Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Whoso Keepeth His Mouth and His Tongue Keepeth His Soul From Troubles

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Submitted by Quinzel (BU looks forward to the BU intelligentsia translating this submission)
Mystery
It is a Mystery.

Here is valuable wisdom! If you rule your speech, you will save yourself from trouble. Your mouth and tongue are two of your greatest enemies. If you will keep them under control and only speak the right words at the right time, your life will be blessed. It is unruled speech that gets men into all sorts of trouble. Here is wisdom for a good life.

You can get into trouble by filthy talking, foolish talking, and jesting. You can damage your reputation, hurt others’ feelings, and waste time with such talking. God despises such speech, though they are very popular with the present generation; and He is coming soon to judge the world for these very sins (Pr 14:9; 26:18-19; Eccl 7:6; Eph 4:29; 5:3-7).

You can get into trouble talking negatively about others. Men will know you are wicked, and you will create enmity and strife. Though easy to commit, the blessed God hates backbiting, slander, talebearing, and whispering. They are much like murder, in that they destroy another’s reputation (Pr 10:18; 11:13; 16:28; 18:8; 20:19; 25:23; 26:20-22).

You can get into trouble by complaining. Who likes a complainer? The LORD hates complaining, and He judges it severely (Num 11:1; Ps 106:24-27). Jesus Christ is coming soon with angels to judge complainers (Jude 1:14-16). It is God’s will for your mouth and tongue to give thanks (Phil 2:14; Col 3:17; I Thes 5:18). This generation is unthankful, so God has judged the world with darkness and sodomy (Rom 1:20-27; II Tim 3:2).

You can get into trouble by over committing. Solomon warned his son about taking on the obligations of others as a surety, such as cosigning loans hastily or extensively (Pr 6:1-5; 22:26-27). It is so easy and thrilling to offer your guarantee for the performance of another, because it gives you an important role in their lives. But wisdom should guard your mouth from creating unnecessary and excessive obligations (Pr 22:3; I Cor 7:32).

You can get into trouble by vows to God. In the difficulties of a painful situation, it is easy to promise things to God to persuade Him to deliver you. But the Lord warns against such oaths (Eccl 5:1-3). It is better not to vow at all, than to vow and not pay (Eccl 5:4-7).

You can get into trouble by name calling. Jesus Christ taught that name calling without a holy cause was a violation of the sixth commandment, the law against murder (Matt 5:21-22). Railing and reviling, which are name calling and abusive language, are condemned by Scripture (Ex 22:28; I Cor 5:11; 6:10; I Pet 3:9). A child that cursed his parents died under Moses’ law (Pr 20:20; Ex 21:17; Lev 20:9; Deut 27:16). Take that Hollywood!

You can get into trouble by lying. Everyone hates a liar. No one can trust a liar. Severe punishments are reserved for liars and perjurers. And all liars shall spend eternity in the lake of fire (Rev 21:8,27; 22:15). Honesty in all situations is not only the best policy; it is the holy requirement of the God of truth (Pr 12:22; Ex 20:16; Lev 19:11; Eph 4:25).

You can get into trouble by disrespecting authority. Do not curse the king even in your thoughts or bedroom (Eccl 10:20). A little bird will carry the wicked words, and you will be in trouble. God despises those who speak evil of rulers (II Pet 2:10-12; Jude 1:8-10). Children must honor parents, wives their husbands, employees their employers, and church members their pastors (Eph 5:33; 6:1-3; I Thes 5:12-13; Titus 2:9-10; I Pet 3:5-6).

You can get into trouble by arguing and debate. Wise men listen rather than talk (Pr 17:27-28; Eccl 7:5). A woman should avoid contention and emphasize kindness (Pr 19:13; 21:19; 27:15; 31:26). God’s ministers reject foolish and unlearned questions, for they are the marks of fools and scorners (I Tim 1:4; 4:7; 6:3-5; II Tim 2:14,16,23; Titus 3:9). Wise men study before talking (Pr 15:28), especially God’s ministers (II Tim 2:15).

You can get in trouble by hurting those around you. Spouses, children, and friends can easily be hurt by cutting words (Pr 12:18; Eph 6:4; Col 3:19). Harsh words stir up anger and cause fights to escalate (Pr 15:1). Relationships are destroyed, bitterness created, and your future dulled by hard words. It is men and women with gracious speech that will be held in high esteem (Pr 11:16; 22:11). It is a command to use gracious words (Col 4:6).

How can you avoid trouble with your mouth and tongue? First, cut your words in half, for many words always contain sin (Pr 10:19). Second, slow down and emphasize listening before speaking (Pr 29:20; Jas 1:19). Third, remember that you will give an account for every idle word and be judged for your words (Matt 12:34-37). Fourth, pray like David, “Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips” (Ps 141:3).

