quote:
I'm stating that I have little knowledge on Bahavigad Gita. I can't make fair assessments or pronouncements on things that I know little about. Conversely, I believe many of the Bible's most scathing critics only have a nominal familiarity with it, thus rendering their opinion of it null and void.
But that's not what you stated originally.
What you, in essence, wrote was that the people who call the Bible a "bunch of tales" are missing the forest for the trees, and that some of the tales in the bible are likely to be true simply because there are so many of them.
The point I was making is that just because there are a lot of tales in the Bible doesn't mean that any of them are true.
The number of tales in any religious text has nothing at all to do with the truth of any of those tales.
The reason I brought up the Hindu holy text was because, being a Christian, you, by definition, reject them since they are not part of the Christian mythos.
However, if we are to apply your logic, you
must accept at least a few of the Hindu myths as true, simply because there are so many of them in the book.
It is a debate techniqe known as
reductio ad absurdum.