Sigh…
So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.
Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.
Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.
Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?
In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…
This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.
My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.
Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.
It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.
A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.
They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.
And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.
For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.
Sigh…
I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.
Finding Truth 
And here is the clincher about the “Apostle” Paul of Tarsus:
“Prosperous, sophisticated, highly cultured, Ephesus was the leading city of the wealthy and populous Roman province of Asia. “
If you believe that Paul wrote Second Timothy, Paul says this:
You are aware that all who are in Asia have turned away from me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes. -2 Timothy 1:15
And if you believe that the Apostle John, one of the original Twelve, wrote the Book of Revelation, John wrote, at some point after Paul wrote his epistle of Second Timothy:
“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands: “I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance. I know that you cannot tolerate evildoers; you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them to be false. – Revelation 2:1-2
Do we have any mention of anyone claiming to be an “apostle” to the people of Ephesus other than Paul?
Paul was a fraud.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brandon,
If you and I were two attorneys arguing a case in front of a judge, would I be projecting a “superiority complex” if I objected to your attempted use of subjective, internal revelation from an invisible supernatural being as admissible evidence?
That is all I am asking. Let’s agree to discuss evidence based on the type of evidence that would be admissible in a court of law in any western, industrialized nation.
LikeLike
“I can’t cure a superiority complex” – If you could, you’d have started with your own.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I regret that Brandon finds my approach to his position as arrogant and rude, but this is the typical reaction I get from conservative Christians when I refuse to play the “prove-to-me-that-the-supernatural-does-not-exist” game.
Nope. I’m not going down that rabbit trail.
Debate me on the evidence for your holy book’s historical claims just as you would debate me on the historicity of any other historical claim.
Imagine if I were debating someone on the historicity of event X, and they presented as their only evidence the testimony of two non-eyewitnesses, one who received his information third or fourth hand as an oral tradition, passed down over many decades, and one who received his information from a zombie—as proof of the historicity of event X.
Even Conservative Christians would laugh at such preposterous evidence for any other historical event, but they then turn around and insist that their supernatural claim of the reanimation of a first century dead man is historical fact. Come on.
LikeLike
Howie-
Thanks for the nod. I’m doing quite well 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
One of Brandon’s many, many problems, is that he credits Paul for his re-conversion, and if it were established that Paul was a basket-case, where would that leave him –? He HAS to believe that Paul was a sane, rational, pious individual – his sanity, which is hanging by a loose thread as it is, depends on it.
LikeLike
But, really, Arch. Does that describe any of us 😉
LikeLike
Gary M
I said I wasn’t going to comment any further on this thread, but I saw this, from you, and it caught my eye:
You wrote: “Let’s agree to discuss evidence based on the type of evidence that would be admissible in a court of law in any western, industrialized nation.”
It’s an interesting standard, one that merits discussion.
First, for reference, I am an attorney,. I have a us J.D. from a US Ivy League law school and the French equivalent from the Sorbonne, and I have practiced law in both New York and Paris, under their respective legal systems. I’m licensed to practice in the courts of New York and Connecticut, as well as the Federal courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.
This does not mean that whatever I say about the law is right. For every case presented before the Supreme Court, all 9 Justices have clerks scurrying around researching what the law is. Nobody knows for sure what the law is on any subject, because it can change at any time, and because it is subject to the opinions of judges, and to the interpretive decisions of courts, administrative tribunals, and legal and regulatory enforcement officials. And they often disagree.
So, just because I am a highy credentialled (and well paid) lawyer from a prestigious background, with two decades of experience, commenting on the area of my professional expertise, does not mean that what I have to say about the law is correct. It doesn’t mean that if you take what I say and run into the courthouse, you’re going to win. It means you will probably prevail on the particular points I write about, before normal judges who follow the generally accepted precedents.
It also means that insults directed at my legal knowledge or understanding of the US or French legal system are ridiculous. In matters of religion, argument by insult is a favorite tactic of most participants, which is why I hate arguing about the subject and generally avoid it. But the specific subject here isn’t religion, it’s what a court “in any western, industrialized nation” will accept as evidence. That’s a technical question, not a religious question. It’s been raised in the context of a religious argument. The religious argument may have no answer, but the technical question of law does have an answer. I’m going to write one for you, and for anyone else who chooses to use it.