Rather than trouble, the man who guards his mouth and tongue will enjoy the good life, guaranteed by the infallible word of God. “What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile” (Ps 34:12-13). Peter also quoted these wonderful words of promise (I Pet 3:10).

There was never trouble for the Lord Jesus Christ by His mouth and tongue. He spoke like no other man in world history (Ps 45:2; Isaiah 50:4; Luke 4:22; John 7:46). He could comfort a widow at her only son’s funeral, or he could expose Pharisee heresy to the delight of His audience (Luke 7:11-18; Matt 7:28-29). There was nothing to charge Him for at His trial, so the Jews falsely accused Him by perverting His pure words (Matt 26:59-61). His pure words will soon judge them for their sins (Matt 7:21-23).

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

272 responses to “Whoso Keepeth His Mouth and His Tongue Keepeth His Soul From Troubles”

  1. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    LOL @ ac
    Why are you getting all worked up ac?? LOL
    Presumably by now you would have discovered binary arithmetic and will no longer talk about “as sure as one and one is two…”
    …so we are making progress.

    Let us move to step #709…..it is called entropy.
    Basically it says that everything tends to “mash up” as time goes by – unless there are external inputs into the system

    Now the “problem” with this concept is that it means that logically, there HAD to be some kind of “IN THE BEGINNING….” or a time when Time (T) =0
    …so BEFORE that, there would have been no such thing as time.
    …follow?
    Whoever or whatever then INITIATED the whole process of time would have been around BEFORE……thus operating outside of the realm of time…..

    BTW when the bible says that God is everlasting / omnipresent etc, that is all it means…..

    The other implication of entropy is that in order for life on earth to have ADVANCED from prehistoric beginnings, there had to have been EXTERNAL inputs into the system.

    Call them what you like!
    But the kind of brilliance and high order engineering that have gone into the world as we (only barely) know it – could ONLY have been done by BIG BOSS ENGINEERS.
    OK?
    …let Bushie know when you ready for step #710 🙂

    @ Lexicon
    …all this just to demonstrate how ontological arguments may be used to establish epistemological positions…..wink!

    LOL
    Of course Zoe and GP would just pelt some bible verses in wunna donkeys and do the same job…. Ha. Ha

  2. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    BT….
    Your value of your life at 10m in whatever currency is quite cheap….hmmmm

    Humanoids can only think and express themselves based on their learned experiences over the millenia.

    Why do you continue to use a flawed premise,as the basis to argue your points?

  3. ac Avatar
    ac

    Bushie is /a fruit and nut cake.he has taken his belief beyond the realm of reality…. a reality not even God can understand….WElll maybe except( WELL ! WELL!. she is the true and living GOD of gibberish and rubbish talk…..

  4. ac Avatar
    ac

    The saying that TIMES” goes by is another irrational assumption .. those thingsthat “goes by” are those that are not infinite and succumbs to death and Time is infinte.from everlasting to everlasting…. Your problem is as vincent state that u have started with a flawed thesis based on unproven theory .about a BBE engineer or God until u can proven such an existence you are forced to be irrational trying to prove an existence from an impractical point of view. carry on TIME will tell Who Is Right or Wrong

  5. islandgal246 Avatar
    islandgal246

    Why don’t wunna take the advice of Quinzel and shut wunna mouts up?

  6. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ Bush Tea | January 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM |
    Now the “problem” with this concept is that it means that logically, there HAD to be some kind of “IN THE BEGINNING….” or a time when Time (T) =0
    …so BEFORE that, there would have been no such thing as time.

    Bushie what kind of ontologically mad reasoning is that hyperbolic contradiction of an assertion?
    If Time (T) = 0 ,then what is equal to 1?
    If T = 0, then your God would have to be -1.

    Time has no beginning and no end .It is neither linear nor circular but both. It is the only thing my friend man cannot understand, control or even measure. Let the Sun, your star, be your only ‘barometer’ to your little Father “time” which controls your every moment as you dance on your little mother orb spinning at 67 K miles an hour way below the speed of Light around its parent.

    Man must always be subordinate and submissive to Time the Master. Does that sounds like something which is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent? Sounds like the qualities you ascribe to a ‘familiarly’ personal friend of yours called BBE?
    Your anthropomorphistic attempts to make your BBE ‘superior’ to TIME are rather shaky indeed. Striving to become his favourite weed-wacker will not entitle you to immortality by becoming a member of the “Q” Continuum.

    Let us settle this debate between your BBE God and our God Time by splitting the difference with the miller man enough to refer to your alleged BBE God-given manual called the Bible (Basic instruction before leaving Earth) and quote a passage from a literary masterpiece of epistemological significance written by a brilliant scholar under the pseudonym John.

    “This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.
    If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;…”

    We will let GP complete the passage.

