User:Conservative/ResurrectionRequest
From Conservapedia
Due to the fact that religious conservatives and the atheist/agnostic/skeptical community seem to be at odds in regards to some matters I wish to make the suggestion that Conservapedia make a short and reasonable request to this community on its main page or at least on some page of Conservapedia. However, before I state the nature of the request to the atheist/agnostic/skeptical community I wish to give some background material.
Conservapedia has an article on Christian legal apologetics and there is a essay given by Phillip E. Johnson which states the following:
| “ | Since the seventeenth century, over one hundred and twenty Christian apologists have composed juridically (i.e. legal) styled apologetic texts. Juridical or jural apologetics may be defined as a style that employs either general legal principles or technical legal criteria in presenting a reasoned case for Christian belief. Apologists in this school are those who have been educated in the law and held positions as solicitors, barristers, judges, and law school lecturers. A few non-lawyers belong in this school because they follow jural methods, but space limitations preclude listing most of them. Thus only ninety two apologists appear in this bibliography.[1] | ” |
In regards to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, presently Conservapedia though its Christian Legal Apologetics article, cites several books by Christian juridical apologists through its recommended books listing and through the external link section.
Now there is considerable amount of effort on behalf of the atheist/agnostic/skeptical community to litigate in regards to Christmas manger scenes of the infant Jesus, the Ten Commandments and related matters and groups such as the American Atheist and Freedom From Religion Foundation engage in these types of lawsuits. However, I do not know of a single book written by the member of atheist/agnostic/skeptical community written by a practicing member of the legal community that is a juridical apologetic which attempts to refute the issue of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is it because the atheist/agnostic/skeptical community cannot present a substantial and compelling case? This is certainly a reasonable question and I cite a somewhat related and very famous case:
| “ | In the Scopes Trial, Clarence Darrow (cf. Pedro Irigonegaray) got to interrogate the evolution critics, but William Jennings Bryan (cf. Kansas attorney John Calvert for our side) did not get to interrogate the evolutionists. It is a little known fact that William Jennings Bryan agreed to be interrogated by Clarence Darrow only if Bryan could in turn interrogate Darrow on Darrow’s views of evolution. Darrow agreed, but then right after interrogating Bryan directed the judge to find Scopes guilty, thereby closing the evidence and thus preventing Bryan from interrogating Darrow (for the details about this ploy, see Edward Sisson’s essay in my book Uncommon Dissent).[2] | ” |
So there is certainly some reasonable concern that the failure of the atheist/agnostic/skeptical to produce a book in respect to a juridical apologetic denying the resurrection of Christ is due to avoidence. Now Internet infidels states that they are the largest and most trafficed website for non-theist.[3] Internet Infidels does offer amongst its thousands of articles a 17 page juridical work that was composed by the retired lawyer Richard Packham that disputes the validity of some material by the Christian juridical apologist Dr. John Warwick Montgomery and it also offers a short article disputing the validity of the rebuttal of Mr. Packham by Boyd Pehrson.[4][5][6] Now I don't believe that Mr. Packham refutes Dr. Montgomery's material which cites the work of distinguised legal scholar and Harvard Royall Profesor Simon Greenleaf in regards to the usage of the "Ancient Documents" rule in respect to the gospels.[7][8] Furthermore, I don't believe that Mr. Packham truly addressed the issue of the reasonable exceptions to the hearsay rule that would apply to the gospels. [9][10]
Packham does state the following:
"The exceptions, of which both Pehrson and Montgomery make so much, can be read here, as part of the statutory law of the United States: Rule 803, Exceptions where the declarant is available (23 exceptions are listed), and Rule 804, Exceptions where the declarant is unavailable (five are listed)."[11]
Now setting aside the issue that his links to the Rule 803 and Rule 804 appear to be dead links at Mr. Packhams's website (at least on my internet connection), I will state that Packham should have listed and separately addressed each of the five exceptions to Rule 804. Mr. Packham did not do that and there appears to be reasons why the exceptions would apply as can be seen HERE and HERE. Furthermore, Mr. Packham was sloppy in regards to the law and he makes an admission of oversight HERE
So here is my request, I suggest that the groups American Atheist, Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Internet Infidels find a practicing member or members of legal community (legal scholars, lawyers, judges, etc.) of the non-theistic persuasion to co-author a book that addresses the issue of the resurrection or non-resurrection of Jesus Christ from a juridical perspective and that one half of the book take the non-theistic position and the other half of the book be composed by a Christian judicial apologist or Christian juridical apologists. Given that it appears that there is no book written from a juridical atheist/agnostic/skeptical persuasion presently and given the large amount of legal work in regards to manger scenes, Ten Commandments, etc. I believe this is a reasonable request. For if Christianity is not true as non-theist often assert, then it is incumbent upon them to demonstrate this contention and there appears to be no shortage of non-theist lawyers in the Western World. Also, as aforely mentioned there appears to be no major work on this subject in relation to juridical apologetics. The only work I am aware of is the 17 page work and short rebuttal mentioned previously of the retired lawyer Mr. Packham who committed a oversight in regards to the law in his argumentation. However, if there is a larger and more substantial work I would appeciate it if you would kindly make me aware of it as I would be interested in being made aware of it. By the way, given the large amount of work written by Christian juridical apologists in the past, I don't believe there will be a problem in regards to finding a member or members of Christendom to produce their half of such a book. I will notify the American Atheists, Freedom From Religion, and Internet Infidels staff in regards to the above request. Also, the Brights Movement associated with Richard Dawkins states that they "stand for “a level playing field” that provides the same foothold in society as citizens who believe in the supernatural. The time is here to garner visibility and work for full social acceptance and civic participation."[12] Therefore, I will contact the Brights Movement and Richard Dawkins as as well since scholarly activity is certainly a part of civic participation and such a book would give equal opportunity to both sides to state their position. And of course, their involvement in such a work would give them greater visibility. Perhaps, the Brights Movement and Richard Dawkins may know of some members of the legal community who might be interested in defending the non-theistic position in regards to the resurrection or non-resurrection of Jesus Christ. By the way, I do believe that more than gospels should be used in regards to the issue given the letters of the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter.
So here is my request in regards to Conservapedia, may we please put a short and concise challenge to the atheist/agnostic/skeptical community on the main page of Conservapedia or at least on some part of the Conservapedia on behalf of Conservapedia in regards to the above request. I believe there is a sound reason why Conservapedia should issue the above request. Namely, Conservapedia states the following in their Jesus Christ article: "Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the propitiation for our sins and to ransom us from death.[1] By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary, and became man in an event known as the Incarnation, as referred to in Isaiah 7:14."[13] Now I believe that Conservapedia should be dedicated to scholarship and since such a work appears to have never been done before I think that Conservapedia should advance the cause of such a work to be written and I am guessing that there would be some public interest in such a work (I am guessing there might be some publicity surrounding such a work since America at least seems to be very interested in the judicial system and mattters surrounding religion).