It is not “right” – there is no right answer in law. Any judge can decide to do something different, and that stands in that case if it isn’t appealed. And if five Supreme Court Justices decide on a new rule, that’s the new rule, regardless of what the old rule was.
With those caveats, let’s proceed.
First, your standard is too broad: “admissible in a court of law in any western, industrialized nation” essentially means that probably anything can be admitted. The US has the most restrictive system of admission of evidence, because in the US, moreso than in most other Common Law countries. virtually everything is submitted to a jury of lay people as triers of fact. Therefore, there is a whole vast corpus of rules of evidence designed to prevent all sorts of information from being placed before jurors that may “prejudice the case”, because our judges and lawyers want to maintain control of the process and the outcome. In civil law systems such as France, trial courts are composed of panels of judges – juries are used only for certain very serious crimes – and in those systems the judges ask the questions. So, in those systems there are no exclusionary rules as such. The judges ask what they want answered, and they can ask anything. In the US, it is lawyers who control the process and what is presented at trial before the jury, while the judge sits as referee and source of legal interpretation for the jury. But in the Civil Law countries like France, the judges ask the questions, and then the judges sit as the jury to decide the case. If in the course of their deliberation concerning the case further questions come up, they will send interrogatories to the witnesses and demand more questions. It’s an inquisitorial process.
So, in France, essentially ANYTHING could be “admitted” before the court, because all that is required is for a judge to ask the question.
In the US we have exclusionary rules, to prevent certain evidence from being presented to the juries. These rules have been imposed by the judges. In France and the rest of the civil law systems, there are no exclusionary rules. Judges don’t impose rules on themselves on what they may ask. There’s no Fifth Amendment either: the refusal to answer the questions of the judges, the decision to “remain silent”, can be interpreted by the judges as proof of guilt, and probably will be.
The problem of getting Biblical testimony into a court in France (or anywhere else that has the Civil Law system…which is pretty much everywhere that doesn’t speak English and that was colonized by Europe) is not that the nature of the evidence is “inadmissible” or “hearsay”, it’s that it’s difficult to see any circumstances in which it could possibly have any bearing on a trial.
If God himself, or the testimony of some Christian, is what is on trial, then by the standards of every country EXCEPT probably the United States or Canada, the answer is that Scripture could be admitted for consideration if one or more of the judges of the case wanted to look at it. There’s no “rule” to bar anything. The judges ask for what THEY want to know and see, and there are no rules or limits on what that might be. Civil Law trial procedures are called “Inquisitorial” for a reason: judges inquire, they ask whatever they want to know, and if you refuse to answer, they can and probably will hold it against you.
Under such a system, the trial of religion you envision would depend on the judges. But then, that[‘s always the case, one way or the other.
No, what YOU want is the AMERICAN legal system, with its specific rules of evidence that dramatically limit what may be presented by the famous “Hearsay Rule”.
Now, simply put, the Hearsay Rule is incomprehensible. It’s incomprehensible to law students and to young lawyers trying to pass the bar. Part of the reason for that is that it’s false advertising. You’d think, based on the name of the rule, that it means that you can’t present evidence of what somebody else said in a US court – no “He said/She said”. But then you find out that such evidence is routinely presented all the time. Part of the reason is that there is this “Hearsay Rule”, but then a long laundry list of exceptions, with FURTHER local variations in the exceptions based on local court rules. And in the end, it’s a judge’s own personal opinion that decides things on the line. When you’re young, it APPEARS to be utterly arbitrary.
It isn’t as bad as all that, though. What is needed is the 80,000 foot view.
If you pull way, way back and look what the Hearsay Rule really says is this:
The only evidence that can be presented to any jury is evidence given directly in court by a live witness, under oath (I won’t lie, so help me God, and if I do, it’s perjury – which is still a serious crime; believers always understood that if they lied before God it meant they would go to Hell when they die, so the oath was more effective in earlier times than today), to the face of the accused, with the accused having the power and the right to directly cross-examine the witness giving testimony either himself, or through a skilled lawyer who represents him.
THAT evidence is the only directly admissible evidence because:
(1) Witness is present, and can be imprisoned for contempt for refusal to obey judge and rules.
(2) Jury can see the witness and decide credibility based on non-verbals.
(3) The accused is present, and the jury can see the reactions of the accused and witness to each other.