    PS:
    Why not argue that TIME is indeed the Holy Spirit in Zoe’ s pantheon of gods called the Trinity?

  7. Mark Fenty Avatar
    Mark Fenty

    Mill, you could have easily stated that man is subordinate and submissive to the Forces of Nature. Now, is there any significant differences between these two entities?

  8. Jack Bowman Avatar
    Jack Bowman

    So Bushie has a little think about stuff, and then returns with even more philosophical insights on January 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM:

    “LOL @ ac. Why are you getting all worked up ac?? LOL”

    Er … okay. And er, “LOL”. Is that right? Do I need a smiley face? Still following your argument so far, Bushie.

    “Presumably by now you would have [sic: he means “you have”; use of the conditional is simply bewildering in this context] discovered binary arithmetic and will no longer talk about ‘as sure as one and one is two…’ so we are making progress.”

    And that’s great to hear. I sincerely believe, “Bushie”, that you’re making progress here.

    “Let us move to step #709…..it is called entropy. Basically it [sic; what’s the ‘it’ here] says that everything tends to “mash up” as time goes by – unless there are external inputs into the system.”

    Well, no. Not really. That isn’t entropy. Entropy is just a notion used to gauge how to organize elements in a thermodynamic system. It’s a useful notion, often helping us to judge the balance in that system. It is a function of human knowledge, and has absolutely nothing to do with the invisible and wholly fictional deities that members of the myth-shackled community worship on their knees.

    “Now the ‘problem’ with this concept is that it means that logically, there HAD to be some kind of “IN THE BEGINNING….” or a time when Time (T) =0.”

    First, no. It doesn’t mean that at all, logically or not. And, second, the faux-equation “(T) =o” doesn’t mean anything at all, even to a dullard. Or especially to a dullard.

    “…so BEFORE that …”

    No. See, Bushie, you’re inserting the “so” as a “therefore”, as if you’ve demonstrated something and you’ll now advance your argument on the basis of propositions already demonstrated and accepted. But you haven’t even come close to doing that. What you’ve done is to fill space with written words. It would be the sin of style over substance if you had any actual written style, but you don’t even have that. As its stands, it’s just space with some not-too-interesting words in it.

    “ … there would have been no such thing as time. …follow?”

    Yes. Still following you here.

    “Whoever or whatever then INITIATED the whole process of time would have been around BEFORE……thus operating outside of the realm of time…..”

    No, not necessarily at all. And you’re starting to sound like some really bad dialogue from an episode of “Star Trek” in about 1971. You have bumped up against the limits of your own, personal, intellectual capacity. That’s not an insult. It’s just an observation. Your intellectual failing here is your incapacity to conceive of space as something other than a void. That failing leads you, inevitably, to invent “Big Boss Engineers” who just somehow made all the shit. It’s all a bit sad. Granted, it’s not quite as sad as believing that an angel called Moron visited an illiterate in New York so he could transcribe the Word of God onto golden plates (or whatever that particular myth is; I can’t keep up with all this shite). But it’s still pretty sad, especially if it causes its adherents to refer to human beings as “abominations”.

    I am my brother’s keeper. In a life well-lived, that’s all anyone needs. I am my brother’s keeper. The only problem with this universal and unassailable truth is that there is no international consensus on it. When the feeble-minded transgress this truth, and see my brethren as abominations, and treat them as abominations, that’s when the conversation has to start involving baseball bats and mawashi geri and gedan berai.

    “let Bushie know when you ready for step #710 ”

    I think we’ve had enough of you for now, Bushie. The smiley face never works.

  9. ac Avatar
    ac

    If one says to BUSHIE THAT TIME is greater than GOG< he will prove the said point by arguing that GOD is TIME … so there u have it FOLKS GOD IS TIME and TIME IS GOD,,,,,,all part of an exclusive CLUB called INFINITY,

  10. David Avatar
    David

    It is amazing how you guys can argue things unknown in absolutes.

  11. Mark Fenty Avatar
    Mark Fenty

    Man is also subordinate and submissive to Death because he hasn’t any real control over Death. We can do little when Death arrive to arrange out personal affairs.

  12. Mark Fenty Avatar
    Mark Fenty

    All information is imperfect and those who claim it whether scientist or dogmatist set themselves up for failure. That is the human condition!

  13. ac Avatar
    ac

    David | January 15, 2014 at 6:16 PM |

    It is amazing how you guys can argue things unknown in absolutes.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….l what is known and is factual is that TIME exist………and can be proven……………..that is an absolute known…………..

  14. David Avatar
    David

    What is time, something man continues to struggle to understand. It is a foolish man who will speak about time is absolutes.

    “People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between the past,the present and the future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion” Albert Einstein

  15. Jack Bowman Avatar
    Jack Bowman

    Genuinely curious about this. Is this standard practice in the BU Family?

