Originally Posted by Caspian

Thats a valid point...I dont no why jesus died if he was god (perhaps he was not God, perhaps it was part of God's plan)... unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument! That's why i had reservations about bringing up the other characteristics of god—there pointless for my argument. The fact that Guru Nanak did not call himself God or that Mohammed called himself a Prophet or Jesus's death and his claim to be god have nothing to do with my argument. Similarily, it is not my job to bring up these extra-characteristics. In my example above, it was the "Christan-Tejwant" that would try to bring up the other characteristics of God inorder to challange my definition. That is how debate works, I have created a definition, God (in my argument) has those three omniqualities. Now for the debate to progress, you can either accept my definition or challenge my definition. And if you wish to challenge my defintion, you must substitute it with your own—you cannot say "Just read the Mool Mantar and you'll get it." It's YOUR job not my job to create a new definition if you see mine as being unfit.