(4) Accused can directly challenge and cross-examine the witness to his face.
(5) Perjury is a felony with prison time and other harsh penalties.
(6) The judge can control the questions asked if they get out of line, and has contempt powers over everybody present in the room.
(7) At least in the minds of believers, the oath means, or meant, that God was invoked to be present, and to condemn to hell whoever lied after invoking God’s name. That’s why atheists used to not be permitted to give testimony or undertake other legal acts: they could not give an oath before God that meant anything. Today, we’ve dispensed with all of that, and a person can simply “affirm” that he is telling the truth. God may or may not throw him into hell if he lies, but the judge can still take his money and his liberty.
For all of those reasons, the only directly admissible evidence is that which the Jury hears directly from the lips of the witness, under oath, in court, with the defendant present and able to cross-examine.
EVERYTHING ELSE is Hearsay. Everything said or that happened outside of sworn testimony in court is hearsay. Police statements, films of events occurring, a witnesses written testimony somewhere else, depositions – all hearsay in fact.
The literal legal definition of hearsay under the federal rules of procedure is found in Rule 801(c)
which I quote:
Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
So, if it doesn’t happen IN the courtroom, it’s hearsay. The police report: hearsay. The victim’s direct statement to the police: hearsay. Confessions in the police station: hearsay.
Now, trouble is, if we just limit ourselves to what is said in court, and if we exclude ALL hearsay, we will not have sufficient evidence to do anything. So the “exceptions to the Hearsay Rule” admit all sorts of statements that have been made out of court.
The list of exceptions is long, and frequently common-sensical.
Confessions to the police are admissible (provided that they are not obtained through a method that breaks some other law). But note, if they ARE so obtained, they’re not admissible. NOTHING that is said out of court ever has to be admitted, it’s all hearsay and CAN all be excluded unless accepted under the many, many broad exceptions.
Testimony given under oath at depositions is generally admissible, though not always. Technical questions governed. Does the defendant have the ability to cross-examine the witness, for example.
Police reports are generally admissible, on the theory that agents of the government act in the public interest, are disinterested and can be trusted. (This is often a bit of a joke in real life, but the evidence IS admitted nevertheless.)
When it comes to documents, some are admissible, and some are not. Often it depends on what it is that the document is being offered to prove. Contemporary records of events, sense impressions, statements against interest – there are all sorts of intricate rules that are designed to allow evidence to be gleaned from the documentary record, without allowing people to either overwhelm the courts or cook up self-serving documentary alibis.
Physical objects may be admitted if they are probative of the fact in question.
There’s an “ancient documents rule” that allows things that are too old to be authenticated to nevertheless be offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
So, let’s go back to your stipulation: “Let’s agree to discuss evidence based on the type of evidence that would be admissible in a court of law in any western, industrialized nation.”
I’ll agree to that rule. I’ll bring my case before the civil law judges in a court in, say, Fatima, Portugal, or Wroclaw, Poland, or maybe Buenos Aires or Santago. Chances are that I’ll get judges who are believers, who can ask anything, and who won’t exclude Bible and other testimony. The judges are really everything.
Obviously that’s not going to work for you. You’re going to stipulate to American courts, with American rules of civil procedure.
Once we’ve wrangled around for a court – with you looking to get the case tried in San Francisco and me looking to bring it in Mississippi or maybe Salt Lake City – we end up splitting the difference and trying it in Des Moines… a place in the middle, neither radically secular nor head-attached-with-bolts conservative – a Blue State.
You’re going to move that the case be moved to summary judgment, for no evidence can be presented. You’re going to call the Bible and all of the writings of the Patristic Fathers hearsay. I’ll say “Ancient Documents!” The court will either grant your motion, or defer to specific instances of evidence, deciding case by case (there are propositions for which Scripture and Patristic writings could be ancient documents).
For my case, I will present my own miracles, directly experienced. This is not hearsay. It will be presented in court, under oath, with the possibility of cross-examination. My own direct testimony in my case is always admissible. You get to cross examine me. The jury decides who they believe. The jury also decides, if they believe me, what they think it means. I tell them it means God is. You tell them it means that I have mental problems.
Or rather, you TRY to tell them that, but I move to have the judge deny you that presentation, as you have established no foundation for asserting that I have mental problems. I say that the bald assertion that my presentation of miracles is proof of mental instability is begging the question.
