Avoiding questions

[Waratah]

Drich, which bible is the right bible according to you.

The Holy One.

I was unable to find this bible. After reading the posts I can only assume it was a bullshit answer.

Or you could have given a clear answer form the get go.

A clear answer requires a lesson on how the bibles are translated. I have found the people like this have a set arguement to offer and when I say something like this (Not according to this set arguement) they bail. so I was giving the Op'er the oppertunity to bail before I changed the direction of his attack.
That said The holy bible is a complete answer in of itself. In that not all translations are nor can be considered 'holy Bibles." Some of them are commentary bibles or bibles written to a specific group of sect of christianity. Meaning the are not literal translations of the recognized texts the Holy bibles are translated from. Some translations may add books while others take them away or change them. These bibles are not considered "Holy Bibles"

No plan of attack. You kept refering to the "bible". I thought it would make it clear for everyone which bible you were talking about and better for everyone to understand where you were coming from.

How about I ask which bible do you refer to, which you consider the 100% correct version? When was it first published? Is there more than one publisher and if so may you please tell us which ones you know about. Is there a link to a online version?

I am hoping that I am being clear with my question so we can move forward from here and have baseline for a "bible".

[Angrboda]

I'm not going to go into anything sassy or complex other than to say that Drich doesn't know dick about Hinduism, and his claims about it are nothing more than the callous lies told by enemies of those traditions.

Thanks for trying to tell me what I believe, Drich, as well as millions of people in similar and other Hindu traditions.

As usual, you're simply pulling shit out of your ass because it confirms your beliefs, regardless of whether it has any relation to the truth or not.


(And someone as knowledgeable about the bible as you claim to be knows damn well that there are multiple "bibles" in the Christian traditions alone, and I'll bet you could name several; that you chose instead to dodge the question and the burden of proof waiting in its wings by not naming one of them makes plain your hypocrisy in a thread in which you are attempting to claim that you and other apologists do not avoid questions. Even if I were a Christian myself, your behavior would still sicken me. You are a disgrace to both God and Christ. [And the evasion only gets thicker if we go into the actual meaning, use, and etymology of the word holy. You're the self-appointed biblical scholar, why don't you provide us with an exegesis of the term so that we may check your story - and your exegesis.])

If I ever do meet your god, I'm as sure as I'm standing here that he will have nothing but bad things to say about you. I can already predict that your name has been eternally absent from the book of life.

[Vera]

Minnie can answer this one. It usally starts with F-God, or F-Jesus or F- something along those lines, and continues that pattern throughout the whole thread..

I asked you, though, not him. And in my experience atheists rarely debate using the word fuck (grow the f-up and stop being afraid of words, they can't really hurt, you know). Why would they want to curse at something non-existent? By your logic anything a religious person disagrees with can be seen as blasphemous and thus any reasonable discussion is automatically precluded (as if reason and religion weren't mutually exclusive already).

[thesummerqueen]

I asked you, though, not him.

Didn't you read the title of the thread?

[Vera]

I asked you, though, not him.

Didn't you read the title of the thread?

My bad, I do apologise

[Drich]

[quote='Waratah' pid='367478' dateline='1354167707']
I was unable to find this bible. After reading the posts I can only assume it was a bullshit answer.[/quote]You've never Heard of the Holy Bible? It contains a total of 66 books.

[quote]How about I ask which bible do you refer to, which you consider the 100% correct version?[/quote] Again, this question can not answered, as no english version can be 100% accurate. Simply because not every word in the orginal script can be translated completely into english. So depending whom I am speaking and their level of understanding along with the topic. I will use any translation from the easy to read version, to the NKJV to the Blue Letter bible and concordance.

[quote] When was it first published? [/quote]which one?

[quote]Is there more than one publisher and if so may you please tell us which ones you know about. Is there a link to a online version?[/quote]http://www.biblegateway.com/ This is a great website. I think just about every single major translation in every language is repersented here. even some of the more obscure versions with different books.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
this is the blue letter bible and concordance. It's principle translation in the KJV, but if you put in a passage and click on any one of the numbered words it gives you the Orginal greek or Hebrew words and their defination and a short explaination as to which meaning was used and sometimes why.

[quote]I am hoping that I am being clear with my question so we can move forward from here and have baseline for a "bible".[/quote]
like wise.

---

[quote='apophenia' pid='367480' dateline='1354172575']



I'm not going to go into anything sassy or complex other than to say that Drich doesn't know dick about Hinduism, and his claims about it are nothing more than the callous lies told by enemies of those traditions.

Thanks for trying to tell me what I believe, Drich, as well as millions of people in similar and other Hindu traditions.

As usual, you're simply pulling shit out of your ass because it confirms your beliefs, regardless of whether it has any relation to the truth or not.


(And someone as knowledgeable about the bible as you claim to be knows damn well that there are multiple "bibles" in the Christian traditions alone, and I'll bet you could name several; that you chose instead to dodge the question and the burden of proof waiting in its wings by not naming one of them makes plain your hypocrisy in a thread in which you are attempting to claim that you and other apologists do not avoid questions. Even if I were a Christian myself, your behavior would still sicken me. You are a disgrace to both God and Christ. [And the evasion only gets thicker if we go into the actual meaning, use, and etymology of the word holy. You're the self-appointed biblical scholar, why don't you provide us with an exegesis of the term so that we may check your story - and your exegesis.])