    David says, on January 15, 2014 at 6:44 PM: “What is time is something” and then misquotes Einstein.

    Is it standard practice to write a woefully ungrammatical phrase and then misquote a bright mind as if the quotation somehow distracts attention from the woeful ignorance of how to write?

    Just asking.

  16. David Avatar
    David

    Jack aka Chris relax yourself. We all know your eSkeptic ways.

  17. Mark Fenty Avatar
    Mark Fenty

    Bertrand Russell:” Men are born ignorant not stupid, there are made stupid by education.”

  18. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    Miller
    Bushie really expected a better grasp of these rather basic issues from you.
    All that is meant by the statement that there must have been a time of T=0 is that they had to be a BEGINNING of the existence of matter.

    In the same way that scientists now support the big bank theory based on observations of the expanding universe, entropy suggest logically that time had a specific beginning at some time T=0

    If you could reverse the video of the state of matter, and assume that entropy has been a constant characteristic of all matter, then the video would run backwards to a point where all matter would get back to a state of perfection – which is when entropy all started.

    LOL
    If you rewound the video further, then you should see a state of matter which exceeds perfection…which is logically impossible….
    THEREFORE the existence of matter HAD to have had a given start point, prior to which – time DID NOT EXIST.

    Similarly if you reversed a video of the expanding universe, it would be seen contracting back to the point where matter ceased to exist and be reconverted to energy in the great ANTI Big Bang 🙂 …before that point in time, there would have been no matter, no time, ….no way…..

    Face it people….our world is a TEMPORARY project CREATED for a special TEMPORARY purpose, by beings that are way beyond our petty, moronic, ability to comprehend.

    It is EXACTLY like Lowdown deciding at some point in 1983 say, to build a goat farm in st. Andrew…..
    Some jack sheep comes along in 2014 asking foolish questions like who does Lowdown think he is?…. What does his Pen look like? …who gives Hoad the right to milk or kill sheep at will?….and who the hell created Lowdown…..

    In the grand scheme of things Miller, relative to BBE….we are no real different to Lowdown’s goats….

  19. ac Avatar
    ac

    and even if one can;t understand the origins of time… it factors and its importance in structuring and instructing our existence can be easily understood,,,,,of course Einstein is right on the past! present and future in the grander scheme as he so aptly puts it as an illusion which has been woefully forced upon our minds and .driven by fear of the unknown.

  20. ac Avatar
    ac

    when would u BUSH TEA get it into YOUR BIG BRAS BOWL TOPSY HEAD THAT TIME ALWAYS EXIST Having no creator or co creator ,you would understand the reality and purpose of YOUR being….NOW go away and spend some creative TIME doing society a favor by staying in YOUR SPACE and TIME,

  21. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    …but you did not answer the question asked of you today though ac….
    You does wuk?

  22. You know who I am David Avatar
    You know who I am David

    David- BU

    I truly appreciate your generosity of kindness for giving me the opportunity once again to become an active member of BU community. After you had censoring my commentary for one full day. And as my madda used say, ” I love ya like a bitcher love a pig.”

  23. David Avatar
    David

    @Fenty

    The next lie and you will definitely be censored, LIAR!

    On 16 January 2014 00:57, Barbados Underground

  24. Vincent Haynes Avatar
    Vincent Haynes

    Chuckle….wuhloss…..wunnah dun loss muh..
    Where is your premise,based on that ,what are you trying to prove????

  25. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    For there to be OUGHT, there must of necessity and logic be IS*!

  26. Mark Fenty Avatar
    Mark Fenty

    @ David
    I have no preconceived reason to be unkind to the truth. I tried to enter the BU blog and was denied, so quite naturally I felt that it was perhaps an intentional effort on your part to censor my commentary .

    And to confirmed my greatest horrors is the fact that I had made a reiterated endeavor throughout the day in question, to access your blog with little avail.

    Now I supposed you felt that I was mendacious in what you probably conceived as my exaggeration of the truth? And I can say without equivocation that your judgment on this matter obviously warrants some inspection because I am telling the unarmed truth.

    Nevertheless, no impertinent intended on my part and I only hope that BU community can restore the Civility that is so greatly lacking on the blog.

    Now, I would be the first to admit that I am not perfect in my dealings on the blog, but this constant besmearing of one another character serves no better purpose than to poison the will of the collegiate spirit. And as a I often say: we can agree, to disagree, agreeably knowing fagility of our far – reaching egoes.

  27. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    Thursday, January 16, 2014

    “Rom 1 reply, 43: Is history “bunk” or else little more than the propaganda of the victors, used to make their aggression seem justified? (Or, is such dismissiveness little more than an excuse for the march of folly? [And, is “bunk” all the Christian gospel is?])|

    “It is said that the famed industrialist Henry Ford — who, unfortunately, seems to have thought favourably of Mein Kampf (which, appallingly, is now racing to the top of ebook sales at Amazon and elsewhere . . . ) — thought that History is “bunk.”

