jess

ok, I live in a double. The guys downstairs are good friends, have been for years...

one is a pantheist sort of person (lets call him Marvin), one is a wicca, and one is an agnostic (marrying a born again bible believing... but that is another story)

Marvin's mother has sent him all sorts of proseletyzing materials. The other day, he got the Case of Christ (for, whatever) from his sister--- so now he is being attcked on all fronts...

Well, being the idiot I am, I wanted to read S's book, so I borrowed it. It does a pretty good job of messing with your mind. If I didn't know how to think, I might be dragged in. Dangerous stuff.

Anyone else read it? any comments? I'd love to share... and I know Marvin will want me to back up any comments of my own...

I know he cites the micrographic letters as fact, I know he claims there is something as an 'indirect eyewitness', I know that he thinks it takes 500 years to start adding myth to fact (can you say Roswell?), I know that he footnotes himself, I know that every page warrants a 'HAH!', and I know that I am overly picky.

any other comments? (I'm on page 150 of 367))

cloudyphiz

several of strobel's books are critiqued <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.shtml#strobel" target="_blank">here</a>, in the secweb library.

-gary

Chrestomathy

There's also this from Earl Doherty:

<a href="http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/CTVCourt.htm" target="_blank">challenging the verdict</a>

jess

k, thanks...

does anyone know about LS's assertion that Thallus wrote in 52CE that the darkness at the X was an eclipse, apparetly to 'explain it away'?

or has read 'the verdict of history' by Gary Habermas? (LS puts a great deal of weight on that book, but doesn't quote it...

Thanks!

cloudyphiz

here's a christian site that talks about thallus
<a href="http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/thallus.html" target="_blank">web page</a>

his writing is lost, all that remains of this part of thallus' history is in a quote from julius africanus (a church father writing in 221 CE).

likewise, Phlegon is referenced by Origen (ca. 184-254 CE) in his 'contra celsus'.
<a href="http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/hist/phlegon.html" target="_blank">web page</a>

unfortunately, that's about the extent of the evidence. it seems strange that christians would have had secular accounts of such a miraculous event (it being the linchpin of their religion), yet failed to preserve them. and, of course, nothing remains of celsus' writings beyond what is quoted by origen (i don't wonder why), so we have no idea what he might have said in response to origen.

oh, and here's one i just found:
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jacoby.html" target="_blank">it's by richard carrier here at the secweb</a>
haven't read it yet though.

-gary

Skeptical

First, on the question of the "darkness", the bottom line is that we have 3rd hand arguments about a claim being made to some supposed event. That's pretty crummy evidence under any circumstances. Also, Pliny the elder who recorded every natural phenoemena of his age, even those that were mere rumors, doesn't say a word about it. That to me is game, set and match and I can't for the life of me understand why apologists would continue to even bring the supposed "evidence" of Thallus up.

As far as the CFC goes, I read it alongside Doherty's "challenging the verdict". I can't say that I agree with everything that Doherty says, but he is spot on with much of his criticism. The main problem with the CFC is that Strobel quite simply does not ask the proper follow up questions. He starts with a genuine question, and then he simply accepts the answer supplied. Every single interview follows the same pattern. He never once calls "BS" on his sources. I understand its the "case for Christ", but if you cannot answer the main objections of your critics, your being disingenuous in my opinion.

Some of the people he quotes give POV's that can only charitably be called "way off base". Habermas, for example, actually implies that the traditions of the christian community that clearly have close parallels to Pagan rituals and creeds means that the Pagans copied from the christians. This is, in a word, ludicrous since some of these traditions date to hundreds of years before Jesus. Strobel doesn't even question this and simply accepts it. That is just one example. There's also numerous arguments that aren't addressed at all, such as the problem with the dating of the birth of Jesus (Mat. puts it before 4 BCE, Luke in 6 CE)

In short, I give Strobel a little credit for effort and his writing style is not bad, but he does a pretty poor job of interviewing and asking questions a true informed skeptic would ask.

Gutterboy

I would go further and say that the CFC is intentionally deceptive.

Strobels is touted as a "legally trained investigative journalist", and every effort is made to give the appearance of objectivity and intellectual honesty. In reality all he does is lob softball questions at popular fundamentalist apologists who he knows in advance will give him the answers he wants. As Lowder points out, he interviews none of his critics and spends large amounts of time rather pompously refuting arguments skeptics don't actually make.

The CFC is, in my opinion, a reprehensible ploy to exploit the ignorance of those not informed enough to know there are many more sides to the debate than Strobel is willing to acknowledge.

jess:

When you next talk to the people who gave it to you, my advice is to make no bones about attacking the book for being the the deceptive propoganda piece that it is. An important part of this will be to act genuinely horrified that someone espousing the high ideals of Christianity would stoop to such pathetic prevarications to try to convert people.

If the person in question isn't a believer, the seed of skepticism towards apologists - which will protect them from future attempts at manipulation - will be planted. If the person is a believer, this method has the potential to shock 'em into realizing they've been decieved by those they trusted wholly and instinctually as fellow believers. If said believer is at all committed to intellectual honesty, then they may become so disillusioned with the arguments they'd made such an emotional investment in, and so ashamed of themselves for being taken in by the lies, that they may see straight through the sham of fundamentalist christianity.

More than a few ex-fundies have left christianity in this way. And if the above sounds a bit like personal experience, I number myself amongst those ex-fundies

If they are not intellectually honest, they'll simply invent excuses to continue believing. However, you still might plant a seed of nagging doubt about apologists (or more accurately, the ability of seemingly sincere believers to lie through their teeth in order to maintain their belief and convert others..) which could come to fruition later.

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: Gutterboy ]</p>