If I ever do meet your god, I'm as sure as I'm standing here that he will have nothing but bad things to say about you. I can already predict that your name has been eternally absent from the book of life.



[/quote]
Your right it is easy to make a basless accusation and not back it up with anything. your personal example was awesome.

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/basics/nineb/

---

[quote='Vera' pid='367492' dateline='1354180436']
[quote]I asked you, though, not him.[/quote]

[quote]And in my experience atheists rarely debate using the word fuck [/quote]Then you have a really limited experience of atheism. I have been doing this a really long time and I don't know that I have ever been in an arguement (if pushed to it's limit with a devoute atheist) that didn't in profanity.

[quote](grow the f-up and stop being afraid of words, they can't really hurt, you know).[/quote]
I do that for your benfit. Otherwise The Douche bags or bag-ettes on this web site will get me for being 'unchristian like.' I perfer not to throw gas on a fire.

[quote]By your logic anything a religious person disagrees with can be seen as blasphemous and thus any reasonable discussion is automatically precluded (as if reason and religion weren't mutually exclusive already).[/quote] You start out by saying I did not provide my 'logic' as I differed to Minnie, and now you are saying by my logic, and then proceed to tell me what 'my logic' is. How is it you can tell me my logic when appearently I did not offer it? Or did I? Can you show me where I provided this logic that allowed you to build your last arguement?

[Angrboda]

I'm not going to go into anything sassy or complex other than to say that Drich doesn't know dick about Hinduism, and his claims about it are nothing more than the callous lies told by enemies of those traditions.

Thanks for trying to tell me what I believe, Drich, as well as millions of people in similar and other Hindu traditions.

As usual, you're simply pulling shit out of your ass because it confirms your beliefs, regardless of whether it has any relation to the truth or not.

Your right it is easy to make a basless accusation and not back it up with anything. your personal example was awesome.

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/basics/nineb/

First off, quoting a site which mischaracterizes Hinduism doesn't rescue your mischaracterization (see below). But on top of that, even the source you cite refutes your earlier claim about Hinduism, thus validating my claim about your lies.

You stated:

I did not say Hinduism did not have a spiritual verfiable element to it. Hinduism does not place one in a direct relationshipp with God.

And your own source, incorrect as it is, states:

Hindus believe that divine beings exist in unseen worlds and that temple worship, rituals, sacraments and personal devotionals create a communion with these devas and Gods.

(Your site even goes further to claim, "It is a mystical religion, leading the devotee to personally experience the Truth within, finally reaching the pinnacle of consciousness where man and God are one." If that isn't a "direct relationship", I don't know what is.)

Next time you might want to make sure a source you quote actually supports your point, otherwise it's no better than the shit you pull from your ass. I gave you a source. I have been a Hindu for 30 years and your claiming that I don't constitute a source for the truth of my own tradition simply underscores yet again what your true relationship to Hinduism is.

Moreover, as a Hindu myself, I can verify that your "source" is crap. (The history of the Carvakas alone see to that.) But it's just like you that when you have the real deal standing in front of you, you instead go squirreling after a second hand example that fits your prejudices better.


Still waiting on your exegesis of the word holy which I asked you which you seem to have.... what's the word I'm looking for here....

[The Grand Nudger]

Dipping into whichever barrel suits you (and then pretending that it has anything to do with what suits your audience) smacks of evasive, cherry-picking, apologetic garbage. You've single-handedly broken my last remaining ironometer.

[Vera]

I do that for your benfit. Otherwise The Douche bags or bag-ettes on this web site will get me for being 'unchristian like.' I perfer not to throw gas on a fire.

By your logic anything a religious person disagrees with can be seen as blasphemous and thus any reasonable discussion is automatically precluded (as if reason and religion weren't mutually exclusive already).

You start out by saying I did not provide my 'logic' as I differed to Minnie, and now you are saying by my logic, and then proceed to tell me what 'my logic' is. How is it you can tell me my logic when appearently I did not offer it? Or did I? Can you show me where I provided this logic that allowed you to build your last arguement?

First of all, don't do me any favours like being "polite" on my behalf. (maybe just one though - learn to spell and/or spellcheck)

Second, maybe the hordes of devoute (sic) atheists that you've debated over the years have reached the point where they couldn't take your bull anymore and all the fucks you've had to endure were aimed at you.
Actually, you know what, at least one of these arguements (sic) must have been on the Internet. Could you send me link to a devoute (sic) atheist saying stuff like "Fuck god and the fucking holy ghost. That's why I don't believe in them. Not because I have logical arguments on my side, but because fuck god."

Thirdly, you did provide an example (a retarded one, but still). The one with the abominable F-word, which obviously gets you all worked up. So by that logic (that you consider this particular word to be blasphemous (without explaining why)), any religionist may claim that he or she finds a certain word, expression, even belief to be blasphemous and thus refuse to discuss any further (and waste his or her pearls on us... for which we would actually be eternally grateful - if all religionists could keep their bull to themselves.... yet, they can't seem to be able to do it... why is this, I wonder )

[Ryantology]

If I were in those circumstances as an OT Jew, Absolutly. "Ours is not to reason why, Ours is but to do and die."

So, all it is going to take is for "God" to tell you that all those sinful heathens at elementary school need to die, or something?