - not others).
To then declare and affirm that angels DO exist... everywhere and objectively beyond themselves is irrational, because they cannot prove it, but I can prove there is no empirical and objective evidence for their claim... because we do not have the 'object' there to test.
Of course, angels may objectively exist... we may just have never found any so we can test to their objectivity.
To the 'believer' who has seen their angels, we can only say, that's fine.
Let us hope they are there for good and not evil.
Simply, if they conceive of such matters within themeselves, that's fine, and they validate its personal truth. To extend that to a declaration that angels actually DO exist, is nonsense, and for them to argue that that we cannot see them, because we do not really want to see them, or they -the angels - do not wish to be seen by the rest of us... is irrelevant.
Angels exist in the minds of those who conceive of them.
They do not 'live' anywhere else, so far as we know, or have independent existence, that can be demonstrated.
People just cannot say things exist because they can conceive of them subjectively and imaginatively. They need to demonstrate they exist outside of themselves.
All they can say is... "they may have independent and objective existence beyond my conceptions, but I too have to recognise there is no evidence beyond what my affective nature and nurture tells me."
Angels are not proven as independent entities just because someone asserts that they do...
Please... I do not wish this posting to 'sound' harshly critical. Rather than a criticism, it is an endeavour to state things as they rationally are.
