and quotes as taken from the bible with absolutely no proof or substantiation at all BE ACCEPTED BY A COURT JUDGE? Or would he dismiss the case, as he should do with no proof available?
No unprovable bible quotes please, we`ve had all those.
Would he believe the stories of miracles, parting of seas, feeding 5,000 with three loaves and five fishes etc? They are just suppostion and conjecture, as yet unproven.
Should he accept the spoken word only as proof? What do you honestly think?
2007-09-01 22:49:08 · 13 answers · asked by Montgomery B 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Answering with the word, `FAITH` is not acceptable. FAITH would not be accepted in court either.
It is a word used by religious people when they don`t know the answer!!
2007-09-01 23:01:39 · update #1
I think you should believe what YOU believe and allow others THEIR beliefs.
I can't understand the overwhelming need among certain ABers (not you, particularly, so don't take it personal) to convert everyone else to their way of thinking.
It ain't gonna happen.
Why continue beating a dead horse?
2007-09-01 22:59:48 · answer #1 · answered by Rip_Washington 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Since much of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses (most of the New Testament, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Joshua, David, Solomon, et cetera), yes, it would be accepted. Last I checked, eyewitness testimony, especially if corroborated by many eyewitnesses (several times in the Bible it says, "Not only did I see this, but you saw it too!" That's quite a claim, don't you think?) is held as reliable in courts.
Can all of it be proven scientifically? No. But much of it has been corroborated by archaeological discoveries, such as the fall of Jericho.
By the way, if you discount the Bible based upon your conjectures, you must also dispute the existence and the stories of Alexander the Great. His history was not written until five hundred years after the fact.
2007-09-01 23:04:30 · answer #2 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No
the accounts in the bible would be submitted as eye witness accounts, but the cross examination would simply have to examine the evidence, to conclude that virtually all of the bible was written many years after the events, and thus could not be first person accounts, indeed the contradictory statements within the text rules out many of the gospels as secondary or tertritory accounts. Thus it would be thrown out of court, as immiscible or hearsay evidence.
2007-09-01 23:05:12 · answer #3 · answered by DAVID C 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A judge in Court is responsible for interpreting and upholding the laws and customs of the state. If you break the law, you may be able to use your personal adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible as mitigating circumstances - but don't expect a lot of sympathy.
At the last judgement, different rules will apply.
2007-09-01 22:58:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
These things are a questions of faith. By definition faith is something without proof. A judge would accept these things as edicts of a person's religious faith. No proof would be required.
2007-09-01 22:56:54 · answer #5 · answered by Jennifer B 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Written by eyewitnesses? The new testament dates from a good bit after Jesus' death and has had editing and addition since then too-hardly a reliable source in court. More like a perjury case, in fact.
2007-09-01 23:20:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The written testimony or testimony given previously by a witness is accepted in a court of law if they are not able to testify at the time of the trial. Matthew and John were there, so they would be accepted as witnesses. You were not, so you would not.
2007-09-01 22:55:26 · answer #7 · answered by Jeff E 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It seems as though you as the prosecutor are going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these quotes are not true.Oh yea, you need to find a judge that will listen to your case and see if there is any reason to bring it into court.Your first witness please!
2007-09-01 23:26:22 · answer #8 · answered by Allan C 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Would a judge believe that the world was full of plants and had darkness and light before the moon and the stars and the sun was even created?
Would he believe that a virgin can smash out a demi-god?
2007-09-01 22:55:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Can Atheism be proven, can you prove that everything was created by a series of coincidences with no design.
Therefore the only truly 'logical' choice can be agnosticism
2007-09-01 23:09:01 · answer #10 · answered by Mr. Eko 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