[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Thank you for your worries about my supposed plagiarism (not spelled Plagerism - you should have studied English).

Lol.. I have always been a bad speller but lucky for me technology has come up with a nice little tool I call spell check which, I admit, I neglected to use because I was not aware we were in a spelling bee contest. :(
Fortunately for me, bad spelling is not forbidden on this site but Plagiarism is.

And I note that you fail to acknowledge the essence of my argument (posted on your own request) : that many of these contradictions, mistakes, historical faults etc are indeed in the Bible.
Even if they can be "explained" at one of your suggested websites, the point is this :

If the Bible is the book by God for all human beings, and that God is all powerful and omniscient, etc. than why does the Bible contain so many of these faults?
Note that these faults are not translation faults. Neither are they printing faults. They are faults that are the result of different human scribents introducing some story they heard earlier into their paper that later was used to make up the Bible.

Again, the Bible has no contradiction, no faults and no mistakes. The Bible has to be studdied to understand it because scripture interprets scipture so if you take verses and do not study the context then it would seem (conveniently) contractory when in actuality it is not.
The Bible was written by some 40 authors over a period of thousands of years, yet it weaves together into a single theme (the coming of Christ) and includes hundreds of prophesies that are both made and fulfilled.

A deity that is claimed to be perfect and that is claimed to have created the entire universe with everything in it in 6 days only, seems incapable of producing fault free Bibles in all languages that every human being can understand without the need for a weekly interpreter located in a big house with a huge tower on top of it...

What a poor qualities for a deity that is claimed to be "perfect"!!

God's Word is Perfect. The reason why the Church meets on weekly basis is not because we need an interpreter, The Church meets primarily for fellowship with other believers otherwise one can just study their Bible at home and still gain understanding. Once again you are displaying ignorance about Christianity. I think you just need to educate yourself about Christianity and the Bible before you comment on it. Do some research first and get rid of your faulse pre-concieved ideas because you are not proving anything here, all you are doing is showing us how ignorant you are about the religion.

[kt123456]

The sotry of creation (gen 1-2:4). what does the passage mean to its orginal viewers?

Lol guys thanks for the replys I was not expecting to get that much feedback.

[Credendovidis]

.... Again, the Bible has no contradiction, no faults and no mistakes.

That is what you BELIEVE...

.... God's Word is Perfect.

That is what you BELIEVE...

:rolleyes:

[Credendovidis]

lol guys thanks for the replys I was not expecting to get that much feedback.

Knowing sassyT and myself... better prepare yourself for a lot more...

:D

[sassyT]

That is what you BELIEVE ....


That is what you BELIEVE ....

& you BELIEVE the opposite

[wolf200050]

I agree with sassy, there are so many people who work harder trying to prove that God doesn't exist, when they can just look out there window at all of creation and realize that everything works a little to perfectly to be accidental.

[Credendovidis]

& you BELIEVE the opposite

No I don't believe the opposite. I try not to make claims I can not objectively support.

What is so funny from your many and often drawn-out reactions, sassyT, is to see that time and time again you show an intense dislike for clear and proper wording, and a preference for making wild claims.
You seem to prefer "woolen" statements that hide the truth of the matter : that most of what you post is based on religious claims, and not on reality and/or objective supported evidence.

I wonder why you do that...

:D

[Credendovidis]

I agree with sassy, there are so many people who work harder trying to prove that God doesn't exist, when they can just look out there window at all of creation and realize that everything works a little to perfectly to be accidental.

I do not see any of those people here on this board.
All I see is lots of people CLAIMING that god or gods exist, with that god / gods is/are having all kinds of super powers and capabilities. However when one asks these people to support such wild religious claims, only more wild religious based claims are produced, often accompanied by anger and rudeness.

I also look out of the window, and see the beauty of nature in all it's splender. But I do not see any deity or objective evidence for such deity. And that while I know that science has a near perfect explanation as to how nature developed itself to what it is today.

You fail to understand that people who do not accept whatever you BELIEVE do not claim that the deity you believe in does not exist, but underline that there is no objective supporting evidence for the existence of such a deity.

;)

[sassyT]

No I don't believe the opposite. I try not to make claims I can not objectively support.

What is so funny from your many and often drawn-out reactions, sassyT, is to see that time and time again you show an intense dislike for clear and proper wording, and a preference for making wild claims.
You seem to prefer "woolen" statements that hide the truth of the matter : that most of what you post is based on religious claims, and not on reality and/or objective supported evidence.

I wonder why you do that ...

:D

Lol your CLAIMS are based on your secular humanistic religious BELIEFS which relies on a very large ASSUMPTION, the Assumtion of naturalism.

The assumption of naturalism assumes that all phenomena can only be explained by natural processes however this assumption is very narrow minded considering there are no natural explanations for many things including origins.
So I respect your BELIEFS, but they are based on a leap of faith I am not willing to take.

[Credendovidis]

... your CLAIMS are based on your secular humanistic religous BELIEFS which relies on a very large ASSUMPTION, the Assumtion of naturalism.

What a nonsensical conclusion. Previously I have clearly explained to you that Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religious belief. And I note that you NEVER support your own wild claims with anything that ever has been near truth, honesty, or reality!

the assumption of naturalism assumes that ....

I NEVER mentioned anything on naturalism. And you mention it here without providing any objective support.

All I do in religion based topics is state that all formats of religion and religious thoughts are based on SUBJECTIVE CLAIMS that do not carry any objective supporting evidence.

So far you have been unable to show me to be incorrect with that point of view, although you tried almost every trick out of your book with lying (?), cheating, twisting words, deliberate misinterpretation, putting words in someone else's mouth, etc

So i respect your BELIEFS...

No you don't. Neither my worldview nor my beliefs. Your actions speak louder than your empty words !
Only one of us two is basing everything on a leap of faith, and I am not that one !