The judge either rules for me, on the grounds that you have established no foundation to assert mental instability, or he rules for you and allows a psychiatric examination.
We have a battle over who does the examination, and end up with a judge-appointed doctor (because you won’t accept a theist doctor and I won’t accept an atheist), and with expert witnesses to cross examine the doctor or doctors no matter what they say, we proceed.
The doctor will come back and say that I am sane (because I am), and I’ll pile on the credentials and honors I’ve had that will convince any jury that I’m a rock solid guy (Navy pilot, high security clearances, Ivy League, stable marriage, beautiful family, etc.). But if you get the right doctor and he says that I may be unstable, I have my experts challenge the doctor and bring up every mistake or stupid thing he ever did in his testimony (impeaching the witness). All humans have mistakes, and aggressive lawyers can make anybody look like an error-prone bumbler.
In the end, I probably win the sanity test. So then you have to impeach my credibility, to persuade the jury that I’ve lied in the past and done crappy things, and that THEREFORE I may be lying about this miracle stuff too. And you win on digging up dirt, for the same reason that I won on impeaching the doctor: we’re all human, we all have dirt, and when presented artistically by an expert in character assassination, you can always bring people way down.
So, now the jury doesn’t like me as much as they did. I’m a hero with clay feet. I’m an intelligent guy, none can doubt that, but I may also be a sneaky one telling lies. I’m a lawyer after all. Doubt returns.
So, now I seek to bring two objects into evidence, two pieces of cloth, one called the Sudarion of Oviedo, the other called the Shroud of Turin. You object as to relevance. I say that these are the burial sheets of Christ. You retort that this is unprovable, and I reply that in fact the evidence contained in these sheets, these ancient documents of a sort, DO prove the divine.
You say that’s preposterous, but I offer up scientific reports. The judge will admit it, because it’s a question of fact.
Then we will have a battle of experts. You’ll offer up some scientific evidence. I will offer up more (the prepoderance of the evidence is with the Shroud). The experts will battle it out, and it will be a question of fact for the jury to decide.
Certainly my own testimony about miracles is admissible – and subject to cross and mental examination.
The Shroud and Sudarion are admissible as objects that contain probative facts. The question as to whether those facts are in fact probative or not is not a question of law. It’s a question of fact for the jury to decide. Scientific witnesses will be called on both sides. I know the facts of that particular case, and I know that my scientific evidence is much more persuasive, taken altogether.
And THEN I’ll enter the portions of the Bible that discuss the burial cloths of Jesus and the means of his crucifixion. All four Gospels discuss the grave wrappings, and the features of the crucifixion contain thereupon.
It will be a fight over the actual nature of the Shroud: work of art, or miracle. And the bulk of scientific evidence, when presented in a courtroom environment such that neither side can interrupt the other’s presentation, but with the opportunity to cross and answer, will come down decisively on the side of “Not scientifically explicable”.
With that foundation established, I’ll move to admit another set of objects: undecayed bodies. I’ll have the scientific expert witnesses that say that bodies always decay unless they, mummify (and your witnesses will say the same, because it’s true), and I’ll present these undecayed, unmummified bodies as evidence of the divine. Once again, a presentation and a cross. And once again, the preponderance of the evidence will be “not scientifically explicable”.
Then I’ll bring out the Lourdes healings, and the Marian apparition there, and the undecayed body of the girl who saw Mary there, still supple and undecayed, and unembalmed, and unmummified, after 140 odd years. You’ll cross, but the Incorrupt will already have been vetted, and a large body of doctors have already pronounced the Lourdes Healings “not scientifically explicable”.
Then I’ll move to admit the portions of Scripture that discuss Mary, and comparable healings by Jesus. You’ll move to deny as hearsay. I’ll retort “ancient document” again, that explain the content of the evidence.
The judge, jury, your lawyer and even you will be fascinated by the case as it unfolds.
Then I’ll move to present the three long-term, controlled, peer reviewed, published studies of Near-Death Experiences at hospitals, starting with the Dutch hospital study first published in the British Medical Journal “The Lancet” in the summer of 2001. You’ll move again that it’s hearsay. I’ll move that it is more direct witness testimony of the divine, and probative.
