false witness/testimony

[cuchulain]

First, some definitions, since those always seem to get murky somehow.

False:  not according with truth or fact, incorrect.  deliberately made or meant to deceive.  

Fact:  a thing that is proved to be true.  

Proof:  evidence or argument establishing a fact.

True:  in accordance with fact or reality.

Testimony:  a formal written or spoken statement.

Witness:  a person who sees an event, evidence or proof.

Evidence:  the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Substantiated:  evidence to support or prove the truth of.

Supposition:  an uncertain belief.

 

False witness or testimony can be defined from these as:  A statement that is not in accord with the truth or fact, or is incorrect.  Perhaps also a person falsely claiming to witness something, providing false evidence.

 

In debates, I have often encountered false evidence/testimony, especially in dealing with Christians.  It boggles the mind that a person can be so hypocritical as to provide false testimony about a religion that specifically claims providing false testimony as a sin, but that's human nature I suppose.  

 

For example...when a Christian makes the claim, "the tomb is empty!  He is arisen!".  It is a testimony in support of religious belief, or a formal statement that claims these facts as true, therefor the religion must be based on truth.  The problem for me is the claimant is never capable of producing the empty tomb, nor showing that "He", i.e. Jesus, is really risen.  They haven't witnessed anything first hand, they cannot provide an accurate location for said tomb(The location available has not been determined with certainty to be the actual tomb of Jesus),  they cannot provide substantiated witness statements of someone who actually saw Jesus rise from the grave(One person's eye witness account is not a substantiated claim, nor verified), they cannot provide medical testimony that states Jesus was really dead in the first place...in other words...the testimony of any Christian claiming "the tomb is empty, he is arisen!" is at best false testimony, a sin.  

 

I know some will claim their holy book is the substantiating evidence, but this is not acceptable as substantiating evidence.  It is hearsay at best, testimony that in and of itself has never been proven true or false, by anonymous authors, which we have no way of testing.  But something else bothersome.  Many Christians will tell you readily that you have to accept it on faith, that evidence isn't important but belief is.  I can understand and accept that it is true for them, although not for me.  But then they will go on to cite such false testimony as given above as if it is beyond reproach, as if it's better than video evidence with absolute 100% certainty correct.  Which is it?  Do you not need evidence that cannot be provided, or do you have absolute evidence and thus your faith is really based in fact?  The truth is the first, but many will claim to have that absolute evidence...a false claim at best, especially when that very same person has acknowledged that there is NO absolute evidence.

 

My summary from all this?  My take?  A lot of Christians are liars.  Oh, it's not just Christians, of course.  Those are the ones I have the most interaction with.  Religious, superstitious, supernatural claims of a wide variety, all fall into the same category.  It's just that hypocrisy that really bothers me, from Christians, who claim such a high moral standard and then lie through their teeth to try to convince you of something AFTER TELLING YOU THE EVIDENCE DOESN'T EXIST!

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Yes.  Just so.          

 

 

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Many Christians will tell you readily that you have to accept it on faith, that evidence isn't important but belief is.  I can understand and accept that it is true for them, although not for me.  But then they will go on to cite such false testimony as given above as if it is beyond reproach, as if it's better than video evidence with absolute 100% certainty correct.  Which is it?  Do you not need evidence that cannot be provided, or do you have absolute evidence and thus your faith is really based in fact?  The truth is the first, but many will claim to have that absolute evidence...a false claim at best, especially when that very same person has acknowledged that there is NO absolute evidence. 

 

My summary from all this?  My take?  A lot of Christians are liars. 

 

Truthful testimony is subjective, no matter how you frame it.. The person hearing or reading it decides whether the testimony is credible or not. If I tell you my house is green, you can either believe it or chalk it off as a lie. If I sent you a picture of my green house, you would either accept that as sufficient proof, or still have doubt and require evidence that the house pictured was actually mine. I could then show you a copy of the property deed with my name on it, but you might question whether the document was doctored.. If I sent a DVD of myself walking into my green house, you could question whether it was actually me in the video or whether the house I was walking into actually belonged to someone else..If I got 5 people to testify that my house is green, you could write that off as just friends of mine who were willing to lie for me. If I performed some kind of miraculous miracle to prove my house was green, even that evidence would not likely suffice as it would be written-off as some unexplained trick.

