Cofffee

Hmm, I've never read the book, but here's an II section that critiques "The Case for Faith" - titled Objections Sustained!.

While I was still seeking, I read Strobel's The Case For Christ. It left me with more questions than answers.

She made it seem like she was on a quest to get the facts about Christianity, but her final decision to "choose" Christ seemed to be mainly an emotional one. I was a little disappointed, because I was expecting a bit more substance.

I went on to read Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a verdict and while yet a Christian at the time, even I could see through his weak arguments...This is the book to read if you want a good laugh at poor apologetics. The II even wrote an excellent rebuttal for it called The Jury is In.

There's lots of other critiques in the II's apologetics section.

Radorth

Re: Scigirl

Would you like to quote what you are talking about, or just expect us to take it on faith? I seriously doubt "stark contradictions" applies very well. I suspect you would be the first to whine about many similarities so I don't think "I have morals" applies very well either.

Most Christian scholars will admit some contradictions, interpolations and additions by God's little helpers, but they are well documented, and footnoted in study Bibles- that they are questionable. Meanwhile other variations do indicate that the four writers had independent sources.

Thus it is skeptics who go around arguing they are too variant to be believed, and (if the wind shifts) are too similar to be believed. Guess they must be what one would expect in a historical record. The HC applies standards of historicity to the Bible they would never apply to other ancient works. They would have no case at all if they did.

So glad folks here don't argue the swoon theory. The brighter agnostics are oft swayed by it, judging by the number of books sold which argue it.

Rad

Biff the unclean

Are you still trying to bluff by calling it the "swoon" theory? Nice try but you still own us an explaination of why when people in the present day are taken for dead but show up alive that you don't think that they had actually been dead.

Bubba

Count me in as one more person unimpressed with both Strobel and Josh McDowell.

Bubba

Starboy

Radorth appears obsessed with the "swoon" theory. I think it has him shakin in his boots.

scigirl

Yes because they have to.

It's like creationists admitting to 'micro' evolution because the data is so freaking blatantly obvious.

I noticed you didn't address my other statement - about how your entire religion is based on the circular reasoning/selective choosing of books of the Bible by the early Church - by Strobel's own admission!

scigirl

Celsus

Yup, most Christians with half a brain want nothing to do with Strobel or McDowell. Others grasp desperately to their heroes despite the overwhelming evidence facing them. It would merely be sad if Christians didn't try to use Strobel and McDowell as evangelical tools to sucker people in to their faith. As it is, Strobel and McDowell deserve every rebuttal they get, even though Christians moan about why we're not paying more attention to the "better" arguments. It's simple, we pay proportional attention to the "better" (read "complicated, convoluted and boring") arguments as Christians themselves would.

Joel

butlerk

So, I've finished reading The Case for Faith. I'm not quite sure whether the person who gave me the book intended for me to walk away from the book converted, but I know that I walked away from the last major chapter, "Objection #8: I Still Have Doubts, So I Can't Be a Christian," laughing.

I'm not quite sure what to make of Strobel. It seems as though the book read like "I have faith so you should too." It certainly gave me great insight into the way Christians think about their faith, but it still didn't resolve the questions with any concrete answers. The attempt was there, but there was a lot of mystical handwaving in the end.

I guess it didn't take too much out of me to read the book, so now it's back to Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy (which is an easier read than I thought it would be.)

Radorth

Wow, they actually selected what to put in the canon? Terrible thing.

I don't suppose you'd be interested in knowing why they selected what. It might screw up your neat theory and cause you to have to think. Of course it would appear like "circular reasoning" if they were merely consistent in how they decided what was inspired and what was not.

You're how old? 26?

Rad

Hedwig

I'm still trying to figure how how that has anything to do with it.