    “And, altogether far too many ordinary people in our day tend to regard History as irrelevant, boring, suspect as an “academic” exercise, and so forth.”

    “Among the post-modern, progressivist educated, there is a strong tendency to dismiss and “deconstruct” history as little more than the propaganda of the victors trying to legitimise their aggression and oppression.”

    “I think, for cause, that such are ill-advised, dangerous and foolish trends, a march of folly, in Barbara Tuchmann’s famous words.”

    “I say that for a very simple reason:
    History, well founded, diligently researched and well reported, sound and fair history, is a summary of the hard-bought lessons of the past, lessons that too often were paid in full for in blood.”

    “That is why good history is so powerful, and so costly: it was bought with the most precious of commodities.”

    “And, therefore, as we reflect on the events of 1914, 100 years ago now, and those in the run-up to round two of that horrid war in 1939, that should give us sobering pause as we contemplate current events.:

    “The ghosts of seventy or eighty millions who perished in those horrific wars, concur.”

    “Only a piggish fool, then, would treat such hard-bought wisdom as pigs would treat pearls that — as our Lord famously said on that mountain in Galilee — were somehow tossed down in front of them.”

    “Unfortunately, there is no shortage of such fools, on the streets, in the classrooms, behind teacher’s desks or lecturer’s podiums, in Board Rooms, on the too often justly nicknamed idiot boxes in the corner of our living rooms that so many of us are addicted to watching for hours on end, all over the Internet, in legislatures, in Cabinets and — God have mercy on us — even in pulpits.”

    “So, George Santayana’s two pivotal lessons of history are very important, though quite soberingly sad.”

    “First, that those who refuse to learn from it are doomed to repeat its worst chapters, and second, that by and large we refuse to learn from it.”

    “Hence, the deep-set folly that no less a figure than Karl Marx summed up as to how history repeats itself twice, once as tragedy, the next time as farce. (And unfortunately, that sick farce “The March of Folly” has had a very long run with many revivals, indeed.)”

    “Nor, should we forget that sound journalism, rightly and diligently, courageously done, is “a first, rough draft of history.”

    “And, when detectives, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges in courts of justice — not “courts of injustice” — act with integrity and diligent soundness, the processes of the courtroom are often in effect an exercise in historical investigation.”

    “Which means that the issue with history and with historical writings is the quality of the investigation and integrity and soundness of what has been recorded.”

    “Sound history must be credible and authoritative.”

    “I therefore wish to again bring to our attention some lessons from the well known jurisprudential thinker Simon Greenleaf, a founding father of the modern anglophone school of evidence.”

    “First, his insightful opening remarks in the first chapter of his Treatise on Evidence:”

    “Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [–> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction.”

    “Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd.”

    “The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them.”

    “The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved.”

    “By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond reasonable doubt.
    The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added.”

    (NB:

    “Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]
    Similarly, in noting on Christian foundations he remarks, in Testimony of the Evangelists:”

    ” [26] . . . It should be observed that the subject of inquiry [i.e. evidence relating to the credibility of the New Testament accounts] is a matter of fact, and not of abstract mathematical proof. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error . . . The error of the skeptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth . . . .
    If, therefore, the subject [were] a problem in mathematics, its truth [would] be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence. But if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. Now as the facts, stated in Scripture History, are not of the former kind, but are cognizable by the senses, they may be said to be proved when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence which, as we have just observed, would, in the affairs of human life, satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man. [Testimony, Sections 26, 27, emphases added.]” http://www.kirosblog.com

  28. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    “Likewise, from this work and similar sources we may highlight some well tested rules for the road that will guide us well (page references are to the 1995 Kregel reprint of this classic work that dates to 1851):”

    “1] THE ANCIENT DOCUMENTS RULE: Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. [p.16.]”

    “2] Conversance: In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. [p. 17.]”

    “3] On Inquiries and Reports: If [a report] were “the result of inquiries, made under competent public authority, concerning matters in which the public are concerned” it would . . . be legally admissible . . . To entitle such results, however, to our full confidence, it is not necessary that they be obtained under a legal commission; it is sufficient if the inquiry is gravely undertaken and pursued, by a person of competent intelligence, sagacity and integrity. The request of a person in authority, or a desire to serve the public, are, to all moral intents, as sufficient a motive as a legal commission. [p. 25.]”

    “4] Probability of Truthfulness: In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is a sufficient probability that it is true. [p. 28.]”

    “5] Criteria of Proof: A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. [pp. 28 – 9.]”