 

My point is that no testimony, witness, or evidence will persuade a person who has chosen not to believe. Christians hold the bible to be self-evident, so we perceive it to be the truth. I'd agree that there is no such thing as absolute evidence, but just as a juror is persuaded by the testimony of witnesses in a trial, Christians are likewise convinced by the record of biblical witnesses, and I wouldn't define either as liars.

 

 

[cuchulain]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Truthful testimony is subjective, no matter how you frame it.. The person hearing or reading it decides whether the testimony is credible or not. If I tell you my house is green, you can either believe it or chalk it off as a lie. If I sent you a picture of my green house, you would either accept that as sufficient proof, or still have doubt and require evidence that the house pictured was actually mine. I could then show you a copy of the property deed with my name on it, but you might question whether the document was doctored.. If I sent a DVD of myself walking into my green house, you could question whether it was actually me in the video or whether the house I was walking into actually belonged to someone else..If I got 5 people to testify that my house is green, you could write that off as just friends of mine who were willing to lie for me. If I performed some kind of miraculous miracle to prove my house was green, even that evidence would not likely suffice as it would be written-off as some unexplained trick.

 

My point is that no testimony, witness, or evidence will persuade a person who has chosen not to believe. Christians hold the bible to be self-evident, so we perceive it to be the truth. I'd agree that there is no such thing as absolute evidence, but just as a juror is persuaded by the testimony of witnesses in a trial, Christians are likewise convinced by the record of biblical witnesses, and I wouldn't define either as liars.

 

 

Continuing the court room analogy...did you know that in sex assault cases against minors in Illinois, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is legally defined as the jury believes the claimants testimony?  They said so is legally enough evidence.  That's kind of what you are saying here...and it's bunk.  If you held that as the reasonable state of evidence, you would believe in Zeus.  Especially in conjunction with your other statements, that you hold the bible to be true because it mentions places and people that really lived at the time.  So too does Greek mythology...and someone said so, but you still don't believe Greek mythology any more than I believe Christian mythology. 

I will reiterate again, though for the life of me I don't know why because you just fail to grasp this simple concept:  I don't choose to disbelieve Christianity, or any other mythology.  It just isn't credible.  Talking bushes, floods that kill everyone except Noah and his family...and that they magically reproduced enough to repopulate the world to what we have it today...unicorns, dragons, talking snakes...this all takes a little bit more proof to accept than you own a green house.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Truthful testimony is subjective, no matter how you frame it.. The person hearing or reading it decides whether the testimony is credible or not. If I tell you my house is green, you can either believe it or chalk it off as a lie. If I sent you a picture of my green house, you would either accept that as sufficient proof, or still have doubt and require evidence that the house pictured was actually mine. I could then show you a copy of the property deed with my name on it, but you might question whether the document was doctored.. If I sent a DVD of myself walking into my green house, you could question whether it was actually me in the video or whether the house I was walking into actually belonged to someone else..If I got 5 people to testify that my house is green, you could write that off as just friends of mine who were willing to lie for me. If I performed some kind of miraculous miracle to prove my house was green, even that evidence would not likely suffice as it would be written-off as some unexplained trick.

 

My point is that no testimony, witness, or evidence will persuade a person who has chosen not to believe. Christians hold the bible to be self-evident, so we perceive it to be the truth. I'd agree that there is no such thing as absolute evidence, but just as a juror is persuaded by the testimony of witnesses in a trial, Christians are likewise convinced by the record of biblical witnesses, and I wouldn't define either as liars.

 

 

 

 

The salvation of billions, does not rest on the color of your house.  More important matters, require better evidence of a more substantial nature.  It is sad, that the color of your house, has much better evidence than inerrant Scripture.

 

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I will reiterate again, though for the life of me I don't know why because you just fail to grasp this simple concept:  I don't choose to disbelieve Christianity, or any other mythology.  It just isn't credible.  Talking bushes, floods that kill everyone except Noah and his family...and that they magically reproduced enough to repopulate the world to what we have it today...unicorns, dragons, talking snakes...this all takes a little bit more proof to accept than you own a green house.

