[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"][QUOTE="Youareinsecure"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"]

My final argument.

The concept of an Angel is confined within a religious context. Outside of a religious context there is no disambiguation between Angels and Gods. Both would simply be referred to as religious deities.

That is a pretty solid statement as "tell me where in the bible it says XYZ" becomes a non-argument.

BlackIsle_rip

If angels are spiritual beings, what about man, who was made in the image of God, having a spirit, and given a spiritual form? If we were deities, we wouldn't have needed a theocracy for the jews to sow the seed of a messiah from, who would later give a ransom off for other deities who couldn't help themselves or their sinful nature?

I can only rationalize about the nature of an omnipotent God, who couldn't create spirit like himself, since it would contradict his nature. Why would he even make angels in the fist place? And why would he later make man, who wouldn't join Him in Heaven until thousands of years later.

Looking back at Adam and Eve, they too were created like the anegls but given a phsyical body, and to state my point, why wouldn't they be considered deities too, by your definition? Couldn't Adam and Eve be also deities, since they were made in god's image? Also, can't deities have physical bodies?

Again only from within the perspective of someone who believes in Christianity.

Again, you are arguing from a point of relevance, which has no business in this discussion.

Ah yes.

Perspective has no business in a discussion which involves Religious perspective.

My mistake.

Yes, it is your mistake. You're arguing your beliefs against an already established belief system. That's like arguing that the Constitution doesn't contain a clause about guaranteeing inalienable rights. That's fine if you want to argue that, but the clause is still there, just like the established belief that angels are not gods within the Christian Church, meaning that it is a monotheistic religion.

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="jking197"]just because they have a hunch they are a "witch" is okay because they thought it was right. No, if Atheists went on a mass-mudering spree would you think what we did wasn't evil just because we were doing what we thought we were right? Are pedos allowed to do what they do because they think its alright? NO! BECAUSE ITS CHRISTIANITY ITS OKAY BECAUSE ITS IN THE NAME OF GOD! You people make me sick sometimes.jking197

Then why is 123625 saying its not evil and is defending them? What Christians done was sick, but apparently it was okay because it's in the name of god.

If you will go back and read the posts, you will see that he has conceded that it was wrong and never in fact stated a justification for their actions.

If you weigh the atrocities of Christians and non-Christians, we will get nowhere. The point is that everyone does wrong, and it points to humanity's need for a savior, someone to save them from themselves.

[QUOTE="Youareinsecure"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"]

My final argument.

The concept of an Angel is confined within a religious context. Outside of a religious context there is no disambiguation between Angels and Gods. Both would simply be referred to as religious deities.

That is a pretty solid statement as "tell me where in the bible it says XYZ" becomes a non-argument.

BlackIsle_rip

If angels are spiritual beings, what about man, who was made in the image of God, having a spirit, and given a spiritual form? If we were deities, we wouldn't have needed a theocracy for the jews to sow the seed of a messiah from, who would later give a ransom off for other deities who couldn't help themselves or their sinful nature?

I can only rationalize about the nature of an omnipotent God, who couldn't create spirit like himself, since it would contradict his nature. Why would he even make angels in the fist place? And why would he later make man, who wouldn't join Him in Heaven until thousands of years later.

Looking back at Adam and Eve, they too were created like the anegls but given a phsyical body, and to state my point, why wouldn't they be considered deities too, by your definition? Couldn't Adam and Eve be also deities, since they were made in god's image? Also, can't deities have physical bodies?

Again only from within the perspective of someone who believes in Christianity.

Again, you are arguing from a point of relevance, which has no business in this discussion.

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"][QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"]

My final argument.

The concept of an Angel is confined within a religious context. Outside of a religious context there is no disambiguation between Angels and Gods. Both would simply be referred to as religious deities.

That is a pretty solid statement as "tell me where in the bible it says XYZ" becomes a non-argument.

BlackIsle_rip

The concept of a Biblical angel and a mythological one ought not to be intertwined as they are described differently according to each system of beliefs.

Your description could be viewed correct outside of the context of Christianity, but angels are described as servants of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God and Father figure. Angels are not worshiped, nor are they prayed to, therfore, your argument is false within the confines of Christianity.

Agreed and agreed. I said this very early on.

Within the confines of Christianity, it is Monotheist.
From outside the confines of Christianity, it can be considered Polytheist.

Which is what you concluded.

In the same way you can talk about any mythology as an outsider.

A God is any celestial being. Christianity (wrongly) states that Angels aren't Gods (which by definition they are). But Christians believe in what the Bible says, so from a Christian perspective there is only one God. Even though there is also Satan. He's just a "different" kind of Deity called an Angel.

