Apparently, we have come to the point were based upon to a high level of gender dysphoria, that now a man can be a woman and a woman a man, simply by an infusion of hormones, probably based on water contamination and types of food intake, along with academia disinformation, and that most problems are a product of masculine oppression. As for what a "soul" is, it is defined in Genesis 2:7, it is a combination of "dust from the ground", and the "breath of life".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Funny how believers evade hard challenges. Trump does a similar thing by claiming his criminal indictments are bogus, as if that fools anyone.
Notice no one can claim that God made someone commit a crime so it’s not their fault. Nor can creationists get away with claiming a creator caused anything. That’s because evidence has to be real and factual. Even if a judge is a Christian they can’t allow God as evidence of anything.
If thinking that makes you happy, I am happy for you! Although it seems like another rant to me. :
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
At common law precedent or case law comes from judges.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Evidence doesn't have to be factual, since the opinion of an expert witness is a form of evidence.
Religious doctrine is part of the framework that judges operate under because of the union of the church and state.
More properly, atheistic humanism was a reaction to and departure from Christianity.
With you, a zealous believer. It does with me, an atheistic humanist and critical thinker. From this side, it's YOUR opinions on these things that don't matter. If one believes in gods, it's by faith, which has no persuasive power with others, and if he is a zealous believer, he's a motivated Bible reader (confirmation bias). That makes his opinions in both areas of no value to those who don't share his worldview.
Why give those another name? Mind alone suffices. And what people believe is irrelevant if they have no empiric support for those beliefs.
Yes, some do. They're called empiricists and critical thinkers. Also, some don't. They're called faith-based thinkers.
It's comical that you say that it is more without evidence.
He needs none to reject insufficiently evidenced claims to the contrary, since you offer no evidence that there is.
That's not a flaw. That's part of what makes science so successful, and why faith-based systems don't generate knowledge.
There is no theology of atheism, nor anything cruel about unbelief in gods. Also, almost nothing is done in the name of atheism except possibly the freedom from religion provision of secular governments. I hear that atheist meetings are protected in prisons, so that might be something done in the name of atheism.
That's an unevidenced religious belief and plays no role in psychology or any other science.
Suddenly, you're an empiricist.
You left out, "the existence of the soul has resisted empirical verification." That's major in critical thought. There is no reason to believe that something with no physical manifestation exists, or that what believers call the soul or spirit is anything more than an epiphenomenon of the brain like the rest of the mind. For the skeptic, the soul is a poetic or metaphorical concept, as with the heart and soul of the city or the soul of wit is brevity. Neither cities not the wit possess a soul, and absent evidence to the contrary, neither does a human body.
What happened to your need for evidence?
Yes, sort of, but old. Today's basis takes precedence over old Common Law. Actually Common Law goes back to ancient Anglo Saxon Law code before the British Isles became Christians, and is hardly applied today except traditional origins of contemporary Civi; Law.
Last edited:
Yes, there are different types of evidence, but today it is difficult to prosecute without more than one source of evidence.
To some extent yes, our contemporary Law evolved, and the earliest foundation of Common Law is Norman/ Anglo Saxon older than Christian British Isles and France and evolved to deal more with Civil Law. Our Laws have evolved since with significant secular influence. There is also significant influence of Roman Law.
English Common Law | Definition, History & Examples | Study.com
What is common law? Discover English common law. Learn the common law definition. Explore common law vs civil law. Discover common law vs statutory...
English common law developed over many centuries and can therefore be traced back to Anglo-Saxon kings and even Roman law. During the Middle Ages, Anglo-Saxon rulers and their successors, the Normans, issued so-called writs. Writs were legal orders issued by courts in the name of the sovereign and addressed many different situations, including correcting injustices. Some writs demanded that defendants appear in court to answer charges while others ordered the restitution of property to the wrongfully deprived. However, because the sovereign issued specific writs instead of creating an all-inclusive legal code, judges often had to interpret these writs in individual court decisions. This helped to create the English common law system with its reliance on judicial decisions to create unwritten legal rules and norms. Although not the first ruler to issue writs, King Henry II of England is sometimes referred to as the 'Father of Common Law' because of his legal innovations, which included expanding access to courts and promoting strong judicial institutions.
Common law – the system of law that emerged in England beginning in the Middle Ages and is based on case law and precedent rather than codified law. Corpus iuris civilis – meaning “body of civil laws,” the name given to the compilation of Roman law ordered by the Byzantine em- peror Justinian I in 529 CE.