 

My point was that no evidence and no proof would make you believe what you've already decided is false. If Christ appeared right in front of you and performed a miracle, you wouldn't believe it.. You would instead search for an explanation of what you witnessed in order to rationalize to yourself how it could have happened.

 

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The salvation of billions, does not rest on the color of your house.  More important matters, require better evidence of a more substantial nature.  It is sad, that the color of your house, has much better evidence than inerrant Scripture.

 

The color of my house was inerrant, not the scriptures. The salvation of billions rest on their faith, not proof that satisfies their curiosity. Consider that we are here to prove ourselves to God, not vice versa. A person who hears/reads the story of Christ and rejects it, is more likely looking for something else. If you don't believe Christ was/is the Truth, your left to concoct your own version of what's true..

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

My point was that no evidence and no proof would make you believe what you've already decided is false. If Christ appeared right in front of you and performed a miracle, you wouldn't believe it.. You would instead search for an explanation of what you witnessed in order to rationalize to yourself how it could have happened.

 

 

The color of my house was inerrant, not the scriptures. The salvation of billions rest on their faith, not proof that satisfies their curiosity. Consider that we are here to prove ourselves to God, not vice versa. A person who hears/reads the story of Christ and rejects it, is more likely looking for something else. If you don't believe Christ was/is the Truth, your left to concoct your own version of what's true..

 

 

I'm going to have to think about that.

 

I've thought about it.

 

No.

 

[Songster]

11 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

My point was that no evidence and no proof would make you believe what you've already decided is false. If Christ appeared right in front of you and performed a miracle, you wouldn't believe it.. You would instead search for an explanation of what you witnessed in order to rationalize to yourself how it could have happened.

 

 

The color of my house was inerrant, not the scriptures. The salvation of billions rest on their faith, not proof that satisfies their curiosity. Consider that we are here to prove ourselves to God, not vice versa. A person who hears/reads the story of Christ and rejects it, is more likely looking for something else. If you don't believe Christ was/is the Truth, your left to concoct your own version of what's true..

We are not here to prove ourselves to God. We are here to glorify Him and His creation. Those that don't recognize or acknowledge His existence do not get to decide for others whether He exists.

Denials of the Truth, made by those ignorant of the Truth, does not alter the Truth.

[Dan56]

11 minutes ago, Songster said:

We are not here to prove ourselves to God. We are here to glorify Him and His creation.

 

My point was that by faith, we prove (demonstrate) our belief in God.. It would be difficult to glorify God if you have no faith. Jesus said, 'whosoever believeth, who keeps my commandments, etc' .. That's all I meant... And I do agree, that the Truth is the truth whether a person acknowledges it or not.

[cuchulain]

That you believe a thing to be true doesn't make it so...and again, you make it sound like a crime to question.  For such an enlightened being, God sure does have awfully thin skin, doesn't he?  He can forgive any sin, from stealing to murder...but not blasphemy, not bad mouthing the holy spirit.  THAT is beyond reproach?  No...it's ludicrous at face value. 

 

You think I wouldn't be capable of changing my mind?  Look in the mirror before casting stones, Dan.  Your arguments wiggle more than an earthworm on a hot sidewalk.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, cuchulain said:

That you believe a thing to be true doesn't make it so...and again, you make it sound like a crime to question.  For such an enlightened being, God sure does have awfully thin skin, doesn't he?  He can forgive any sin, from stealing to murder...but not blasphemy, not bad mouthing the holy spirit.  THAT is beyond reproach?  No...it's ludicrous at face value. 

 

You think I wouldn't be capable of changing my mind?  Look in the mirror before casting stones, Dan.  Your arguments wiggle more than an earthworm on a hot sidewalk.

 

Of course, you could change your mind.  If the evidence indicated that a change was reasonable.  You are evidence oriented.  It is "faith" that can't change.  Faith can shatter.  Faith can crumble.  Faith can be lost.  But it can't change.

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

That you believe a thing to be true doesn't make it so...and again, you make it sound like a crime to question.  For such an enlightened being, God sure does have awfully thin skin, doesn't he?  He can forgive any sin, from stealing to murder...but not blasphemy, not bad mouthing the holy spirit.  THAT is beyond reproach?  No...it's ludicrous at face value. 