And if your hearsay objection fails, I’ll have many NDE experiencers whose experiences paralleled mine, and relate to the Lourdes miracles, ready to testify and be subject to cross. That will almost certainly be admitted for the same reason my own direct miracle testimony could not be excluded.
And then finally I’ll move for one more object. Having laid the foundation each time, first with direct personal testimony subject to cross (admissible), then with a probative artifact that is subject to scientific review, then with the ancient documents that provide the factual background to understand the probative object, then with more objects, and more still, with review and cross, I’ll get this last object into evidence, and scientific cross will, once again, leave a question mark “inexplicable”. And I’ll get one more bite at the ancient document exception to demonstrate the meaning of that object.
And then I’ll rest. I’ll have gotten several thousand objects or events into evidence, with the outcome of scientific cross being “Not scientifically explicable” each time. I’ll have only gotten about 1% of the Bible into evidence, under the ancient document exception. I’ll have gotten my miracle testimony heard, and you’ll have had a difficult time impeaching me. And with that, it’ll go to the jury.
And the jury verdict will depend on the prejudices that the jury took with them into the jury box at the start of the trial, so who wins and who loses will have all been determined before trial by which one of us won the voir dire in seating the jury, just like in practically every other case in our casino of a justice system.
Still, for our purposes, what is almost certainly admissible in a US court of law trying the facts of God and miracles are:
(1) Personal claims of miracle by a testifying witness, subject to cross.
(2) Physical objects that have been scientifically examined and that are subject to a battle of experts (the Shroud, the Incorrupt, the Lourdes healings, and the Lanciano Eucharistic miracle all meet this rule).
(3) Peer reviewed hospital NDE studies – scientific evidence, reviewable by experts.
(4) Ancient documents sufficient to establish the foundation for the above.
After I have presented my last artifact evidence and ancient document discussion, but before I close I will present one more fact. I’ll present it as a statement of fact, which means that you can object to it and try to disprove it, but you will do neither.
I will tell the judge, jury present, that I have presented the strongest admissible evidence, in the form of scientifically examinable artifacts and cross-examinable witness testimony. I will express my regret that all of the evidence I have to present is Christian, because my experts found non non-Christian physical miracles that had been sufficiently rigorously examined scientifically and subject to peer-reviewed studies. I would regret to his Honor and the jury that the content of the physical miracle argument for God was entirely Christian, but that that is what appears to be the case.
Then I will leave it to you, my adversary, to either get into the business of producing admissible non-Christian physical miracle (you won’t be able to – the scientific review requirement narrows the range of admissible artifacts to Christianity), or to let that fact just sit there, unopposed, for the jury to consider.
In voir dire, you will have taken care to eliminate all of the obvious believers of whatever faith. And I’ll have played along and made sure that the jury pool is agnostics and inactive Christians. If there’s a vocal atheist, I won’t strike him.
Because what will happen after we’ve both presented our case is that those jurors will go into that room with their heads filled with science about incredible things that can’t exist, and that are “scientifically inexplicable”, to use the words of professional (respected, peer-reviewed journals). They’ll have seen bodies that are 300 years old and undecayed, and have heard mortuary scientists say “no way”, and “if only it were that easy! A little mask of wax?” , and heard experts say that these are not mummies.
You’ll be frustrated because you won’t be able to exclude any of the physical miracle evidence.
It would be a merry trial, and under the rules of evidence, those portions of Scripture pertaining to Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, his healing miracles, his mother, and the peculiar things he said about the eucharist will all be admissible under “ancient document” rules, because they explain the context of the physical evidence already presented.
The beauty of such a trial situation would be that each side would be forced to be completely silent (under pain of contempt) to hear and see the complete evidence presentation of the other side, and would not be able to walk out or end the conversation at any strategic moment.
So, to close, your stipulation of “admissible in court in any western society” would allow whatever interested the judges in most countries. You mean American rules. And depending what the issue on trial was, the evidence I’ve discussed: direct miracle testimony from live witnesses, physical artifacts that appear to break the laws of physics and that have been studied, and peer reviewed hospital studies of NDEs are admissible. So are any ancient documents that give context to what these things mean. I couldn’t present the Bible on its own, no. But having presented the Shroud, and had the thermochemists explain what the image is, and how there’s no way it can exist, I will then be able to admit the ancient document that describes these cloths and their features with some detail.