From the same source:
Civil Law, in contrast, is codified. Countries with civil law systems have comprehensive, continuously updated legal codes that specify all matters capable of being brought before a court, the applicable procedure, and the appropriate punishment for each offense. Such codes distinguish between different categories of law: substantive law establishes which acts are subject to criminal or civil prosecution, procedural law establishes how to determine whether a particular action constitutes a criminal act, and penal law establishes the appropriate penalty. In a civil law system, the judge’s role is to establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions of the applicable code. Though the judge often brings the formal charges, investigates the matter, and decides on the case, he or she works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws. The judge’s decision is consequently less crucial in shaping civil law than the decisions of legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes.
Fortunately religious laws in the USA and Great Britain, and Western Europe have removed most if not all religious laws.
Last edited:
ElishaElijah
Return
Doesn’t matter either way to me, we cast out demons in Jesus Name all the time. Even if you saw this in person all you see is the manifestation and then they’re gone. How you going to test that? You’d say “confirmation bias” lol. Talking to alot on here reminds me of this account:
”As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” Having said these things, he spit on the ground and made mud with the saliva. Then he anointed the man’s eyes with the mud and said to him, “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). So he went and washed and came back seeing. The neighbors and those who had seen him before as a beggar were saying, “Is this not the man who used to sit and beg?” Some said, “It is he.” Others said, “No, but he is like him.” He kept saying, “I am the man.” So they said to him, “Then how were your eyes opened?” He answered, “The man called Jesus made mud and anointed my eyes and said to me, ‘Go to Siloam and wash.’ So I went and washed and received my sight.” They said to him, “Where is he?” He said, “I do not know.” They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. Now it was a Sabbath day when Jesus made the mud and opened his eyes. So the Pharisees again asked him how he had received his sight. And he said to them, “He put mud on my eyes, and I washed, and I see.” Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others said, “How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?” And there was a division among them. So they said again to the blind man, “What do you say about him, since he has opened your eyes?” He said, “He is a prophet.” The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight and asked them, “Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?” His parents answered, “We know that this is our son and that he was born blind. But how he now sees we do not know, nor do we know who opened his eyes. Ask him; he is of age. He will speak for himself.” (His parents said these things because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess Jesus to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.) Therefore his parents said, “He is of age; ask him.” So for the second time they called the man who had been blind and said to him, “Give glory to God. We know that this man is a sinner.” He answered, “Whether he is a sinner I do not know. One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.” They said to him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” He answered them, “I have told you already, and you would not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you also want to become his disciples?” And they reviled him, saying, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses. We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from.” The man answered, “Why, this is an amazing thing! You do not know where he comes from, and yet he opened my eyes. We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him. Never since the world began has it been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a man born blind. If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out.“
John 9:1-34 ESV
To add from another source
Origins of Common Law – Common Law
The Common law is a body of law based on custom and general principles embodied in case law which serve as precedent and is applied to situations not covered by statute. In other words, common law includes those principles, usages and rules of action applicable to the government and security of person and property, which do not rest for their authority upon any express and positive declaration of the will of the legislature. The Common law applies only to civil cases.
Christianity is part of the origin of the common law. Although Christianity is considered part of the origin of the common law, the courts did not regard it as controlling or imposing in nature while discussing a religious duty of any narrow view or things related to morality and decency. It was observed that even if Christianity is not a part of the law of the land, if it is the popular religion of the country, then an insult to it can disturb the public peace[iv].
Ecclesiastical laws are English laws pertaining to matters concerning the church. These laws were administered by ecclesiastical courts and are considered a branch of English common law. There is a difference in opinion about the adoption of Ecclesiastical laws in the U.S. On one hand, since ecclesiastical courts were not established in the U.S., the code of laws enforced in ecclesiastical courts cannot be considered part of the common law.
On the other hand, the canon and civil laws administered by the ecclesiastical courts come under the unwritten laws of England. And by custom, these laws are adopted and used in a certain jurisdiction. It is maintained that such laws must be used in the U.S. if the tribunal has jurisdiction especially if the rule of the ecclesiastical courts is considered to be better law than the one in the common law court.
Therefore, the origin of common law in the U.S. can be traced back to various sources such as the common law principles of England, the equity principles, Christianity and ecclesiastical courts.
opinion
Yes, that, along with your conscience, will always resist empirical verification. Doesn’t detract from my position and, imv, supports my position because science can’t find it with their observations.
On the contrary… please read above quote.
