Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-04-2017, 05:28 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(23-04-2017 04:07 PM)Vera Wrote:  How 'bout just pummelling each other a bit with the two tomes, then? Just for funsies Blush

[Image: bookfight.jpg]

I will destroy him!

Shai is my friend. I don't wish to crush that which is my friend and ally.




Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
23-04-2017, 05:35 PM (This post was last modified: 23-04-2017 06:44 PM by Shai Hulud.)
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(23-04-2017 04:29 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(23-04-2017 04:24 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Normally I find the act of burning a book abhorrent...but...did you send it into the flames? Also I'm so sorry, imagine you were less than happy, to understate things, when she did.

I actually didn't burn it, the garbage company recycled it. Although the Kraut in me really wanted to burn it, there was no practical way to do so. I just wanted that garbage as far from my children as possible. I skimmed it and I think I lost a few brain cells. It is actually worse than TCFC if you can believe it.

Well drat, no pretty fire Sad But the garbage company works. Sorry it was *that* bad...heh. Though since he's writing to a younger audience, I'd imagine it would be even worse than TCFC. And filled with even more bullshit if possible.

(23-04-2017 05:28 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(23-04-2017 04:07 PM)Vera Wrote:  How 'bout just pummelling each other a bit with the two tomes, then? Just for funsies Blush

[Image: bookfight.jpg]

I will destroy him!

Shai is my friend. I don't wish to crush that which is my friend and ally.

Tongue
Thanks Tongue Don't let them divide and conquer the Theist Council of TTA. Divided we fall to atheism. Wink

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shai Hulud's post
23-04-2017, 07:36 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(23-04-2017 05:35 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  
(23-04-2017 04:29 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  I actually didn't burn it, the garbage company recycled it. Although the Kraut in me really wanted to burn it, there was no practical way to do so. I just wanted that garbage as far from my children as possible. I skimmed it and I think I lost a few brain cells. It is actually worse than TCFC if you can believe it.

Well drat, no pretty fire Sad But the garbage company works. Sorry it was *that* bad...heh. Though since he's writing to a younger audience, I'd imagine it would be even worse than TCFC. And filled with even more bullshit if possible.

(23-04-2017 05:28 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I will destroy him!

Shai is my friend. I don't wish to crush that which is my friend and ally.

Tongue
Thanks Tongue Don't let them divide and conquer the Theist Council of TTA. Divided we fall to atheism. Wink

Resistance is futile. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
23-04-2017, 07:47 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Chapter Fourteen: The Circumstantial Evidence. We have the Conclusion and an Interview to go. That's it. Maybe we end this, this week? Then I can catch up with my Bible readings and then maybe consider another book on hand here. Also just...fuck his kids' books. Fuck those. Pissed me off.

Strobel's not made me into an atheist, but he sure as Hell got a nasty Goodreads review for me after that dishonest bullshit he pulled last chapter. On the plus side, this chapter is only 13 pages long. On a negative side already, what I've been doing when typing direct quotes has been to hold open the pages by laying my phone on top of them. We're now too far in, so the phone doesn't work for that.

So let's start this chap--seriously Strobel? So if the Habermas interview didn't send up enough red flags that we're not a 1970s atheist any more, we start now with Timothy McVeigh blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Lee conveniently ignores how McVeigh had previously mingled with people who were part of the Christian Identity movement prior to this, even if he wasn't a member himself.

New expert is being described as animated, but logical and efficient, capable of creating entire arguments without extraneous detail. He begins his interview with the expert with "a point blank challenge" according to page 267, continuing the charade that he's an atheist. Exhibit One is that the Disciples died for their beliefs, and no one would be martyred for a lie. This is different from Muslims who die for their faith, because the Disciples saw Jesus themselves. (Again, this chapter, we accept the Bible as inerrant.)

Also Paul reminds the people of Corinth about the miracles he performed there earlier when he writes them in 2 Corinthians (or Two Corinthians as our President would call it), and he wouldn't do that if it weren't true and he could be called on it. You know, I hate to be too antagonistic and contrarian here, but lots of people claim to do miracles who don't, and don't get called on it by people who they were 'performed for'. Now, if I were to name some people who have been accused of this, and do so in a way that did not constitute a defamation of character, such individuals might include Benny Hinn, Peter Poppoff, etc.

Also, what about the Christians who never saw Christ who died in His name in the Coliseums, on crosses, and in so many other places. Much like the Muslims Strobel's expert dismisses as having never seen things directly, so too could the same argument be made for these people.

