A jury has to decide whom they believe. Not very different to anything regarding faith and witnesses. Either way the choice is the individuals. You choose whom and what you believe.
And, in both instances, we could all benefit from a better educated, less credulous populace...
The blind leading the blind would not be a good idea. Think about that before answering.
I have thought about it, Sass, and there are none so blind as those that will not see. Of course, I'm sure you feel the same way.
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.
No-one is required to swear, it's perfectly acceptable to make an affirmation instead. You could view it as hypocrisy, I see at as one of the ironic idiosyncracies of the history of the British judiciary, but it is amusing that the rules that govern the evidence delivered within the trial don't cover the confirmations made as part of the ritual.
You missed the point. We do not swear by big pink Elephants etc. Hence that God and Jesus Christ are accepted are real in our courts. Why else would they believe people are swearing by God to tell the truth.
No, you miss the point. 'WE' do not swear by almighty God. You might, if you choose. I would affirm on my honour. A Muslim is offered the opportunity to swear on the Qu'ran. This is because the court doesn't decide what's valid, what's important, you swear on something that is important to you.
Wrong... having been written as an eyewitness account it is no different from a witness statement.
Except that it wasn't written by any eyewitnesses, and it wasn't written anywhere near the time when it actually happened and any eyewitnesses might actually be able to remember very much about it, and it's been significantly tampered with over time not least during the poetic translations it's had.
When written it is acceptable evidence. So that is how the gospel accounts would be viewed. Written by the witness so acceptable not hearsay. Not passed down by word of a mouth but a real account written by the witness.
You're just wrong, saying it again doesn't change the fact that you're 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.
A third? A third might or might not personally identify as Christian, certainly a significant portion of that third probably accept the idea - that means that two thirds of the world don't accept the claims. If you're making the logically invalid argument from popular opinion you're losing anyway.
Not lost anything... the experts you are so proud of flaunting will not dismiss Christ as being real. Witness accounts are written by the people who were there confirm that Christ existed and a Church in existence since he existence. Evidence outweighs your silly notions.
You tried the argument from popular authority to say that because a third of the world believed this it was, therefore right. I pointed out that one third believing means that two thirds don't, and your rebuttal is to repeat your error about eyewitness accounts - you're not only wrong, you're irrelevant to the point and wrong.
Was he the Son of God? The question that everyone wants to know the answer to.
I suspect the bulk of the world don't think about it very much at all. A third of the world would love to know what they believe is true, but that doesn't mean they want to know THE answer, they want to know AN answer.
Now you are making it up.
Ah, the irony, it burns...
What Bulk.
The two thirds that don't accept your particular brand of nonsense.
Everyone knows who Jesus Christ is suppose to be around the world. But the other religions lag back don't they.
No, you're all in equal last place.
But not one everyone would act on.
On the contrary, if it were somehow proven to be the case every rational person in the world would act on it.
Now you are being silly. Many atheists admit that even if they knew it was all true about Christ they would not do anything differently want to go their own way.
Really? Do these 'many' atheists all have girlfriends in Canada, whom I conveniently won't have met, but they definitely exist? If you had some sort of proof - I have no idea what that would be, but nevertheless - that the story of the magical Jesus was true, I'd pay close attention to the details of the claim: I'm an atheist because the case is unproven for any of the gods, not out of some ideological opposition to Christianity.
More importantly... does believing in Christ bring people into a relationship with God?
Maybe, though it seems unlikely. Certainly if other religious views are correct believing in Christ takes you further away from God, or gods, or Nirvana, or...
Well give us the arguments for and against these other religions. Oh.that's right you really don't know them but in light of that fact you still make comments that have no foundation.
The arguments against are easy: no-one can provide any supporting evidence to justify the claims, just like you can't provide any supporting evidence for your claims.
Maybe you understand not the weight and measure of who Jesus Christ is.
Or maybe I get exactly the weight and measure of it, and you don't?
I think from the things you write it is obvious you have NO idea about the weight and measure of who Jesus Christ is.
I think you see a category difference between the Biblical Jesus and Harry Potter means that you don't - it's almost like the difference between a theist and an atheist, isn't it?
Given what the power of his name still produces throughout the world, you would be a fool to think no truth to it.
The same can be said of Allah, and yet the two are mutually incompatible. Given that at least one group of millions can be wrong, what reason do we have not to think that both groups of millions could be wrong?
allah hasn't done anything for anyone by just the power of his name. But people have murdered others in his name.
As you can see you have a clue what it means when talking about the power of Jesus name.
Jesus has done nothing. God has done nothing. People have murdered in their name. People have healed and taught and explored in their name, just as they have in Allah's name at times. It's almost as though the idea of gods can be inspirational, but the reality of gods remains unverified.
I suspect there is no point in continuing, because you aren't hear to listen, just to spout it seems. Never mind, I'm enjoying myself anyway, so I'll just carry on if it's alright with you. Feel free to ignore reality some more if you want, or to respond with your absolute certainty in the absence of any impact with reality, as you choose.
O.