It is good to be inquisitive but to be stuck as a skeptic is a hindrance, IMV. A lot of people missed out on Disney World because they were eternal skeptics.
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Just to say, I've been going over some of the answers and I see few, if any, say what parts of the Bible they DO believe -- and although I asked purported Christians I see few answer what parts they DO believe. Maybe I missed them. Jesus gave his summation of the commandments, but maybe that's all they believe? (who knows...if they even believe Jesus, as outlined in the Bible, really existed) Of course, those not believing the Bible will offer their dispute, but the question was centered to those claiming to be Christian. If someone who claims to be Christian has already answered beyond the two commandments he says Jesus gave, maybe -- that's it?? 
Expert opinion is credible because they rely on fact and data. That is real, unlike gods and spirits .
Not in the United States. It’s only true in theocracies. The USA is designed to have a separate church and state. Of course some unethical judges will bias their work to pander to the excessively religious. That means evangelicals.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
No, experts are credible because they're recognised as having specialist knowledge. The source of that knowledge is immaterial.
ElishaElijah
Return
As a Christian and the way this thread has gone I believe that this is true:Just to say, I've been going over some of the answers and I see few, if any, say what parts of the Bible they DO believe -- and although I asked purported Christians I see few answer what parts they DO believe. Maybe I missed them. Jesus gave his summation of the commandments, but maybe that's all they believe? (who knows...if they even believe Jesus, as outlined in the Bible, really existed) Of course, those not believing the Bible will offer their dispute, but the question was centered to those claiming to be Christian. If someone who claims to be Christian has already answered beyond the two commandments he says Jesus gave, maybe -- that's it??
”But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.“
II Corinthians 4:3-6 NKJV
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
Just to say, I've been going over some of the answers and I see few, if any, say what parts of the Bible they DO believe -- and although I asked purported Christians I see few answer what parts they DO believe. Maybe I missed them. Jesus gave his summation of the commandments, but maybe that's all they believe? (who knows...if they even believe Jesus, as outlined in the Bible, really existed) Of course, those not believing the Bible will offer their dispute, but the question was centered to those claiming to be Christian. If someone who claims to be Christian has already answered beyond the two commandments he says Jesus gave, maybe -- that's it??
In my experience, threads rarely go as planned, especially when they are posted in a religious debate forum accessible to all members.
Experts is a rather meaningless generalization. Many scientists like myself have good general knowledge in college. I have taken college courses in history, archaeology, advanced geology, philosophy and religion over the years, There are many knowledgeable generalists. I believe my posts reflect a deep knowledge in philosophy, religion, history, and other sciences. I know the references available and where to find them to back up my posts.
My posts have specific references that back up my responses including a number of your posts. You need to respond specifically to my posts and not resort to vague insulting generalizations.
As per the subject of the thread 'Who is a Christian?'
Considering the subjective nature of the scripture and the many diverse conflicting beliefs. Anyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.
Last edited:
You mentioned that the existence of a soul is obvious. I'm asking what makes that obvious. Perhaps my question was confusing, but when someone declares that the existence of something is obvious, I cannot imagine it would be difficult to pass that along so that it is obvious to others.I’m not sure I understand the question since the example of babies seems (at least to me) a very clear example.
Again, not sure after the example. A 6 month baby comes out with a predisposition, a personality, just as much as a 9 month baby. At one year, we already see the manifestations of that soul. Sometimes we see a prodigy playing piano at 4 years… learned? We would have to say “no”.
We take a DISC personality test (for the purposes of what we are talking about… a soul test). You have the personality of who you are and then you have the personality that you “mask” when you are with a group of people.
I would say that you are “minted” before birth (when exactly would be up for debate) but that you can “develop” what you present to people when you are in a group.
Then I think I haven’t grasped the point you are trying to make. My apologies.
I think we are back to “Two people looking at the same evidence and coming to two different conclusions”. I revert back to the definition of “psychology” - the study of the soul.
I suppose we could contend the point but perhaps the simplest answer would be the best answer? A braid is a brain is a brain in all babies. It would be hard to hold to the position that all brains produce a different personality when it is just a brain. A soul seem to be the simplest solution.
yes… not all scriptures are black and white as some can be viewed differently because of not enough information.
What about puppies. They have a brain. They develop personalities as they grow. What is it about puppies that don't have a soul compared to baby humans that show that difference? I don't know. I've always been told that God didn't see fit to give souls to animals. So there must be a difference and some way to gauge it.
How? Show me.