What Qualifies As Evidence? Everything!

[Garland-Green]

Excerpt; Last week while talking on the phone with my friend and fellow Christian Case Maker, Rice Broocks (author of God’s Not Dead), the topic of evidence was raised. Both of us present the case for Christianity on university campuses around the country and we’ve discovered a great deal of cultural confusion related to what qualifies as evidence when trying to make a case. Many people simply don’t understand the basic categories of evidence and mistakenly think prosecutors need a particular kind of evidence to be successful.

More; What Qualifies As Evidence? Everything!  

[cristobela]

This was awkward to read as someone who is wary of the American justice system. I know what the author of the article is getting at by describing circumstantial evidence used in court (the arguments they give in court are very convincing—and I can see how this is relevant to being a Christian case maker).

But something that has always troubled me: knowing that a human jury can reach a guilty verdict only to find out, years later, that the defendant was innocent. So that anything can be used as evidence is not much of a comfort to someone who is wary of human justice, especially under gentile government.

If "direct evidence" is eye witness testimony, then even less could be tried under YHWH's Law.

Deuteronomy 19:15 (NIV)

15 One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

Not even one piece of direct evidence is enough for YHWH, but in America you can be found guilty for much less (absolutely no eye witnesses / no direct evidence, yet guilty verdict).

YHWH only accepts direct evidence, and there must be more than one. He has more mercy (because, chances are, you won't be tried at all). And He has true justice: it is fair if more than one independent witness truthfully saw you commit a sin (a crime according to God's Law); it's not fair if they assume false things about you, even if the crime scene may appear a certain way, but didn't directly see you do it). Perhaps this is why the USA is so lawsuit-happy emotion_sweatdrop because it's so easy to try something / make an argument, and it's not immoral if you assume things about the person without direct evidence.

What bothers me most about the American justice system is that two people could be arguing a position and not necessarily be defending the truth at all. All they care about is defending an argument. And it's what people hate about religious discussion too. When a person doesn't trust either side, I see they become frustrated and confused, being tossed to and fro. There have been occasions when I heard about what people testify in court and I'm left so confused as to what the truth is because I can't tell who is trustworthy. They all sound so convincing. That is why I love direct evidence, and only direct evidence, particularly more than one.

As a non-believer, circumstantial evidence was intriguing and broke down a few prejudices I had against scripture, but what convinced me was direct evidence: following the instructions in the bible for how to live and how to pray and seeing the protection result firsthand/directly after that. Thus it proved trustworthy at that point. The archaeology did break down prejudices (i.e. any notion that the scrolls were not rooted in reality). So I'm not saying it's not helpful. But what convinced me was direct interaction with YHWH according to His terms. Direct evidence—time and time again.

• 2 Corinthians 13:1 (NIV)
  
  13 This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”[a]
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. 2 Corinthians 13:1 Deut. 19:15

I pray more people seek the direct evidence and taste for themselves that He is good.  

[Garland-Green]

cristobela

Though the system is flawed because it is based on human standards to measure guilt they are not entirely illogical, and the ability to think logically about an issue, I believe, is something we have been given by God. And though mistakes happen - they don't happen in all the cases. There is also the issue of submitting to the governing authorities. Romans 13 from what I have understood deals with submitting not just to those governments who profess belief but also about earthly secular/pagan (render unto Caesar - Mark 12:17) governments, because though they are earthly they have been instituted by God and their ability to deal out justice is something also established by God. Servants of God whether they are aware of it or not?

Romans 13:1-5

Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.