"Honestly, I don't really get the feeling your looking at these Ideas from an objective point of view. I would not expect anyone who has preconcieved notions about religions to care whether or not I talk to angels, if you haven't been to the mountaintop then stories about the mountaintop are quite boring."

You completely missed the point of what I was saying and instead made assumptions about me having preconceived notions(implying that I am unable to see the truth here or something) or that I have no experience. 

I was not saying that angels do not exists, nor am I making claims relative to the nature of them, people speaking with them or anyones experience of them. I dont understand why you took it that way.

My point was that in relation to god WITHIN the context of this discussion the idea of angles is just an abstraction..they are of little relevance in that context..that does not mean they are of no relevance in general.

What it means is that energy exists..I dont care if it is an ant or an archangel..if they exist within the multiverse/cosmos/god energy construct w/e they are a part of that energy, just like every other one of us. They are no more god than you or I so having spoken with angles or not does not really weigh in for me on what god means, for me at least. 

I try not to associate ideas of god with hierachys or anything like that because god for me is a state of unified coherance..not individual levels from a subjective vantage point.

Sure, creation is filled with all kinds of different beings but I just cannot understand how one line of them can have more relevance within the context of god than any other one. Maybe one species can conceptualize god to a higher degree, but even then conceptualization is a sort of catch 22 because it is still state bound in that it is a subjective activity.