And my jury, those lapsed Christians, agnostics, apathists, and that one vocal atheist (who will be like the grain of sand that makes the pearl in the jury room for me), will hear these things, remember things, be surprised that there actually is all of this “stuff” out there, be surprised at the serious scientists who have looked at it, and their conclusions.
I COULD put a parade of miracle witnesses on the stand, but I won’t – because nobody believes them. But I’d subject MYSELF to your cross, because the jury would come to think I was honest and you were mean.
If I did the voir dire right, I’d win. If you did it right, you’d win.
And the result wouldn’t convince a soul anywhere.
But the people who sat in that courtroom would scratch their heads and wonder about some of what they say. So would you.
Which is why at the outset you’d object to the admission of any evidence.
Which is why you stated the court rules as your rule.
But if religion were on direct trial, I could get artifacts, peer-reviewed science, and personal testimony in. And if each side had to be silent when the other spoke, and was not permitted to leave – the regular rules of court – and had to answer the questions of the other – and the people making the case were not themselves the jury…well, it’d be fun.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Archae:
What you say is very true. My last thread holding me to my conservative Christian faith was…Paul.
I had just recently given up my belief that the Gospels were eyewitness testimony by a side by side comparison of the six Resurrection accounts (the gospels, Acts, and I Corinthians 15). An honest comparison of the six accounts, side by side, proved to me that eyewitnesses would not give such divergent testimony.
So it all rested on Paul.
And the more I read about the teachings of Paul, the more I realized that he knew nothing about the Jesus of the Gospels. His Christ was someone completely different. And Acts chapter 26 was the final straw. I had never read that Paul himself referred to his experience as a “heavenly vision”. Why would Paul call seeing a real, flesh and blood resurrected body a “vision”? Did the authors of the gospels ever use the term “vision” to refer to the appearance of Jesus to the Eleven??
No. The gospels infer that the disciples saw a real walking, talking, broiled-fish-eating dead man…but Paul only saw a bright light…in a VISION.
Paul did not see a real body. He saw a light…a talking light. That’s it.
I came to the decision that I could not base my entire life and my worldview on one man’s testimony of seeing lights.
That was almost one year ago.
LikeLiked by 2 people
All this discussion of Paul reminds me of the commentor, I think her name was Laurie….That felt Paul was an antichrist of some sort. She had more of a Messianic Jewish perspective. I really enjoyed her input.
LikeLike
Crown … all I can say is WOW! What an educational comment.
LikeLike
Hi Crown, I start by saying that I am already on your side of the fence, if not in 100% agreement, so I’m biased.
But truly, that was the most amazing, informative comment I think I have ever seen on the internet.
Thanks you for sharing all your knowledge and experience and putting it into that hypothetical. I will be quoting it somewhere, I’m sure, perhaps even in its entirety.
And for what it’s worth, I agree with you about it all turning on the choice of the jury. I have only ever been on one jury, and in the end the decision (we couldn’t agree) all turned on the fact that a young and somewhat arrogant guy who had some lawyers in his family pushed himself forward to become the jury foreman, and then used that position to refuse to accept the police case because he knew and (in my judgment) he enjoyed grandstanding.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Crown,
Thank you for the fascinating review of the law.
So I revise my criteria:
1. US court.
2. Neutral, impartial jury.
(Yes, I know that would be hard to find, but let’s try. Someone who grew up neither religious or non-religious. Someone who doesn’t base their life on the supernatural but is open to the possibility that the supernatural exists. How about, non-religious, college educated, Japanese Americans?
3. Issue to decide: Is there enough evidence for the alleged Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in the first century AD to convince a neutral jury today, in a US court, that it was indeed an historical event?
4. Where is DagoodS when I need him??
LikeLike
Dear Crown,
Without a neutral, unbiased jury, I would bet that you would win your case if the trial were held in Des Moines, if the issue on trial were the historicity of the supernatural claims of Christianity. However, if you were arguing in favor of the historicity of the supernatural claims of Islam or Hinduism in a trial in Des Moines, I think you would lose. And not because non-Christian supernatural claims have not been studied well enough by science or have not been thoroughly peer-reviewed.
The Muslim and Hindu supernatural claims would fail to persuade the typical Iowa jury because most people in Iowa do not believe in supernatural religious superstitions…except those of their own religion.
LikeLike
1. US court.
Ok. We have to pick WHERE.