    “6] Credibility of Witnesses: In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector. [p. 29]”

    “7] Credit due to testimony: The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances. [p.31.]”

    “8] Ability of a Witness to speak truth: the ability of a witness to speak the truth depends on the opportunities which he has had for observing the facts, the accuracy of his powers of discerning, and the faithfulness of his memory in retaining the facts, once observed and known . . . It is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelligence . . . Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to ordinary presumptions of law, or to the ordinary experience of mankind, the burden of proof is devolved on the objector. [pp. 33 – 4.]”

    “9] Internal coherence and external corroboration: Every event which actually transpires has its appropriate relation and place in the vast complication of circumstances, of which the affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have preceded it, it is intimately connected with all others which occur at the same time and place, and often with those of remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident, related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of man to invent a story, which, if closely compared with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be shown to be false. [p. 39.]”

    “10] Marks of false vs true testimony: a false witness will not willingly detail any circumstances in which his testimony will be open to contradiction, nor multiply them where there is a danger of his being detected by a comparison of them with other accounts, equally circumstantial . . . Therefore, it is, that variety and minuteness of detail are usually regarded as certain test[s] of sincerity, if the story, in the circumstances related, is of a nature capable of easy refutation, if it were false . . . . [False witnesses] are often copious and even profuse in their statements, as far as these may have been previously fabricated, and in relation to the principal matter; but beyond this, all will be reserved and meagre, from fear of detection . . . in the testimony of the true witness there is a visible and striking naturalness of manner, and an unaffected readiness and copiousness in the detail of circumstances, as well in one part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard to the facility or difficulty of verification or detection . . . the increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number of circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of detection if the witnesses are false . . . Thus the force of circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the circumstances to be compared, and from which the dates and other facts to are be collected; the intricacy of the comparison; the number of intermediate steps in the process of deduction; and the circuity of the investigation. The more largely the narrative partake[s] of these characteristics, the further it will be found removed from all suspicion of contrivance or design, and the more profoundly the mind will rest in the conviction of its truth. [pp. 39 – 40.]”

    “11] Procedure: let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances.[p. 42.]
    Here, we supplement: J W Montgomery observes of the NT accounts — and following the McCloskey and Schoenberg framework for detecting perjury — that the modern approach to assessing quality of such testimony focusses on identifying internal and external defects in the testimony and the witness:|

    “(a) Internal defects in the witness himself refer to any personal characteristics or past history tending to show that the “witness is inherently untrustworthy, unreliable, or undependable.”

    “(b) But perhaps the apostolic witnesses suffered from external defects, that is, “motives to falsify”?

    “(c) Turning now to the testimony itself, we must ask if the New Testament writings are internally inconsistent or self-contradictory.”

    “(d) Finally, what about external defects in the testimony itself, i.e., inconsistencies between the New Testament accounts and what we know to be the case from archaeology or extra-biblical historical records?
    –> In each case, the answer is in favour of the quality of the NT, as can be observed here.”

    “12] The degree of coherence expected of true witnesses: substantial truth, under circumstantial variety. There is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them, and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events actually occurred. [p.34. All cites from The Testimony of the Evangelists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Classics, 1995).”

    “The First Easter’s timeline gives a good case in point. You may find it profitable to also examine Edwin Yamauchi’s review and W L Craig’s remarks on the resurrection vs the current version of the hallucination hypothesis. Craig’s critical assessment of the Jesus Seminar is also well worth the time to read it.]”

    “With these in mind, we would be wise to pay heed again to Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, as addressing perhaps the single most precious lesson of history of all, and the one that — freighted with the weight of our souls — is the most important one to be heeded:”

    “But that is not all, the issues of heeding the lessons of history are of quite broad relevance, not least as we run up to general elections and ponder our duties, responsibilities and privileges as citizens.”

    “So, will we now treat history soberly or in a trivially dismissive or else a naive way?”

    “Even, with our souls in the stakes?”

    “The choices, the duties of care — and the consequences of wisdom or folly — are ours. END”
    Posted by GEM of The Kairos Initiative at 5:06 am

  29. Mark Fenty Avatar
    Mark Fenty

    Zoe, I hope you cognizant of the fact that you’re writing on a social blog and you therefore ought to be mindful in the future to construct your argument in a few words. ( it’s too long)
    I’ve read most of what you have written above and it is quite informative because it has informed my thinking in area I had as yet explore. I appluad your effort but I have to ask this question though , are you a law student? Because it certainly appears like you have what is called a term/ thesis paper written on public blog? And finally, I have to respond to your question regarding a witness ability to speak the truth and I must say, I see quite differently than you do . In real world and not in theory, a witness ability to speak the truth depend a hold a lot on cold cash.

