PBB- I read the book a couple years ago, having received it at a christian retreat. At that time, I thought that it was very well written, and that the arguments were much better than someone like Josh McDowell or RC Sproul. Now becoming much more skeptical and reading his sechond book, I still find that it is well written in the sense that it holds your attention. On the other hand there is a lot of logical contradictions, and as someone said, he doesn't follow through. He has the same questions as I have, but I'm certainly not satisfied with the answers. Sometimes the logic is good while the assumptions are bad, sometimes it just sounds good ONLY if you believe it to begin with. And I didn't even think about not having the other side when I read the first one! That's a big problem to me now. I wouldn't waste the money on the second one.
ErwinFletcher

He attempts to cover a lot of ground for one book. Each one of this "big 8" could be covered in a book... and most of them are. For more follow through, especially if one of the questions is particularly bugging you, check out the recommended books at the end of the chapter. Also check out the bibliography.

Lance

Erwin: The first thing you need to know about any apologetic book is that the conclusion is an automatic foregone conclusion. They wouldn't be writing it for anything else, would they?

The purpose of apologetic material is mainly to sell an idea. In the case of Christian apologetics, its to make Jesus Junkies.

For example, as many have posted, Strobel has a picked jury that will reach a foregone conclusion. A good analogy is the OJ case. In each trial, almost regardless of the evidence, the verdicts they reached were almost a given. In the criminal trial, there could have been 100 witnesses saying he did it...and I seriously doubt that jury would have convicted. Likewise, in the civil trial, he could have had a 100 witnesses saying he didn't...and again I seriously doubt the outcome would be different. (Both are a sad commentary on race relations in this country, but THAT is way outside this thread.)

And apologetics are NEVER, regardless of what they say, interested in an impartial skeptical review of the evidence. As with Mr. Strobel, they will avoid the tough questions, like Bede here, will seek to discard anything remotely incriminating, and in general "spin it" to the best net positive effect.

Am I saying that most apologetic books are dishonest? From a skeptical point, absolutely. Their mission in life is to "preach the gospel to all nations", it isn't to fairly examine evidence for "the case for Christ".

The second question, is are these books in general worthless? Certainly not. If nothing else, reading these books will help skeptics understand and defeat the Christian addiction. Simple tactics. If you don't know the argument of your opponent, its easy to be surprised and defeated. Knowledge is power, particularly knowledge of reason. Why do you think Christians preach against it so vigorously?

So, all you keyboard tappers with aspirations of publication, Strobel's failure to present a convincing, balanced case is the perfect opportunity for such a book to still be written! Get crackin'!

One more thing: I've got a real problem with the concept of "former skeptic." You see it all the time in testimonials for carpet cleaners and diet pills. Ideally, shouldn't a skeptic always be a skeptic, even when convinced by the evidence? (Granted, Strobel's publishers are using a secondary definition of the word "skeptic" for the book jacket.)

I know I've been criticizing the book on here, but I honestly think that if I didn't feel that this was in any way a sneaky attempt of Strobel to market his book as an objective investigation into the historicity of Jesus, I wouldn't have anything against it.

I actually enjoyed reading the book. I read it in 3 days, and never once was bored while reading. I probably would even recommend this book to people as a good intro for the historicity of Jesus. But I would tell them that this is a book that represents the conservative christian side.

Lance

Brian: I wasn't coming down hard on the book. From the pieces I've seen of it, it is likely a pretty decent read. You just have to be aware the job #1 is to sell Christianity in it. I'd agree with what you said.

Grumpy: No, I'd agree with former in the case of skeptics turning into Christians. Consider that a lot of Christians are on record about "plucking out the eye of reason" and I believe it.

And Strobel ain't a skeptic. A skunk by any other name is still a skunk.

Of course Strobel is not a skeptic. He was a skeptic. So, he's no longer a skunk.

Aha!. This proves it. Theist DO have a sense of humor. Cool.

Ah, interesting. This is similar to Josh McDowell's tactic, in Evidence that Demands a Verdict. He claims to have been a former skeptic, converted by the historical evidence. But then he does such a pathetic job of presenting the evidence that it becomes obvious that something is amiss.

No, it is not. When a skeptic says that they are a former xtian, it does not necessarily mean that they became a skeptic as a result of investigation. They may merely be saying it as a way to demonstrate familiarity with some topic or theological concept.


You are being disingenuous.

If there is no hidden agenda, then why mention "former skeptic" in the context of a book that purports to be "The Case for Christ"?