This is not a relative argument. I can tell you that an apple is an apple, and you might state that it looks like an orange to you, but in the end, it is still an apple.

An Angel is a Christian concept. In the real world there is no disambiguation between angels and gods. Only deities of various importance's within various cultural mythologies.

So suddenly the established beliefs of Christianity are not real-world concepts?

No, but they used to murder/burn people, there's no denying that Christians used to be evil b@stards.

Yeah.. well Scientology has organizations around the world that help feed/shelter homeless people too. And, like Christians, the main purpose is to convert them to their religion, not necesarily to help them.

jking197

Christians are still people, and they are not immune to wrongdoing. I don't understand why you hold them to one standard and the rest of the world to another. No doubt that some awful things have been done in the name of religion, but doesn't that only underscore our need for something greater than ourselves.

We are all in the same boat, in that we all have done things wrong. Christians simply reevaluate their lives according to a different way than the rest of the world, but it doesn't mean that they suddenly become incapable of doing wrong.

[QUOTE="blackngold29"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"][QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"]

My final argument.

The concept of an Angel is confined within a religious context. Outside of a religious context there is no disambiguation between Angels and Gods. Both would simply be referred to as religious deities.

That is a pretty solid statement as "tell me where in the bible it says XYZ" becomes a non-argument.

BlackIsle_rip

The concept of a Biblical angel and a mythological one ought not to be intertwined as they are described differently according to each system of beliefs.

Your description could be viewed correct outside of the context of Christianity, but angels are described as servants of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God and Father figure. Angels are not worshiped, nor are they prayed to, therfore, your argument is false within the confines of Christianity.

Agreed and agreed. I said this very early on.

Within the confines of Christianity, it is Monotheist.
From outside the confines of Christianity, it can be considered Polytheist.

Which is what you concluded.

In the same way you can talk about any mythology as an outsider.

A God is any celestial being. Christianity (wrongly) states that Angels aren't Gods (which by definition they are). But Christians believe in what the Bible says, so from a Christian perspective there is only one God. Even though there is also Satan. He's just a "different" kind of Deity called an Angel.

This is not a relative argument. I can tell you that an apple is an apple, and you might state that it looks like an orange to you, but in the end, it is still an apple.

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"]

My final argument.

The concept of an Angel is confined within a religious context. Outside of a religious context there is no disambiguation between Angels and Gods. Both would simply be referred to as religious deities.

That is a pretty solid statement as "tell me where in the bible it says XYZ" becomes a non-argument.

BlackIsle_rip

The concept of a Biblical angel and a mythological one ought not to be intertwined as they are described differently according to each system of beliefs.

Your description could be viewed correct outside of the context of Christianity, but angels are described as servants of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God and Father figure. Angels are not worshiped, nor are they prayed to, therfore, your argument is false within the confines of Christianity.

Agreed and agreed. I said this very early on.

Within the confines of Christianity, it is Monotheist.
From outside the confines of Christianity, it can be considered Polytheist.

Which is what you concluded.

Your response makes absolutely no sense. How on earth could it be both things at the same time? This isn't an issue of point of view. It's either monotheistic or it's polytheistic. According to Biblical canon, Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

Also, I resent the pictures you've posted for Christians. The following ought to be more fitting of what a TRUE Christian looks like:

My final argument.

The concept of an Angel is confined within a religious context. Outside of a religious context there is no disambiguation between Angels and Gods. Both would simply be referred to as religious deities.

That is a pretty solid statement as "tell me where in the bible it says XYZ" becomes a non-argument.

BlackIsle_rip

The concept of a Biblical angel and a mythological one ought not to be intertwined as they are described differently according to each system of beliefs.

Your description could be viewed correct outside of the context of Christianity, but angels are described as servants of an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God and Father figure. Angels are not worshiped, nor are they prayed to, therfore, your argument is false within the confines of Christianity.

[QUOTE="Strider212"][QUOTE="BlackIsle_rip"]

[QUOTE="123625"]2 billion people with god on their side versus a bunch of peace loving freaks, yeah we know whos gonna win this.BlackIsle_rip

"God's"

Technically Christianity is Polytheism as it has two deities. One of Creation and one of Evil. Three if you count Jesus. Five if you count the seperation of the Holy Spirit Holy Ghost and Holy Father.

Eh... no, not correct at all.

If it's correct for accepted Polytheist religions, how is it not correct for Christianity?

You've described something called "dualism." Christianity does not subscribe to this belief (it is deemed a gnostic belief and therefore is heretical).