  30. Mark Fenty Avatar
    Mark Fenty

    @zoe
    It is funny you made to mentioned of the philosopher George Santayana because he is not often mentioned in the Western intellectual tradition. And your reference to Simon Greenleaf comes as a suprise to me but I’ve never heard his name even slightly mentioned in the American jurisprudence.

  31. Well Well Avatar
    Well Well

    Bush Tea….now you got AC in a real mental state…..I told you few people would grasp the difference between the measurement of time (which is man made), space, omniprescience and their bible programming (also man-made)…….lol….poor ac….lol

  32. Well Well Avatar
    Well Well

    By the way AC…..space and omniprescience IS NOT man made, in case you are confused as usual…….that is your homework for today

  33. ac Avatar
    ac

    @well……..O.K philosopher “smelly pants……

  34. Well Well Avatar
    Well Well

    ac….you just jealous because everything passes way over your head…..lol

  35. ac Avatar
    ac

    @well…disagree……except uh smelly pants………….

  36. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is either …
    the greatest event, or the greatest fraud — in history!

    Did Jesus Christ actually rise from the dead?

    “Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written.”

    “Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the “myth” of the Resurrection.”

    After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:”

    “it was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . .”
    i
    “Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

    “Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of history!
    And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!”

  37. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    “Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)

    Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.”

    “In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit, without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if it be found to be of divine origin. “There is no other entrance,” says Lord Bacon, “to the kingdom of man, which is founded in the sciences, than to the kingdom of heaven, into which no one can enter but in the character of a little child.” The docility which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the teacher may inculcate; but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion, not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and impartiality to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce in the judgment of right reason. The investigation, moreover, should be pursued with the serious earnestness which becomes the greatness of the subject–a subject fraught with such momentous consequences to man. It should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has bestowed.”

    “In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in knowledge. “Christianity,” says Bishop Wilson, “inscribes on the portal of her dominion ‘Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.’ Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man’s responsibility. All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer.” http://www.law2umkc.edu

  38. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    The Unrivaled Resurrection/

    “What caused Greenleaf, as one of the most prestigious lawyers of all time, to come to such a dramatic conclusion? In spite of the sensationalist nature of such a suggestion, this chapter briefly examines some of the arguments both for and against the idea that Jesus Christ could have actually risen from the dead two millennia ago.”

    “The alleged bodily resurrection of Jesus, if true, was very consequential concerning mankind’s most fearful and important questions. By publicly preaching the Resurrection message in the first century, the Apostles strived to adjust the opinions of mankind upon subjects in which people are not only deeply concerned, but usually stubborn and closedminded, despite reason or persuasion. Men could not be utterly careless in such a case as this. (As evidenced in ancient writings, two thousand years ago religion and tradition generally played a much more significant role than in today’s Western society.) Thus, whoever entertained the account of Jesus, whether Jew or non-Jew, could not have avoided the following reflection: “If these things be true, I must give up the opinions and principles in which I have been brought up, the religion in which my forefathers lived and died.” It is not likely that one would do this upon any idle report or trivial account, or indeed without being fully convinced of the truth of that which he or she believed in. But it did not stop at opinions. Those who believed Christianity acted upon it. Many made it the express business of their lives to publicize their new faith. It was required of them to change forthwith their conduct; to take up a different course of life and begin a new set of rules and system of behavior; in doing so they encountered opposition, danger, and persecution.”[3]

    — William Paley, 1794

    “The first few hundred years of Christianity were characterized by some of the worst persecution in history.[4] Right from the beginning, the Christian founders were persecuted and eventually put to death for the message they preached: that they had seen Jesus physically risen from the dead.”

    What, in fact, is it that caused the first followers of Jesus to be willing to die for such a message?”
    http://www.foolishfaith.com

  39. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ Zoe
    You does wuk?

  40. ac Avatar
    ac

    the resurrection story should remain a message a message with a spiritual meaning and should be recorded as such… which cements and reinforces the teachings of christ while he was alive ..and not these man made hard to prove theories of human flesh succumbing to death and being risen after three days,,,,,,,,,

  41. Observing Avatar
    Observing

    @Bushie

    @Zoe
    “you does wuk”?

    so what do you feel she’s doing when she posts these essays. This IS Zoe’s work! She OUGHT to put in a full 8 hour day.

    Observing

  42. ac Avatar
    ac

    and did jesus not say to the thieves ”Today thou shalt be with me in paradise” isn’t according to Christian teaching paradise is “heaven” ,,, then in order for the resurrection to be true it would mean that jesus did not go to paradise immediately as he had told the thieves and he made a promise which he did not keep .. which . adds more questions to the truth or meaning of the resurrection….. for if indeed as jesus stated on the cross that he would be in paradise on the day of his death then they would be no need for a resurrection of the body as he would have immediately gone to heaven . which gives even more speculation to the story of his ascension ,

  43. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    I John 1: 1-3
    “What was from the beginning, what we have HEARD, ( Jesus) what we HAVE SEEN WITH OUR EYES (Jesus), what we BEHELD and OUR HANDS handled ( Jesus) concerning the Word of life ( Jesus) and the LIFE was manifested, (Incarnate Deity, Jesus) and we HAVE SEEN and BEAR WITNESS and proclaim to you Eternal Life ( Through Jesus) which WAS with the Father and was MANIFESTED to US- what we HAVE SEEN and HEARD we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship IS* with the Father, AND with His Son Jesus Christ.”

