Aren't you impressed though how the brilliant Unimane and IPOrange can misstate what the majority of Christians believe, apply that to all Christians, and say it's the same as believing in Lord of the Rings. I sure was.
So you think Unimane was familiar with these Biblical references of dragons and drew us all into a diabolical trap? Or is it perhaps more logical that he thinks purple dragons are a paradigm of unreality?
I believe Jesus was born of a virgin mother. I believe He lived a sinless life to make amends for my sins. I believe He was crucified and resurrected in three days. Why is a dragon out of the realm, then? Whatever the translation.
If I thought you were stupid I'd have said so a long time ago. The fact that you aren't is why I know you are intentionally going off track and making illogical arguments.
IPorange isn't stupid at all. His argument is. I believe he's in the science field, so if I were to analogize his argument to that field, one would find some nut-job scientist and simply pretend that that view can be attributed to everyone in the field. Then, pretend that it's absurd to be a scientist.
Taking the Bible literally is not a part of Christianity. As most have said, you can't group us all into one category.
he was speaking in an incendiary way, that I do know. My post was simply trying to say, I don't know whether dragons as we think of them were around. It's irrelevant to my beliefs. There may be pink unicorns floating around heaven. Doesn't change my faith one bit.
I didn't misstate shit, you can read it yourself. If you don't believe some of it literally, it isn't a stretch to see why it all looks unbelievable to some. talking snakes, angels of death, and curing leprosy with a touch are all believable. Dragons and the parting the Red Sea are symbolic. Got it.
Oh really? Ironic. Some would say NOT taking the Bible literally is not part of Christianity. Look, you can't take a book as the Word of God, and then get all bashful when someone reads it and it looks as fantastical as every other religion's text.
Wasn't the dragon. It was the way uni talked in his passive aggressive way. He typed with a forked tongue.
Are you serious? Because the author clearly intended for the dragon to be something ridiculous that only a fool would believe.
I was just being a smartass. Jesus was born to a virgin mother, died for my sins and resurrected in three days. Whatever's floating around heaven doesn't change my outlook on it either. I would rather let my actions speak for me rather than pound my chest and "evangelize" as Uni says. It's obvious to everyone but IP, apparently, that Uni was wanting to piss people off. I don't really care if he thinks less of me because I'm a Christian.
I described it as serendipitous. And it has quite clearly drawn the conversation into a direction of how literal the Bible is to people. You apparently think it's filled with symbolism and hidden meanings. I guarantee you there are many people, some posters on this board, who would think what you are describing is devilish.
