A Working Definition of God

Mark24 did not say the Israelites did not exist. He is asking for evidence that the witnesses you claim saw the parting of the Red Sea existed.In the way that Mark24 was offering it as an example of eyewitnesses, the Mahabharata *is* equivalent to the Bible. It includes many events seen by eyewitnesses. You stated that your standard was that if something is witnessed by eyewitnesses then it must be accepted as fact, but there seems to be something more to your standard that you haven't informed us of yet. By what criteria do you reject the eyewitness testimony of the Mahabharata and accept the eyewitness testimony of the Bible?--Percy

Faith, The Iraelites didn't offer eyewitness testimony. What, you think there is a signed petition appended to the OT, or something? The part of the bible that pertains to the Red Sea parting was written by one or a few men. Show he/they exist or he/they can't testify to ANYTHING. As for what the rest of the Israelites saw, well, you'll just have to wait for their version of events to be published.The Mahabarata was written by one man who testifies that he spoke to Vishnu. He says he was an eyewitness, he offered testimony, he is therefore no less an eyewitness than the author of the relevant part of the OT as regards the Red Sea parting. Therefore, & this is crashingly obvious, you are checkmated. In order to accept that anything in the bible is eyewitness evidence, to be consistent, you must accept that any other religious text is eyewitness testimony, too.If you are stating a standard of evidence, namely ancient texts are eyewitness testimony, then it applies universally, it isn't OK to use it for the bible, & not for everything else.And for the record, it wouldn't matter that the Mahabarata testimony isn't "equivalent". All that matters is that it is eyewitness testimony (as accepted by you) of the existence of a God that provides evidence (your definition, not mine) that contradicts the central tenet of christianity; that there is only one, true god. You said eyewitness testimony was valid, well there you have it. Evidence (as accepted by you) that the bible is false. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 04-24-2005 03:33 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Don't close it yet, I'm writing a summation.--Percy

Percy look over at Lam's id thread and check your email please.

---

listen to phil collins and nas

I know what he said and I answered it. If he needs extrabiblical proof of their existence he's missing the point.The Mahabharata is not taken by ANYONE to be fact and it does not have any of the earmarks of actual witness testimony, such as the specific times and places and known historical figures given in the Bible. It reads like creative fiction. Bible reads like history.A couple of sites on the Mahabharata (my emphases): This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 03:44 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 03:50 PM

It isn't eyewitness testimony according to me or anybody else. You guys here are playing mind games and it is beneath contempt. See my post to Percy above about the Mahabharata.

This thread requests a definition of God. The two answers offered were that God is omniscient and omnipotent by Faith, and that God is love by Magisterium Devolver. Faith and MD said they felt their definitions compatible with each other, and Faith claimed her definitions were compatible with the definition in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary (see Message 10) and with the larger body of Christian thought.These definitions were deemed inadequate by the non-conservatives, and out of this a discussion developed about evidence for the nature of God, and this discussion is far from complete. I recommend a new thread be opened to continue this discussion, perhaps with the title, "Standards of Evidence for Religious Texts".--Percy

I didn't say a word about omnisicence or omnipotence in my definition, Percy. Message 3
Never mind. I suppose it amounts to the same thing although I did not use the terms.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 03:49 PM

Faith, Hindu's DO believe the avatar of Vishnu will walk the earth, so the Mahabharata is taken as being factual by many. The bible is seen by many christians as having a central message embellished by stories, too, but that doesn't stop you claiming that they are chock full of eyewitness testimony. In other words, both religions have their members accepting their respective religions as facts, & others as stories. If the bible has eyewitness evidence, so does the Mahabharata.I wonder why your quote has the Mahabharata as being allegedly fiction, when it has eyewitness testimony to the same standard as the OT. Strange.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Agreed about attacking people. I wrote the Forum Guidelines, after all, so of course I agree. But I don't think you've been here long enough to make a proper interpretation, and it may be that since the post where you came to Faith's defense that she has provided a number of examples that may be leaving you quizzical and wondering if you didn't perhaps offer your support prematurely. Take, for example, this from Faith in Message 297: Faith has been here 10 times as many messages as you, and she's left little gems like this in many threads. While my advice to Faith about her hardness and intolerance may have struck you as unfair given what you'd read so far in this thread, the rest of us pretty much knew where Faith was going.--Percy

Changed my mind. Nothing to say.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 04:21 PM

quote:

---

If you are stating a standard of evidence, namely ancient texts are eyewitness testimony, then it applies universally, it isn't OK to use it for the bible, & not for everything else.

---

Oh the straw man is now saying ancient = eyewitness? You must be joking. What idiocy, Mark, what doltish idiocy.The Mahabharata does not present itswelf as witness testimony, it presents itself as fiction. The Bible claims to be witness testimony from front to back and it contains a zillion and one clues to authenticate its claim.

For the record, although this wasn't directed toward me, I do actually beleive that other faith systems have religious writings that contribute significantly to the development of human history.I think any claims made by a religious writings should be examined to see if there is any historical validity to them -- and not simply dismissed out of hand. At the very least, I think one should respect another person's faith and not dismiss simply because it is not from my own faith system.

Nobody is contesting that. The issue is whether these texts CLAIM to be actual reports of HISTORY. The Bible claims it throughout. There is nothing whatever about the Mahabharata that makes such a claim either internally or externally. It presents itself as instructive fiction.

Hmmm...interesting.Faith, since I first discussed and defended your side, I have noticed some statements by you which do seem to extend beyond the simple "this is my faith" expressions.After re-reading through your posts, some of the statements you've made were just as "rough around the edges" as the ones that were directed at you -- just saying.