    Luke 1:1-3
    “In as much as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished AMONG us, just as those who from the beginning were EYEWITNESSES and servants of the WORD have handed them down to US, it seemed fitting for me as well, having INVESTIGATED EVERYTHING CAREFULLY from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus.” Emphasis added.

    Acts 1:1-3
    “The first account I composed, Theophilus, abount ALL that Jesus began to DO and TEACH, until the day He was taken up (ascended) after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the Apostles whom He had chosen. To these he also PRESENTED Himself ALIVE, after His suffering, by MANY CONVINCING PROOFS, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of things concerning then Kingdom of God.”

    I Corinthians 15: 6-8
    “After that He ( Jesus) appeared to MORE than FIVE HUNDRED brethren at ONE TIME, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep (Died); then He appeared to James, then to ALL the Apostles, and last of all, as it were to one untimely born ( Paul), He appeared to me also.”

  44. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ ac
    Do you understand ANYTHING?

    Jesus said to the fella….
    ” Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise”

  45. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    LOL
    So wunna really feel that resurrecting a person who was alive and who died is a greater miracle than the daily occurrence where thousands of individuals who NEVER existed – come into existence by birth?
    Any of wunna can understand the process of the initiation of life?

    Think about it.
    How is it possible to easily accept the reality of thousands if not millions of births every day, by a mysterious process that NO ONE understands…….but talk shiite about the re-establishment of life in a previously living individual?

    THE FACT IS THAT NONE OF WUNNA CAN UNDERSTAND THE MYSTERIES OF THIS LEVEL OF ENGINEERING….
    So stop talking shiite about things wunna CANNOT grasp….

    Steupsss
    Wuh how about Lazarus?
    Skippa, if wunna get Bushie vex the bushman would go down by the morgue and raise up a few dreads yuh!! 🙂

    ac, if you don’t understand something why not ask….?

  46. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    John 20: 39-42
    “Many other SIGNS therefore Jesus also performed in the PRESENCE of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may BELIEVE that Jesus IS* the Christ, the Son of God; and that BELIEVING you may have LIFE in His name.”

    Acts 10: 39-42
    “And we are WITNESSES of ALL the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. And they also put Him to death by hanging Him on a Cross. God RAISED Him up on the third day, and granted that HE should become VISIBLE, not to all the people, but to WITNESSES who where chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us, who ATE and DRANK with Him AFTER He AROSE from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people, and SOLEMNLY to testify that this is the ONE who has been appointed by God as Judge of the LIVING and the DEAD>”

    I Peter 5:1
    “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow-elder and WITNESS of the suffering of Christ, and a partaker of the Glory that IS* to be revealed.”

  47. ac Avatar
    ac

    So Jesus said to the man “today thou shalt be with me in paradise not after he is ressurrected ..what is there to understand according to christian teachings and principles “paradise is “heaven the fact is that too much intervention and twisted logic has been used to justify prophecy. JESUS said exactly what he meant emphasing the word “TODAY” and “PARADISE”.man version is manipulative and confusing….BT stay focused i am not confuse U are dic.. head

  48. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    Christianity IS* a FACTual Religion
    “Christianity appeals to HISTORY, the FACTS of history, which P. Carnegie Simpson calls, “the MOST patent and accessible of data.” Simpson continues, “He [Jesus| IS a FACT of history cognizable as any other.”

    J.N.D Anderson records D.E. Jenkins’ remark, “Christianity IS* based on indisputable facts.”

    Clark Pinnock defines this type of facts:
    “The facts backing the Christian claim are not a special kind of religious fact. They are the cognitive, informational FACTS upon which ALL historical, legal, and ordinary decisions are based.”

  49. Zoe Avatar
    Zoe

    Paradise that Jesus told the man next to Him on the Cross, “today you shall be with Me in Paradise” was NOT heaven, but the place separated from Hell by a great gulf where Abraham was with the poor beggar. It was NOT until Jesus ascension back to Heaven, that all those who were in PARADISE were THEN taken to Heaven.

  50. David Avatar
    David

    It amuses how commenters discuss debate the bible and things religious and elect to insult each other while doing so. There is a moral in there somewhere.

    On 18 January 2014 13:42, Barbados Underground

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading