"

 Angels and Christian Angelic Hierarchy 

  Hey, you deleted my stuff because I didn't cite sources. But my claims were never ""scholars believe this"" so I don't think I should have to cite anything. In ""Angel"" I simply said that because of the ambiguity of the word angel it is possible that people are misinterpreting passages containing it. It's perfectly rational and so you should judge it on its content, not its origin.
  Along the same lines is my contribution to ""Christian Angelic Hierarchy"". Simply read the Bible passage that I quoted. It clearly talks about Christians being against the ""powers, thrones and principalities."" The whole chapter is talking about how Christians are to be against corrupt human authorities. My point makes perfect sense. Even though I can't quote some scholar who thinks the same way, it is clearly a valid point of view. 
  Hell, it seems like every single wiki on here about religion has some ""unscholarly criticisms"" within in, and there's nothing wrong with that. Just because someone's idea isn't in a book doesn't make it untrue, and just because some random nobody wrote a book doesn't make them right. I mean, what if you delete my post now, but then I publish a book in a few months that briefly mentions my opinions on angels; can I then quote and cite my own book and have my post stay up on Wikipedia? Or what if I quoted some random sermon a preacher posted on his church website- is that fit for Wikipedia? What if I was that preacher? What if I was some random guy (like I am) and I made some single page essay, then quoted it on Wikipedia, saying, ""some people have argued that...""?
  I mean, come on, there are entire sections and PAGES on Wikipedia lacking sources, but they don't need them, because they are all commonsense or common knowledge. And same thing here: I'm just saying some commonsense things about these topics."