Let’s go forum shopping, and we have to agree.
I’m not going to accept anywhere in the Northeast or the West coast. You’re not going to accept anywhere in the South. That leaves the Midwest. If you’re smart, you’re never going to accept anything south of the Ohio River. I’m not going to accept Illinois.
What does that leave?
Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota? You’ll veto.
What’s left, then? Minnesota or Wisconsin? Hmmm. You’ll take them. I’m leery.
What then? Indiana, Ohio? You should outright reject Indiana. Ohio maybe.
Iowa or Michigan. That’s probably what we’re stuck with: Iowa or Michigan.
You pick. I’ll accept either. Not thrilled about the choices, but they’re probably the most neutral. I’d lean towards Iowa, because it’s all farms.
You’d probably be wise to lean towards Michigan.
And so, with a whole big beautiful United States to choose as our venue, we’d end up in fucking DETROIT – because THAT’S how our adversarial justice system works out in the end: only when everybody is screwed and nobody is happy does it feel like justice.
2. Neutral, impartial jury.
For that, we’re going to have to go to some other planet. And even that may not work. (You’re not going to accept a jury from Kolob, are you?)
Japanese Americans? Ha! The Japanese are the most atheistic people on the planet.
Mankind is a mortal knows it. There’s nobody in America who doesn’t have an opinion about God. And that’s the problem in finding a jury, isn’t it? Everybody has already judged the broader case. Jews reject Jesus’ resurrection, or they’d be Christians. People who believe in the resurrection are religious. Muslims don’t think Jesus died in the first place. There is no neutral, impartial jury. So we’re going to get stuck with whatever jury the justice system gives us, and depending on who guessed at who was hiding his or her emotions about religion the best, one of us will win. I’ll probably win. I can practically read people’s minds. It’ll be a hollow victory, though, because what’s at stake here is not someone’s liberty or property, but the credibility of an idea. So, I’ll be able to use my understanding of human nature to get a jury favorable to me, which means I win the game…but that will prove nothing.
We could just dispense with the jury and make the jury is you and me. We know we can’t get a neutral and impartial jury, and nothing whatever will be accomplished. The real question is whether the partisans, us, themselves can be persuaded of anything by logic or fact.
One nice thing about having each other as the jurors is that it forces cordial exchanges. In front of third parties you can insult your opponent’s parentage, but it doesn’t work too well when your adversary is also the judge of your case.
3. Issue to decide:
You’ve proposed: Is there enough evidence for the alleged Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in the first century AD to convince a neutral jury today, in a US court, that it was indeed an historical event?
I propose: Is there enough evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth in the First Century AD to convince you, following general US court rules, that it was indeed an historical even. And conversely, is there insufficient evidence for the alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth to convince me that it either was not an historical event?
4. All of this is predicated on the noition that you, and I, really do want to find the Truth, if it can be found. I waved off discussions on this site because I am utterly uninterested in a personal fight.
Alright, so, it’s Detroit (grumble)…WAIT! Because WE’RE the jury, we don’t have to pin ourselves down. We can fly all over the planet to conduct our trial. I like that better.
So, I’ll pick the first place of our meeting. Our first venue is Hanauma Bay, Oahu. There are, to be sure, other places I think are even better, but naming some obscure beach on Guadeloupe sounds scary. So, we establish bona fides with coconuts, pineapples and mai-tais on the beach at Hanauma Bay. At the end, we may still end up with a hung jury, but it will be worth it if the jury is also hungover.
I’ll start with a stipulations:
I am eventually going to enter some ancient documents into evidence. However, I will stipulate from the beginning that I will not enter anything into evidence that was written by the Apostle Paul.
The ancient documents that I will enter into evidence will be small portions of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and a portion of the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas Didymus.
Because these documents cannot be authenticated as to author, and the writers cannot be cross examined, I will be unable to enter these documents as primary witnesses. Rather, I will only be able to enter them as corroborative or substantiating testimony to facts for which I have otherwise laid a proper foundation.
In other words, no intricate Biblical knowledge is required, and we’re not going to follow the white rabbit down the hole and twisty-turny all through 1500 pages of Scripture and come out the end and say “Voila, Resurrection! Because…BIBLE! Yay.”
That’s been done before, and it’s ridiculous crap.
