13 Jan 15
Using verses out of context is common for Christians. They do it either because of selfishness or because they've realized the bible is a relic.
For example, Christians, who have the highest divorce rates out of any group of people, use verses about God being forgiving to negate biblical teachings about not marrying divorced women. Or, they'll simply undermine the bible with "it's just an allegory" when faced with the fact that science disproved the Creation story, or to fend off criticism about sexism or homophobia.
There's no "confusion". The problem comes when the bible clashes with the personal desires of Christians, or with their modern sensibilities.
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by vivifySeriously prove yourself right, I'm not in it to prove you wrong as far as
Ever heard of context? See, what you did was post a verse out of context in order to try to prove me wrong. However, the surrounding context makes that verse clear. That's all it takes to interpret any text: context.
I'm concern a vision was taking place and could have been a real event that
was being seen, which is one thing, if not the reality of it is up in the air.
If real they had to be angels, if a vision not based upon real events doesn't
matter.
13 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayI posted points using the surrounding context of your verse in order to prove I was right. What more do you need? I've already proven myself right with text that clearly and rationally support what I've said. If you want to argue against text that outright say he was seeing visions that symbolized things, be my guest.
Seriously prove yourself right, I'm not in it to prove you wrong as far as
I'm concern a vision was taking place and could have been a real event that
was being seen, which is one thing, if not the reality of it is up in the air.
If real they had to be angels, if a vision not based upon real events doesn't
matter.
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by vivifyI'm quite sure between your ears you are right, that doesn't make it so
I posted points using the surrounding context of your verse in order to prove I was right. What more do you need? I've already proven myself right with text that clearly and rationally support what I've said. If you want to argue against text that outright say he was seeing visions that symbolized things, be my guest.
with everyone else. I've read the full context and I'm not sure you've
proven your point. It doesn't matter one way or another as far as I'm
concern, if there are female or just male angels it matters not.
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayHere's the thing. What you say only has merit if you can show WHY the text should be interpreted differently. Simply stating that you're "not sure" if I'm correct or not is worthless. I made a sound, rational argument using text that clearly illustrated your passage was full of visions of metaphors. You've offered nothing.
I'm quite sure between your ears you are right, that doesn't make it so
with everyone else. I've read the full context and I'm not sure you've
proven your point. It doesn't matter one way or another as far as I'm
concern, if there are female or just male angels it matters not.
So this hand-waving thing you're doing is cute, but holds no weight in a discussion.
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by vivifyIf I see it as an event that was shown to someone that means they were
Here's the thing. What you say only has merit if you can show WHY the text should be interpreted differently. Simply stating that you're "not sure" if I'm correct or not is worthless. I made a sound, rational argument using text that clearly illustrated your passage was full of visions of metaphors. You've offered nothing.
So this hand-waving thing you're doing is cute, but holds no weight in a discussion.
real, if real than what were they? You dismiss the event as real, so your
view has it as whatever it is you want it to be, so you cannot be wrong.
14 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayLike I said, if you can show using the text in that chapter why you believe that, then your argument would have at least some weight. Because you failed to do this, there's no reason to consider your argument as valid. I at least provided rational and thorough support for what I said.
If I see it as an event that was shown to someone that means they were
real, if real than what were they? You dismiss the event as real, so your
view has it as whatever it is you want it to be, so you cannot be wrong.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by sonshipBecause Christians (especially Catholics) largely don't even read their bible. They often defend their faith based on ignorance, and it's irritating. Not knowing their bible in of itself isn't bad, but it's the arrogance behind it that bothers me. KellyJay seemed to have posted his "female angel" text with a "gotcha" kind of vibe to it, rather than a spirit of discussion. Had he simply just said that he thought I was incorrect, and said "here's why", posting his text with the humility Christians are supposed to have, there would've been no problem.
Why is that vivify ?
What is it you love about schooling Christians on their own book?
What does it do for you?
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by vivifyI question your knowledge of the divorce rates. Not everybody is probably telling the truth. Then you don't adjust for any correlated factors. To divulge sensitive knowledge without reason is also imprudent. Even in their aggregated form those numbers are far unreliable.
For example, Christians, who have the highest divorce rates out of any group of people, use verses about God being forgiving to negate biblical teachings about not marrying divorced women.
In Holy Scripture, Jesus divinely reproved the prostitute who misrepresented her husbands. Maybe you are right, but we do not know why she sought remarriage and whether she was getting one person to covet another or not.
Now, is angels referred to as celestial beings?
Originally posted by vivifyGotcha kind of vibe?
Because Christians (especially Catholics) largely don't even read their bible. They often defend their faith based on ignorance, and it's irritating. Not knowing their bible in of itself isn't bad, but it's the arrogance behind it that bothers me. KellyJay seemed to have posted his "female angel" text with a "gotcha" kind of vibe to it, rather than a spirit ...[text shortened]... ting his text with the humility Christians are supposed to have, there would've been no problem.
I entered the conversation not sure what you mean by gotcha vibe.
17 Jan 15
Originally posted by Of Ants and ImpsI don't blame her or anybody, even Christians, for seeking remarriage after they are divorced. What bothers me is when they try make up their own doctrine to make themselves seem like what they're doing is approved by the bible. Such a move smacks of hypocrisy to me. I'd respect a Christian who simply admitted that their desire to remarry in a way prohibited by the bible was too strong.
In Holy Scripture, Jesus divinely reproved the prostitute who misrepresented her husbands. Maybe you are right, but we do not know why she sought remarriage and whether she was getting one person to covet another or not.
Now, is angels referred to as celestial beings?
Regarding angels, yeah, I guess.