I shall explain.

Originally posted by divegeester
Wow, dasa, the power of your argument is really making me think...

I have told you before...

Truth is not debatable therefore true religion is not debatable.

Originally posted by Dasa
Truth is not debatable therefore true religion is not debatable.

This is a forum for debate and discussion. Perhaps a better platform for your "it's not debatable" approach would be a blog?

Originally posted by FMF
This is a forum for debate and discussion. Perhaps a better platform for your "it's not debatable" approach would be a blog?

If you want to debate then please go to the forum that says "Debates"

If you cannot find it .......I shall spell it for you..

D E B A T E S

I have told you a dozen times [spiritual truth cannot be debated]

However it can be discussed.

Originally posted by Dasa
If you want to debate then please go to the forum that says "Debates"

Does this look familiar?
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.

Originally posted by Dasa
If you want to debate then please go to the forum that says "Debates"

If you cannot find it .......I shall spell it for you..

D E B A T E S

I have told you a dozen times [spiritual truth cannot be debated]

However it can be discussed.

Yeah but since Scientology is spiritual truth then your religion is very much debatable. Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by Dasa
If you want to debate then please go to the forum that says "Debates"

As wolfgang59 has pointed out, this is a forum for debate and discussion ~ according to the web site's creators and administrators.

Originally posted by Dasa
I have told you a dozen times [spiritual truth cannot be debated]

However it can be discussed.

Difference between "debate" and "discussion"?

Please explain

IMHO both say "this is my opinion, what is yours?"

Originally posted by Dasa
I have told you before...

Truth is not debatable therefore true religion is not debatable.

Yes sir, thank you for trying teach me, don't give up on me.

Originally posted by Dasa
They are seldom read because most people are uneducated and ignorant.

That's just an excuse.

Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

The Word of God was given for the uneducated and ignorant Dasa. Not some elitist group of overeducated sophist displaying their pious hypocrisy with feigned spiritual religiosity.

Originally posted by CalJust
Difference between "debate" and "discussion"?

Please explain

IMHO [b]both say "this is my opinion, what is yours?"[/b]

Debate presupposes .........for and against........right or wrong ........true or false.

Discussion expands upon truth..

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes sir, thank you for trying teach me, don't give up on me.

Discussion starts with enquiry.

You must begin with a sincere question.

Sadly the questions I have had are mostly sarcastic and foolish.

I can tell when a question is just a trap (to bait me) into some time wasting nonsense.

This is why I don't respond to many posts.

Originally posted by josephw
That's just an excuse.

Psalm 19:7
The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

The Word of God was given for the uneducated and ignorant Dasa. Not some elitist group of overeducated sophist displaying their pious hypocrisy with feigned spiritual religiosity.

I will say again....

The word of God is there for all to embrace................but the foolish and the ignorant do not search for the truth of God.

Thats why persons who respect the word of God go out amongst the uneducated and foolish with the word of God ...........and they are often attacked [verbally and physically]

Just like this forum.

Tell me Joseph when should I stop?

Originally posted by FMF
As wolfgang59 has pointed out, this is a forum for debate and discussion ~ according to the web site's creators and administrators.

Its not (walk away)

Originally posted by Dasa
Discussion starts with enquiry.

You must begin with a sincere question.

Sadly the questions I have had are mostly sarcastic and foolish.

I can tell when a question is just a trap (to bait me) into some time wasting nonsense.

This is why I don't respond to many posts.

It does no good to come into a discussion or debate with the self referenced idea that only YOUR religion is absolute truth and any discussion has to start with that premise.

Archaeology and astronomy disputes the Krshna idea that Krshna comes here only once every 8.6 billion years. For one thing, the SUN didn't exist 8 billion years ago much less the Earth. The Earth came about 4.5 billion years ago and in another 8.6 billion years, the Earth will be a fried cinder burned up by the sun when it starts expanding due to it's running out of hydrogen fuel, at that point it starts expanding and becomes a red giant bigger than the radius of Earth's orbit so the Earth will eventually be underneath the surface of the sun but it will have been burned to a crisp long before that happens. After that, the sun will begin to contract again and become small and a dwarf star. There will be no Earth at that point in time.

So the idea that Krshna can come back is a moot point, even if he will, there will be nothing left for it to come back to.
This is pure science refuting your religion and there is no getting around that.

The sun is not eternal, it has X amount of fuel and when it runs low, that is the end of Earth.

Originally posted by Dasa
Go and purchase the 18 volume Srimad Bhagavatam translated by His Divine Grace Srila Prabhupada.

When you have read the entire collection you will without doubt have your answer.

You don't think you will be just given the answer without some effort on your part.

This shall test your sincerity.

You brought the subject up. It is up to you to defend it, it is not up to me to read an eighteen volume tome, which I can't believe is cheap, to do my own research. Do your own research is a modus operandi associated with conspiracy theorists, typically when their assertions are disputed, why do you have the same MO as a conspiracy theorist? Implying that I am insincere for not wishing to read an eighteen volume book is an appeal to argumentum ad natis nequam. I put it to you that you cannot defend your own religion.