Given that religion tells me what I can do with my pee-pee, and I have always rather enjoyed going on adventures with my pee-pee, if I’m going to be constrained by some spook into actually giving up on my favorite hobbies, then there had damned well better be PROOF for it. Otherwise – uptight people who want to tell me what to do with my pee-pee (or WORSE, try to TOUCH IT when I’m five) can go stuff themselves and their fairy tales and die in a hole.
It has to be REAL, or it’s all a bunch of crap. I like exotic women. I like tropical beaches. I like to do exotic women on tropical beaches, with mai-tais and pineapples for desert. If I’m going to take the exotic women part out and sit on the damned beach and be satisfied with the Mai-Tai (and no, it ain’t the same – they can CALL the drink “Sex on the Beach”, but alcohol is a glass is most definitely not sex on the beach, or anything remotely LIKE sex on the beach.
So listen, God, if you’re telling me that I actually have to give up sex on the beach, then you had damned well better PROVE your case. Because you’re asking more than I’m gonna to give up if you don’t. Call me Thomas with a hard on. He was at least EAGER for you to prove yourself. I’m unhappy that you did, because this is one dog who LIKES his vomit. But it is what it is, and he proved it to me. Now I’ll prove it to you. On that beach. With no sex. Dammit.
Your jury.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Crown:
Hey, I like you! You are funny!
“Because these documents (the four gospels and the gospel of Thomas) cannot be authenticated as to author, and the writers cannot be cross examined, I will be unable to enter these documents as primary witnesses. Rather, I will only be able to enter them as corroborative or substantiating testimony to facts for which I have otherwise laid a proper foundation.”
If you and I are the jury, go for it. Anyone who knows the story of my deconversion knows that I did not leave Christianity due to being mad at God, or my pastor, or that I had a secret sin I wanted to indulge. I left due to the evidence (lack there of). If you think you have evidence that might convince me to change my mind…present your evidence, Counselor.
LikeLike
Gary, you’re missing the point about how Christians use internal evidence. You make it sound like I’m trying to shove my view down your throat based on my own personal internal evidences. Please try to understand this. Like I said from the beginning. . . no one wants you to change your mind based on their own internal experiences. Does that make sense? At the very least, you cannot assume that we want to unless we state this explicitly.
Using the “that’s typically what conservative Christians do when I say” line when I actually am not doing that particular action suggests to me you aren’t even reading what I type. Can you not understand or do you not respect me? Do you just want to win an argument so you can get a golden star?
Lastly, your approach by its nature makes inferior a group of serious thinkers. It is bigoted and the way your rhetoric suggests to me some kind of superiority complex. Is that really so? I don’t know for sure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m sorry if I offended you or misunderstood you, Brandon.
I have a suggestion, watch how I interact with “Crown” in our ongoing discussion regarding evidence for the Resurrection. He is going to present some evidence from the Gospels (but not as eyewitness testimony). I’m open to hearing what he has to say. Hopefully you will see that I AM interested in evidence, But I’m not interested in debating what constitutes reality. It seemed to me that that is where you wanted to go. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It don’t describe me —
LikeLike
Thanks for your kindness Gary. I’m sorry for being too blunt and negative especially with my last comment. I need to be more diplomatic. And, on a positive note, I think your deconversion story makes sense from an intellectual standpoint.
I’ll be interested to see what you and Crown come up with.
LikeLike
*replace diplomatic with constructive, that’s the word!
LikeLike
I liked Laurie, and yes, she was a Messianic Jew.
LikeLike
Nate, congrats on passing 400 followers, that’s pretty cool.
I concur with Nan and UnkleE – that long comment from Crown was very informative and well written. Thank you for sharing, Crown, you mentioned some things I’ve not heard of so I’ll be checking those out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…do you not respect me? – I’ve yet to find anyone who does.
LikeLike
Gary M
Alright, well, we had our opening arguments on the beach in Hawaii. Now we’re getting on a plane to Iberia. We’re staying in the town of Oviedo. The Court is assembled. You have given me permission to go first, and so I will begin.
Your Honor, I would like to enter into evidence this old piece of cloth [Presents a photograph.] Please enter this as The Crown’s Exibit 1.
The original cloth that this is a photograph of is in that monastery just over the hill.
Your Honor, distinguished jury, let’s talk about this old bloody rag.
But let’s do it tomorrow.
LikeLike