:rolleyes:

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

What a nonsensical conclusion. Previously I have clearly explained to you that Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religious belief. And I note that you NEVER support your own wild claims with anything that ever has been near truth, honesty, or reality!

I think you need to do a little more research into your Beliefs because Secular Humanism is a religion. John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion.

I NEVER mentioned anything on naturalism. And you mention it here without providing any objective support.

In case you didn't know... Naturalism is a premise on which you secular humanism religion is based.

All I do in religion based topics is state that all formats of religion and religious thoughts are based on SUBJECTIVE CLAIMS that do not carry any objective supporting evidence.

Your humanistic religion included..

So far you have been unable to show me to be incorrect with that point of view, although you tried almost every trick out of your book with lying (?), cheating, twisting words, deliberate misinterpretation, putting words in someone else's mouth, etc

There is an insurmountable amount of OBJECTIVE evidence in support of the Bible's claims. I even quoted the encylopidia for you on how the ancient Egyptians wrote about events that are consistent with the Bible's book of Exodus which describes what occurred in Egypt at that time including their rivers turing red with blood. That is just one of hundreds of objective evidence in support of the Bible's creadibility and Historicity. But you convieniently brushed it off and continue to make unsupported claims about your beliefs. :rolleyes:

No you don't. Neither my worldview nor my beliefs. Your actions speak louder than your empty words !
Only one of us two is basing everything on a leap of faith, and I am not that one !

Okey! We are finally making some progress here... At least you have now acknowledged that your claims have been, in fact, just BELIEFS. Phew... took you long enough.

[progunr]

It is ALL FAITH, peroid.

It cannot be proven, nor can it be dis-proven, why do you think they call it faith?

[Credendovidis]

I think you need to do a little more research ....

No I don't have to do that. I know that Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religious beliefs. And I told you so, and explained why that is so.

But as usual you have twisted words, you lied, and you made unsupported wild claims, and - most important to mention - you have not supported in any objective way your claim of Secular Humanism being a religion.

What a good example you are for people to start questioning the sincerity and honesty of religious believers...

:D :D :D :D :D

[sassyT]

No I don't have to do that. I know that Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religious beliefs. And I told you so, and explained why that is so.

But as usual you have twisted words, you lied, and you made unsupported wild claims, and - most important to mention - you have not supported in any objective way your claim of Secular Humanism being a religion.

What a good example you are for people to start questioning the sincerity and honesty of religious believers ....

Lol hey don't get mad at me for saying Secular Humanism is a religion, I am just quoting what the pioneers of it have said about it. It is a religious organisation that has actually applied for the same tax exempt status other relious organisation have. Something you obviously did not know.. well now you know... you are a religious man.

[NeedKarma]

Excellent, now a whole bunch of us can post on any religious thread and not feel persecuted.

[Credendovidis]

... Secular Humanism is a religion ... is a religious organisation that has actually applied for the same tax exempt status other relious organisation have. something you obviously did not know ...

Oh, that I knew already for years. Very old info indeed. They did that to show the morally wrong tax exemption many religious organisations get for their activities - which for a major part are nothing more than pure profitable operations.
They also did that to get a tax exemption for their humanism based social activities.
Note that only the US section of the Secular Humanist organisation did that. Not the section that is based in Europe.

If you find that reason to assume that Secular Humanism is a religious organisation, than you are wrong. A simple disection of the name makes it crystal clear that there are no religious views in Secular Humanism (I did that before for you - no need to repeat that again).

Secular Humanism is an organisation that supports a non-profit worldview and modus operandus, and has a non-religious worldview. How sad that you fail to accept that obvious fact...

:rolleyes:

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

Oh, that I knew already for years. Very old info indeed

So why were you freaking out when I said it is a religion. You should know then..

They did that to show the morally wrong tax exemption many religious organisations get for their activities - which for a major part are nothing more than pure profitable operations.
They also did that to get a tax exemption for their humanism based social activities.
Note that only the US section of the Secular Humanist organisation did that. Not the section that is based in Europe.

Right... don't lie to yourself... they did that because they are a religious organisation.

If you find that reason to assume that Secular Humanism is a religious organisation, than you are wrong. A simple disection of the name makes it crystal clear that there are no religious views in Secular Humanism (I did that before for you - no need to repeat that again).

Secular Humanism is an organisation that supports a non-profit worldview and modus operandus, and has a non-religious worldview. How sad that you fail to accept that obvious fact...

Like I said, I am just going by the following quotes made by eminent Humanists.

Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation."
John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith."

[Credendovidis]

So why were you freaking out when i said it is a religion. You should know then.

I did not ´freak out´. I objected to your position and your over-simplistic argumentation.
Besides that : it is simply not a religion. Your argument is totally flawed, and you know that.
All you do is confirming that you can not admit that you are wrong in this...

:rolleyes:

[sassyT]

I did not ´freak out´. I objected to your position and your over-simplistic argumentation.
Besides that : it is simply not a religion. Your argument is totally flawed, and you know that.
All you do is confirming that you can not admit that you are wrong in this ....

Lol how can I be wrong? You claim Humanism is not a religion, but who are you? Eminent well known pioneers of Humanism such as Julian Huxley & John Dewey have called it a Religion and a FAITH. I think they are a more credible sources than you. So why should I believe some guy online named credo... I will stick to what they have to say about it which is; "a religion with out revelation...a faith"

;)

[Credendovidis]

lol how can i be wrong??

Ok : one again than (what a bad loser you are!)

Secular Humanism
Secular = worldly = no religious links.
Humanism = focus on humans instead of on the supra-natural = no religious links.

Conclusion : Secular Humanism has no links with religion. IT IS NOT A RELIGION.
.

:rolleyes: