smoking and usage

g0pher · #1 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007, 02:34 PM

Paul is tried for the murder of Jim. At the trial, Paul's attorney introduces his star witness: Jim, the alleged murder victim!

Paul's defense, then, is obvious: Jim is alive today so Jim was never murdered. This would seem to lead to a clear win for the defense, right?

. . . well, not so fast,

Under cross-examination and much to the defense attorney's dismay, Jim incredibly says that Paul really did murder him and that he (Jim) is alive today because he was resurrected from the dead after the murder.

The prosecutor then introduces the following into evidence: A written account of an interview which he says he conducted with a group of people who say that they saw Jim's dead body.

None of the people who were allegedly interviewed by the prosecutor are available to be cross-examined by Paul's attorney or even to testify under oath that the words in the written interview are their actual words.

Will the jury buy this and believe that Jim was resurrected from the dead? If not, then why not?

If a Christian can answer that question and if he's intellectually honest, then he will have the answer as to why it is equally ridiculous to believe that Jesus was physically resurrected.

There is MUCH stronger evidence in the scenario for the resurrection of Jim than that which exists for the resurrection of Jesus. This is because while we have only hearsay testimony that Jesus lived again after his alleged death, the fact that Jim is alive after his alleged death can be directly observed by anyone in the courtroom!

If you spot an obvious place where this analogy breaks down please point it out. If not, then how is it that can anyone maintain that to believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead is in the smallest degree a reasonable belief to hold?

DurbanPoison · #2 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007, 02:38 PM

The only thing I could think of is that nobody is claiming Jim to be the Son of God? LoL

I suppose that's where the faith part of the religion comes into play.

Highbinder · #3 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DurbanPoison

nobody is claiming Jim to be the Son of God? LoL

Dingdingding! We have the answer.

Nice try, tho, g0pher

africantapwater · #4 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DurbanPoison

The only thing I could think of is that nobody is claiming Jim to be the Son of God? LoL

Damn elitists.

Adicted2aa · #5 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Highbinder

Dingdingding! We have the answer.

Nice try, tho, g0pher

Yeah, Jim needs at least have people claim that he's done miracles. It needs to be a rumor spreading around the internet at the very least.
Also a jury needs the proof to be beyond a shadow of a doubt, something faith doesn't require. There is a reason for the seperation of religion and state, despite most of the founding fathers being prodestant christians.

Liquidtruth · #6 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

despite most of the founding fathers being prodestant christians.

[web]http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html[/web]

the roach · #7 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

[web]http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html[/web]

fantastic!

MelT · #8 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007, 08:04 PM

^^^^^^^^

But am I missing the point? Doesn't Gopher deride christianity here, not support it as someposters think? Or is it me....?

MelT

DCrist721 · #9 (**permalink**) 12-02-2007, 09:25 PM

Even if this was true and possible, it would seem to me that Paul could at most only be convicted for attempted murder.

For instance, if you were able to induce a heart attack in someone with a poison and their heart stopped, but they were brought back, wouldn't that only be attempted murder, even though they were technically dead for a short period and "ressurected"?

Adicted2aa · #10 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

[web]http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html[/web]

I didn't read the whole thing, so perhaps I'mm being foolish, but that seems to talk more about whether or not this is a christian nation, than it is about the religion of our founders. I see that it mentions a spefic few, of whom many were deists, or agnogstics, but I was under the impression that the continental congress was mainly christian. I don't really have time to look it up right now, hence me not reading the whole thing. If you can produce evidence stating the congress was mainly deists(unless what you did produce does speak of the majority) please do. If you already have, if you could just inform me when I have time I'll look it over more thouroughlu

mrblonde77 · #11 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 03:36 AM

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Thomas Paine, etc. were NOT Christian. This country took a turn for the worst when we put Christians in charge. No surprise there.

Liquidtruth · #12 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adicted2aa

I didn't read the whole thing, so perhaps I'mm being foolish, but that seems to talk more about whether or not this is a christian nation, than it is about the religion of our founders. I see that it mentions a spefic few, of whom many were deists, or agnogstics, but I was under the impression that the continental congress was mainly christian. I don't really have time to look it up right now, hence me not reading the whole thing. If you can produce evidence stating the congress was mainly deists(unless what you did produce does speak of the majority) please do. If you already have, if you could just inform me when I have time I'll look it over more thouroughlu

I have no idea of the entire religious affiliation of the Continental Congress. I am sure a good portion of them were Christians. Though, I do not know for certain. Many of the founding fathers were not Christians. If you read the site I posted you may be surprised at how many non-Christians were Presidents of the US, something that is almost unheard of today, and would probably shock a good portion of the American public.

Toke'n Girl · #13 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 05:53 AM

I would also get Paul on attempted murder, but only if a witness would come forward that saw the attempt. If no one did, and Jim had no medical records of records of injury, I would have to conclude that it was probably a hoax.

So, in other words it would depend on the situation. Personally, I think many average americans would be all too likely to believe Jim without much question. I think this is disgusting. It is all about social programming.

TheRoeBiz · #14 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 06:00 AM

Most Christians I know don't readily believe in miracles like that. Almost every religious person I know would call Jim a liar and claim that he's going to hell for being a false prophet or some other such tripe. At least in my part of the world that's how it goes. The religious are too sensible to accept miracles happening in the present but not quite enlightened enough to denounce those that occurred in the past and future.

g0pher · #15 (**permalink**) 12-03-2007, 05:12 PM

If it is absurd to try a man for murder when his alleged victim is known to be alive, then how much more absurd is it to believe, on no more than the alleged testimony of a few anonymous people, that a man whom we've never seen either alive or dead was resurrected from the dead?

In the former case, we're asked to believe, on nothing more than anonymous testimony, that a man, who is plainly seen by us to be alive, was once dead-- a ridiculous proposition on the face of it.

In the latter, we're asked to believe that a man, who is not observed by us to be alive, was executed and then was later seen by other people to be alive -- a doubly ridiculous proposition.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

smoking and usage

chill out zone

marijuana growing

marijuana news and discussions

web site feedback

#1 (permalink) 12-02-2007, 02:34 PM
g0pher A Toast - to the Ganja Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: solon Posts: 525	A Ridiculous Proposition Paul is tried for the murder of Jim. At the trial, Paul's attorney introduces his star witness: Jim, the alleged murder victim! Paul's defense, then, is obvious: Jim is alive today so Jim was never murdered. This would seem to lead to a clear win for the defense, right? . . . well, not so fast, Under cross-examination and much to the defense attorney's dismay, Jim incredibly says that Paul really did murder him and that he (Jim) is alive today because he was resurrected from the dead after the murder. The prosecutor then introduces the following into evidence: A written account of an interview which he says he conducted with a group of people who say that they saw Jim's dead body. None of the people who were allegedly interviewed by the prosecutor are available to be cross-examined by Paul's attorney or even to testify under oath that the words in the written interview are their actual words. Will the jury buy this and believe that Jim was resurrected from the dead? If not, then why not? If a Christian can answer that question and if he's intellectually honest, then he will have the answer as to why it is equally ridiculous to believe that Jesus was physically resurrected. There is MUCH stronger evidence in the scenario for the resurrection of Jim than that which exists for the resurrection of Jesus. This is because while we have only hearsay testimony that Jesus lived again after his alleged death, the fact that Jim is alive after his alleged death can be directly observed by anyone in the courtroom! If you spot an obvious place where this analogy breaks down please point it out. If not, then how is it that can anyone maintain that to believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead is in the smallest degree a reasonable belief to hold? __________________ "He who has a why to live can bear with the how"

#2 (permalink) 12-02-2007, 02:38 PM
DurbanPoison Gonzo Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Here - and sometimes over there a bit. Posts: 4,422	The only thing I could think of is that nobody is claiming Jim to be the Son of God? LoL I suppose that's where the faith part of the religion comes into play. __________________

#8 (permalink) 12-02-2007, 08:04 PM
MelT Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,435	^^^^^^^^ But am I missing the point? Doesn't Gopher deride christianity here, not support it as someposters think? Or is it me....? MelT Last edited by MelT; 12-02-2007 at 08:07 PM.

#9 (permalink) 12-02-2007, 09:25 PM
DCrist721 Banned Join Date: May 2006 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 1,285	Even if this was true and possible, it would seem to me that Paul could at most only be convicted for attempted murder. For instance, if you were able to induce a heart attack in someone with a poison and their heart stopped, but they were brought back, wouldn't that only be attempted murder, even though they were technically dead for a short period and "ressurected"?

#13 (permalink) 12-03-2007, 05:53 AM
Toke'n Girl Chronic Smoker Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In a place with an oppressive government. Posts: 154 Blog Entries: 1	I would also get Paul on attempted murder, but only if a witness would come forward that saw the attempt. If no one did, and Jim had no medical records of records of injury, I would have to conclude that it was probably a hoax. So, in other words it would depend on the situation. Personally, I think many average americans would be all too likely to believe Jim without much question. I think this is disgusting. It is all about social programming. __________________ "...let's go! I've got jelly in my underpants!" -Fry "I might as well jump, those sleazy no-good scammers made me look like a chump. They robbed me of my dignity and most of my stuff" -Prof. Farnsworth

#14 (permalink) 12-03-2007, 06:00 AM
TheRoeBiz Livin' large; like kermit Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: CA Posts: 495	Most Christians I know don't readily believe in miracles like that. Almost every religious person I know would call Jim a liar and claim that he's going to hell for being a false prophet or some other such tripe. At least in my part of the world that's how it goes. The religious are too sensible to accept miracles happening in the present but not quite enlightened enough to denounce those that occurred in the past and future. __________________

#15 (permalink) 12-03-2007, 05:12 PM
g0pher A Toast - to the Ganja Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: solon Posts: 525	If it is absurd to try a man for murder when his alleged victim is known to be alive, then how much more absurd is it to believe, on no more than the alleged testimony of a few anonymous people, that a man whom we've never seen either alive or dead was resurrected from the dead? In the former case, we're asked to believe, on nothing more than anonymous testimony, that a man, who is plainly seen by us to be alive, was once dead-- a ridiculous proposition on the face of it. In the latter, we're asked to believe that a man, who is not observed by us to be alive, was executed and then was later seen by other people to be alive -- a doubly ridiculous proposition. __________________ "He who has a why to live can bear with the how"

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)