 

You think I wouldn't be capable of changing my mind?  Look in the mirror before casting stones, Dan.  Your arguments wiggle more than an earthworm on a hot sidewalk.

 

That's true, me believing that something is true doesn't make it so.. And its no crime to question everything, in fact its a wise thing to do; "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

 

Imo, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is only something a Christian can do, its unforgivable because it would be a direct and blatant offense by an enlightened person.

 

And I don't think your capable of changing your mind because you reject belief, which is a choice Christians are called to make. Without direct physical indisputable evidence, you won't consider the possibility that something is true. "Without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

[cuchulain]

14 hours ago, Dan56 said:

  

That's true, me believing that something is true doesn't make it so.. And its no crime to question everything, in fact its a wise thing to do; "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

 

Imo, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is only something a Christian can do, its unforgivable because it would be a direct and blatant offense by an enlightened person.

 

And I don't think your capable of changing your mind because you reject belief, which is a choice Christians are called to make. Without direct physical indisputable evidence, you won't consider the possibility that something is true. "Without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

I don't believe that belief is a choice.  Can you provide evidence, or proof of such a claim?

 

For blasphemy...Mathew 12:31  Therefor I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the holy ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him.  but whosoever speaketh against the holy ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.  

 

I don't see anything there about being a believer, and only believers being capable of sinning in such a manner. In fact, your perfect myth says quite clearly "man", which should be inclusive of all men I should think.  Ahhh…..wait a minute!  We have another case of crystal clear scripture being mistranslated, even though it's perfect!  And of course, you cannot prove the bible, so you cannot hold to 1 Thessalonians 5:21, since you cannot prove your book.  Isn't that a contradiction within the ideals of the bible?  It telling you to believe it completely(Hebrews 11 6, anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists...Romans 10 7, consequently faith comes from hearing the message...Romans 15 13, may the god of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him...Peter 1 8-12, Though you have not seen him, you love him) but then telling you in a different part to question all things?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

That's true, me believing that something is true doesn't make it so.. And its no crime to question everything, in fact its a wise thing to do; "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

 

1.  Imo, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is only something a Christian can do, its unforgivable because it would be a direct and blatant offense by an enlightened person.

 

And I don't think your capable of changing your mind because you reject belief, which is a choice Christians are called to make. 2.  Without direct physical indisputable evidence, you won't consider the possibility that something is true. "Without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

 

1.  So.  The only unforgivable sin is leaving the faith?  I can't say that I'm surprised.

 

2.  Your terms.  Not his.  How about evidence which is not improbable -- to the point of being ludicrous?  

 

[Dan56]

11 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I don't believe that belief is a choice.  Can you provide evidence, or proof of such a claim?

 

Since you can't command someone to believe, it must be a choice.. I don't believe in Islam, that's my choice.

 

11 hours ago, cuchulain said:

For blasphemy...Mathew 12:31  Therefor I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the holy ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him.  but whosoever speaketh against the holy ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.  

 

I don't see anything there about being a believer, and only believers being capable of sinning in such a manner. In fact, your perfect myth says quite clearly "man", which should be inclusive of all men I should think.  Ahhh…..wait a minute!  We have another case of crystal clear scripture being mistranslated

 

Something is not mistranslated because you don't understand it or take it out of context. The Holy Spirit doesn't dwell in nonbelievers (John 14: 16-17). Jesus was not delivering a message  to nonbelievers in Matthew 12; 31. Only a person convicted of the Holy Spirit can commit blasphemy against it.. "Men" is not being used in the generic sense, meaning all of mankind, but In the context of who Christ was addressing. 

 

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

So.  The only unforgivable sin is leaving the faith?

 

No, that's forgivable.. Blasphemy is denying and refusing the Holy Spirit.. "And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." (Luke 12: 11-12). This can only be applicable to Christians.

 

Happy New Year gentlemen

[cuchulain]

so what it boils down to, ultimately, is if a person doesn't believe, they are immune to the prosecution of God?  And you are trying to spread his message why?