Religion III

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Why would the Jewish Messiah, whose coming was predicted in the Hebrew scriptures and who descended from the tribe of Judah choose to be born in any land that was ignorant of the Hebrew scriptures?

Why would the Jewish Messiah be born in any nation that was excluded from the covenants and promises that God made exclusively with Israel (Eph 2:12)? What would any foreigners know about such covenants and promises?

Wasn't part of his mission to get the word out to the gentiles? The movement eventually centered on Rome anyway.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And by the way, Jerusalem was hardly a "backwater town".

It was about 1/4 of a square mile, maybe smaller. Rome was much larger and had a bigger population.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Wasn't part of his mission to get the word out to the gentiles? The movement eventually centered on Rome anyway.

And I say God's plan was quite successful. The gospel has gone out to the entire world.

It was about 1/4 of a square mile, maybe smaller. Rome was much larger and had a bigger population.

Actually closer to a square mile, but it was still a very important city in the Mediterranean area.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Actually closer to a square mile, but it was still a very important city in the Mediterranean area.

Split the difference. I found a map of Jerusalem at that time. Using the scale on the map it was approximately 3/4 of a square mile.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Actor

Split the difference. I found a map of Jerusalem at that time. Using the scale on the map it was approximately 3/4 of a square mile.

There’s a 1/50 scale model of first century Jerusalem...pretty accurate. It’s 2000 M2.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy...l_of_Jerusalem

[Actor]

Apparently reports that the Arkansas Creationism bill was dead were inaccurate. I've received an email from American Atheists that the Arkansas house passed the bill on 7 April and it is expected to pass the Senate. AA is currently raising money to challenge the bill.

https://www.4029tv.com/article/arkan...f&ceid=4477155

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Apparently reports that the Arkansas Creationism bill was dead were inaccurate. I've received an email from American Atheists that the Arkansas house passed the bill on 7 April and it is expected to pass the Senate. AA is currently raising money to challenge the bill.

https://www.4029tv.com/article/arkan...f&ceid=4477155

But hurry up and send a very fat donation.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Actor

Apparently reports that the Arkansas Creationism bill was dead were inaccurate. I've received an email from American Atheists that the Arkansas house passed the bill on 7 April and it is expected to pass the Senate. AA is currently raising money to challenge the bill.

https://www.4029tv.com/article/arkan...f&ceid=4477155

It’s Arkansas. They deserve this.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by TJDave

It’s Arkansas. They deserve this.

Yes, they do. They deserve to look at both sides of the issue. Unlike the rest of the country, they have "evolved" high enough to know they should really pull their heads out of their nether regions so that they can see the light.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But hurry up and send a very fat donation.

I donate monthly.

It's unclear what form a legal challenge would take. The bill "gives permission" for teachers to teach creationism but does not require them to do so. So could a challenge be mounted immediately? Or must AA wait for a teacher to teach creationism and then sue him/her? Could only the teacher be sued or could the state of Arkansas be named as a co-defendant? Once the teacher/Arkansas loses will Arkansas alone bear the court costs or would the teacher be left in the lurch? (Court costs in Kitzmiller v. Dove were in the millions.) Could The Discovery Institute which drafted the bill also be a defendant?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I donate monthly.

It's unclear what form a legal challenge would take. The bill "gives permission" for teachers to teach creationism but does not require them to do so. So could a challenge be mounted immediately? Or must AA wait for a teacher to teach creationism and then sue him/her? Could only the teacher be sued or could the state of Arkansas be named as a co-defendant? Once the teacher/Arkansas loses will Arkansas alone bear the court costs or would the teacher be left in the lurch? (Court costs in Kitzmiller v. Dove were in the millions.) Could The Discovery Institute which drafted the bill also be a defendant?

The pope might wind up being a defendant too.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The pope might wind up being a defendant too.

I don't think so. For one thing Pope Pius XII declared that the theory of evolution is not intrinsically opposed to Christianity and that church members are free to decide for themselves whether evolution is true. For another the RCC opposes the teaching of religion in public schools.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Ironically, Occam's razor is the simplest solution when applied to the entire passion story.

The simplest solution is that the entire story is fiction.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And what makes you think that the resurrection has anything to with physical laws of the universe? What about metaphysical laws, of which science is ignorant? Just because such laws are not observable doesn't mean they don't exist.

Wrong! That's exactly what it means. Metaphysics, by definition, deals with reality. If you cannot observe it then how could you know it's real? You cannot interact with the metaphysical. The best you can hope for is a form of agnosticism. Why not save a step and simply declare that it does not exist? Why continue to try to prove the unprovable? It's a waste of time.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The simplest solution is that the entire story is fiction.

Circular reasoning. You don't believe something because you believe it's not factual. Get busy proving that.

Wrong! That's exactly what it means. Metaphysics, by definition, deals with reality. If you cannot observe it then how could you know it's real? You cannot interact with the metaphysical. The best you can hope for is a form of agnosticism. Why not save a step and simply declare that it does not exist? Why continue to try to prove the unprovable? It's a waste of time.

So, you don't believe in the laws of logic? I never observed logic, have you?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Circular reasoning. You don't believe something because you believe it's not factual. Get busy proving that.

You make the claim. The burden of proof is yours. If you can prove it then I'll believe it. Not before.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you don't believe in the laws of logic? I never observed logic, have you?

Yes, I have observed logic. Logic is observed not with the five senses but with the mind. Start with a premise. Reach a conclusion. Find a means of falsifying that conclusion. Attempt to falsify it. If you can't then it's probably true.

The problem with the crucifixion story is that it's not falsifiable, meaning it's not testable.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You make the claim. The burden of proof is yours. If you can prove it then I'll believe it. Not before.

I believe it on the basis of scripture. The doctrine of the resurrection, the prophecies pertaining to the resurrection, etc. are all in the scriptures and they all haromonize quite nicely -- not violating any laws of logic and even satisfying the principle behind Occam's razor.

Yes, I have observed logic. Logic is observed not with the five senses but with the mind. Start with a premise. Reach a conclusion. Find a means of falsifying that conclusion. Attempt to falsify it. If you can't then it's probably true.

It something cannot be observed by the 5 senses, then it's not physical. And if not physical, then it can only be non-physical, and if non-physical this proves there are physical realities behind what is physical. As stated often, real science is based on sound logic -- not the other way around. No real science can be done that is not grounded in the laws of logic.

The problem with the crucifixion story is that it's not falsifiable, meaning it's not testable.

But the resurrection was falsifiable and tested by first century believers. I believe they're called eye witnesses.