'What religion are you?' poll discussion

Gareth_Lazelle

"Hearsay M'lud"?

tbourner

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

"Hearsay M'lud"?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=41622656&postcount=310
'Personal Testimony' by clinically insane people wouldn't be accepted in court.

adrian_clark

tbourner wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=41622656&postcount=310
'Personal Testimony' by clinically insane people wouldn't be accepted in court.

Do you believe that millions of Christians around the world are clinically insane and therefore should not be allowed to testify in a court of law?;)

tbourner

adrian_clark wrote: »

Do you believe that millions of Christians around the world are clinically insane and therefore should not be allowed to testify in a court of law?;)

Depends what they're testifying for.

If it was a murder case where they were the lead witness, then I'm sure it'd be fine.

If it was to prove the murder of Jesus 2000 odd years ago, and their statement included "We know he did it because someone wrote it down at the time, and someone else translated it, and then I read about it." then I'm pretty sure they'd be thrown out of court.

adrian_clark

tbourner wrote: »

Depends what they're testifying for.

If it was a murder case where they were the lead witness, then I'm sure it'd be fine.

If it was to prove the murder of Jesus 2000 odd years ago, and their statement included "We know he did it because someone wrote it down at the time, and someone else translated it, and then I read about it." then I'm pretty sure they'd be thrown out of court.

Let's get this straight. You have said that anyone who believes, with all their heart mind and strength that Jesus was resurrected from death, and that He lives today ruling and reigning over all of His creation, as millions do, is insane. Okay? Yet, you would accept their testimony if they were witnessing to a murder case, where if found guilty someone could be incarcerated for life?

You'll need to help me figure out the logic behind that idea.

k.o.d

adrian_clark wrote: »

Great thoughts. The extensive historical evidence, along with the testimony of witnesses from the time of Jesus and today, provides weighty evidence for the resurrection of Jesus being a reality. It's intriguing how human history revolves around this homeless guy who lived 2000 years ago. J John's on the money, thanks very much :money:

There is not 'extensive' historical evidence.
And if we go down that route, the bible contradicts itself many times, and if you throw in the 'gospels' that did not make it into the final rendition of the 'truth' that is the bible, then it is even more chaotic.
The bible was written, fashioned and adapted by the church to suit the churchs' own ends.
I believe it is good to have faith, but blind faith is not a good deal.

tbourner

adrian_clark wrote: »

Let's get this straight. You have said that anyone who believes, with all their heart mind and strength that Jesus was resurrected from death, and that He lives today ruling and reigning over all of His creation, as millions do, is insane. Okay? Yet, you would accept their testimony if they were witnessing to a murder case, where if found guilty someone could be incarcerated for life?

You'll need to help me figure out the logic behind that idea.

You're making out like I'm stating that all religious people are insane, that's not the intention of what I'm saying, I'm just putting an argument to you because you said if it went to court the evidence is overwhelming.
I guess you say that because there are an overwhelming number of people that believe it, that doesn't mean it's true.

Basically what I'm getting at is you can't compare the two, you can't say that a court would rule in favour of the stories because of overwhelming evidence, because the evidence would be inadmissable - nobody would use 2000 year old scribblings as proof of anything, especially if it's been re-written and translated by lots of people since. If you want to believe it then fine, and if countless other millions want to base their lives on it that's fine as well, but that's your belief in those writings, it doesn't make them 'evidence' of anything.
My analogy of a delusional person may have been misguided but the principle is there.

adrian_clark

k.o.d wrote: »

There is not 'extensive' historical evidence.
And if we go down that route, the bible contradicts itself many times, and if you throw in the 'gospels' that did not make it into the final rendition of the 'truth' that is the bible, then it is even more chaotic.
The bible was written, fashioned and adapted by the church to suit the churchs' own ends.
I believe it is good to have faith, but blind faith is not a good deal.

This is received cultural wisdom but not true. The Gnostic Gospels were written over 150 years after the Gospels that are in the Bible. They were not faithful records and therefore had no place in Scripture.

How can the Bible be fashioned and adapted by the church and yet be chaotic and contradictory? Surely if you were going to fashion lies to suit your ends would you not see that the stories were carefully scripted with a natural order like the Koran for instance?

k.o.d

adrian_clark wrote: »

This is received cultural wisdom but not true. The Gnostic Gospels were written over 150 years after the Gospels that are in the Bible. They were not faithful records and therefore had no place in Scripture.

How can the Bible be fashioned and adapted by the church and yet be chaotic and contradictory? Surely if you were going to fashion lies to suit your ends would you not see that the stories were carefully scripted with a natural order like the Koran for instance?

You tell me, it is your blueprint for a supposed better world.
A lot of the scriptures were written a long time after the death of Christ, so you could use the same argument, and to say the scriptures that actually exist in the Bible are 'faithful records' is a bit laughable.

adrian_clark

tbourner wrote: »

You're making out like I'm stating that all religious people are insane, that's not the intention of what I'm saying, I'm just putting an argument to you because you said if it went to court the evidence is overwhelming.
I guess you say that because there are an overwhelming number of people that believe it, that doesn't mean it's true.

Basically what I'm getting at is you can't compare the two, you can't say that a court would rule in favour of the stories because of overwhelming evidence, because the evidence would be inadmissable - nobody would use 2000 year old scribblings as proof of anything, especially if it's been re-written and translated by lots of people since. If you want to believe it then fine, and if countless other millions want to base their lives on it that's fine as well, but that's your belief in those writings, it doesn't make them 'evidence' of anything.
My analogy of a delusional person may have been misguided but the principle is there.

You were not misguided. It is perfectly rational, by the world's standard, to consider Jesus' claims as lies and the people who follow him as deceived fools. The Bible says that what Christians believe would be seen as foolish.

The point is that you are dealing with people who sincerely believe that a man was brutally tortured and died, to take the punishment we deserve, and then came back to life? To the world those are not beliefs of the mentally stable, are they? Is it compassionate, kind and considerate to see people believing such nonsense and dismiss it as fine?

Moreover, is it wise to have people who believe such things who are in position where they make judgments over peoples lives and liberties such as Lord Darling who was Lord Chief Justice of England, soldiers, policmen, teachers, or for that matter, the lollipop lady seeing our children across the road?