[And, in a court of law, a claim that Jesus was real would be thrown out in moments as, at best, hearsay - it would be inadmissible in evidence. Eye-witness testimony, delivered in person, is permitted (and, for cultural reasons, given undue weight) but the allegation that someone told you they'd seen it, without the opportunity to cross-examine them to determine how accurate their memory is or trustworthy their contribution is would be thrown out.]
It wouldn't... the oath in court says " I swear by Almighty God" it would hypocritical to accept an oath sworn by Almighty God then throw out the belief Jesus was real. It is a fact that a third of the world accept Christ as real. So by that fact alone they could not throw out that Christ actually was real.
22 comments
Yeah, I'm not sure about the " I swear by Almighty God" part. I think, at least in the US, that now it goes "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
It is a fact that a third of the world accept Christ as real. So by that fact alone they could not throw out that Christ actually was real.
That means that 2/3 of the world does not believe he was real. By your logic, due to the large # of believers in the Hindu religion, that the entire Hindu pantheon is real.
May Kali bless you.
"It is a fact that a third of the world accept Christ as real."
And at some time in the past,most of the world thought the earth was flat, and up until the 1600sss we thought everything rotated the Earth.If we went by what the majority thinks is true, Copernicus would be seen as a moron.
> I think, at least in the US, that now it goes "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
'Fraid the whole oath is: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?"
> the oath in court says " I swear by Almighty God" it would hypocritical to accept an oath sworn by Almighty God then throw out the belief Jesus was real.
Which is why at least here, the courts also allow one to swear by "the name of Almighty God" or by your "honour and conscience". Because we actually paid attention to the part in our constitution that says everyone has a freedom of religion and conscience. The courts don't give a damn what you believe in, just that you're telling the truth.
I think they give people the option of leaving out the 'so help me god' part....
Wait a minute, here we go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sworn_testimony
United States
Oath:
Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)?
Swear may be replaced with "affirm", and either "so help you God" or "under pains and penalties of perjury" may be used; all oaths and affirmations are considered to be equivalent before the law.[4] These modifications to the oath were originally introduced in order to accommodate those who feel uncomfortable swearing religious oaths, such as Quakers, as well as to accommodate the irreligious.[5] In United States v. Ward, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain other modifications of the oath were acceptable so long as they demonstrated "a moral or ethical sense of right and wrong"
"It is a fact that a third of the world accept Christ as real. So by that fact alone they could not throw out that Christ actually was real"
So statistics about beliefs and facts about religions are the same now ? OK.
We shouldn't have oaths to God in a secular government's courtroom. I suspect swearing on a bible to God to tell the truth was invented as a way to scare people into being truthful by use of their own superstition.
But yes, something written in a book several thousands of years ago is not evidence. It's the assertion.
lawyer hat on:
Many jurisdictions now accept hearsay evidence, especially when it is the best available or there are other factors (describing a deathbed confession for instance). Virtually all accept it in certain circumstances. The weight attributed to hearsay evidence is usually less, especially when contradicted by other evidence.
The evidence for Jesus in the bible would certainly not be thrown out of any fair and reasonable court. What weight you give it is a matter for argument
As for the rest, the oath depends on belief in God, not on God, duh.
"It is a fact that a third of the world accept Christ as real."
Polls over the last decade have finally started followup qualifying question and recording them in results. Almost half of Western world believers are seldom or never church affiliated or attend, they also do not believe the Bible is literal AT ALL. Many about a quarter report mistrust of organized religion and their belief of God is not necessarily Biblical yet will sytill be counted in the "do you believe in God?" overquestion.
And the final cut, as pointed out by Dawkins, Harris and the late great Hitch, they cheat by counting your children and spouse without directly asking them. Are you a Christian? Yes. Are you a family man/women? Yes. Then they count your kids and spouse. As those horsemen above pointed out this is the only place (aside from population, race or age demographics, where it's proper for accuracy) that this has been allowed unchecked. Your two year old is not a Christian nor often is your fifteen year old.
Well, Jesús, according to Christian doctrine is one of the three entities of God, so your argument doesn't hold water. Besides, there are Jews, Muslims and even Hinduist that may believe in an almighty God(and in the latter's case, a million or so)without accepting the divinity of Jesús. So, what was your point?
In even the Old Bailey, the main Crown Court in the UK:
"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."
PROTIP: Perjury is a very serious offence in the eyes of the court. Regardless of the witness' religion.
So why then, did the Conservative Christian Judge John E. Jones III rule against the defence's case in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, if he believes that Jesus is real, yet Biblical Creation isn't , as per the plaintiffs' case?
Also, Kent 'Oh, Mark 12:17 doesn't apply to me!' Hovind. Enjoy your paradox, Sissy.
Fewer and people people are swearing by "god", so does that mean that he is less real all the time? When we tip the scales over 50% unbelievers, will god just magically disappear in a puff of smoke?
And 8000-times hearsay can't possibly be admitted when first-hand hearsay is not acceptable.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
