-Jay-

As near as I can decipher, no, you can't. :huh:

regards,

NinJay

juergen

It's amazing how many pages can be devoted to trying to show how the Bible should be a reliable witness, what reliable and neutral means, without ever facing the problems in it that have been brought up repeatedly, wonderfully summarized and itemized such as Johnny Skeptic's posts.

Robert, you say the Bible is a true and reliable witness. How about tackling the issues that seem to show otherwise? It's the lack of answers to such problems and their avoidance at all cost that accounts many people's change of mind over how reliable this witness allegedly is, especially if they've been told their whole life that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Sheshbazzar

Robert, your imaginary "court scene" has no relavence to how a actual Court Trial takes place,
-even if all of the preliminaries are eliminated-.
The witness does not just get up on the witness stand and deliver a monologue, that a jury justs sits and listens to, then decides.

Say your client has been excused from all the preliminary pre-qualifications, and is allowed the opportuinty to testify before an impartial jury.

You are aware, Robert, are you not, that if there is a Trial by Jury, that the Prosecution must be present for the Trial to proceed, to hear, and to examine the testimony, to raise any reasonable objections, and to cross-examine the witness?

How many Court Trials have you attended, Robert, or seen, where there was no Prosecuting Attorney(s) present???

An impartial Jury, Robert, has a duty to hear, and to examine ALL of the evidence presented by both the Defense AND the Prosecution, only then may the Jury reach any decisions regarding the case.

No, Robert, in any normal Court Trial proceeding, the Jury would not need be concerned with the credibility of a witness for the Defense, because the preliminary investigation would normaly have screened out and eliminated such witness's from even taking the stand.
(and such witness's could only be the Defense's supporting witness's, not the accused himself.)

However, this "witness", your "client", and his words are the "accused" and what is on trial.

So although we are all aware that he has been directly implicated, and has even admitted to, and has caused books to be written to publicly boast of his being personally responsible for multiple mass-murders, arson, theft, animal abuse, and sundry other depredations against man and beasts, We must allow him to testify in his own behalf.
All of his words have been entered into The Court records, and it is the understanding of The Court that his testimony is finished.

Such Trial by Jury requires that his tesimony be thouroughly examined and cross-examined by the Prosecution, and that his evil acts be brought to light, so that an impartial Jury might render a just judgement.
Your client is charged with, and has confessed to;
multiple mass-murders.
arson.
theft.
gross animal abuse.
and sundry other depredations against both man and beast.
His testimony has been boasting, contradictory, confused, vague, and delusional.
(Actully Robert, the only defense that would make any sense in his case, is "the insanity defense")

Do you willingly choose to be his Defense lawyer?
Your competence to do so has been put into serious question by your appaling display of lack of legal knowledge.
What you think that "most people" would do, Robert, is irrelevant both to the evidence presented, and outcome of this case.
A just, and impartial Jury cannot help but find your client either "GUILTY on all charges", or "not guilty by reason of insanity"

Toto

This thread has wandered a bit from it's original topic, and there have been no progress on Byer's theory of evidence.

So you all can enjoy your weekend, the mods have decided to close this thread. Feel free to start a new thread if you think of something new to say.