Umm now the expert is talking about Jews fearing going to Hell as part of their continuing to keep their religious traditions after being conquered by others. Could've sworn Hell and Sheol weren't the same Dr. Mr. Theological Seminary Professor, but what do I know, as a mere Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice...except that your 'circumstantial evidence' all comes from the same book of course, whose validity issues have not been properly address before this interview and would very likely fail to hold up in a court of law, like this whole 'trial' book is doing.

His expert also goes into how much different the Jews who followed Jesus became, forsaking their cultural identity for it. While this would be correct to an extent, there were still cases as late as the 4th century where Bishops were having to remind their flock to not go to Synagogue any longer.

Communion proves the Resurrection because no one would ever celebrate a death of a leader over and over unless he came back to life. When people celebrate Kennedy, they think of the good things, not how he was killed by Oswald. Thus Jesus rose from the grave. Lee, I believe Jesus rose from the grave, and I find that argument to be weak and non-compelling. Also expert denies any sacraments were taken from mystery religions, while ignoring Christianity was a mystery religion.

The emergency of the church and its continued survival are the last piece of evidence. Well, second to last, the last is an ongoing relationship with Christ, an 'experiential" knowledge through the expert's hundreds of answered prayers.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Shai Hulud's post
23-04-2017, 10:50 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(23-04-2017 07:47 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Exhibit One is that the Disciples died for their beliefs, and no one would be martyred for a lie. This is different from Muslims who die for their faith, because the Disciples saw Jesus themselves. (Again, this chapter, we accept the Bible as inerrant.)

[...]

Also, what about the Christians who never saw Christ who died in His name in the Coliseums, on crosses, and in so many other places. Much like the Muslims Strobel's expert dismisses as having never seen things directly, so too could the same argument be made for these people.

I've been trying to stay out of this, except to pop in and enjoy the reading (this is the only thread I'm reading), but this argument honestly pisses me off more than any other argument made by fundamentalists.

The Disciples would only die for Jesus if everything said about him in the Gospels is true, because they knew him? Really, Lee? The Disciples were all dead or old enough to be senile by the time the earliest bits of the Gospels were penned. Certainly they were long gone by the time John, from which most of the mystical "definitely claiming to be god incarnate" elements arrive in the story, was written. There's no way they could have known how the stories would have evolved from their root truth, by the time people writing in their names jotted it down.

Even if I take every contention as confirmed (I don't, entirely) that the evidence is strong enough to suggest that Jesus was real, was really crucified, and was really a one-man basis for the tradition that would become Christianity, it still does not follow that this is evidence that the people who followed him would die only if the Gospels are correct. If Jesus was simply the leader of an apocalyptic cult, one which the Romans considered dangerous to their empire (enough to kill him and then hunt down his disciples), then it stands to reason that when they were tracked down and questioned by the Romans--as Tacitus describes happening to regular ol' Christians during the Nero fire-blaming incident--and asked to repudiate their loyalty to their dead-and-Exalted apocalyptic preacher, that they would refuse to do so. Can you imagine such men doing so? Hardly! Without a single miracle, without a single actual claim to godhood, without anything other than the Q-source "sayings" document having actually been said by the man, they would still have died for him. That's the point of such a group.

It is the height of dishonesty to pretend that their unwillingness to die "for a lie" means that the lies? stories later told about him, in ever-increasing godliness and miraculous-ness, over the course of the next century and a half are thus demonstrated to be true. It. Does. Not. Follow. It's simply a way of saying you think the Gospels are dictation-accounts, and not embellishments and re-interpretations of the story in the wake of his not actually coming back "before some of you here taste death", as promised.

Whether or not they saw the real person is irrelevant to these points. Like his own personal testimony, Strobel apparently has a problem with timelines. Angry

I also dislike the assertion that because Paul knew how to use language from the Jewish religion, it means he was an "expert" on Jewish theology. Everything about the Gospels, from the poorly-strung-together "prophecies" that later followers claimed pointed to his arrival (e.g. the egregious misuse of "virgin", parthenos, to translate the word alma, or "young woman", and the fact that the rest of the story in Isaiah 7 is speaking in the present, not the future-tense), to the woeful misinterpretation of the qualifications for the Messiah, to the failure to understand so many other elements of Jewish theology that Aliza has so kindly enumerated for us in the past, tells me that they had only a passing knowledge of the Jewish religion... perhaps enough to use a few "catch phrases", but not enough to pass muster against a theologically literate Jew. Since the Jews had been undergoing a massive diaspora even prior to "the big one", after the rebellion that resulted in the destruction of the Temple, due to the Hellenic invasion and many of them (including Paul) had relocated to Anatolia, it makes sense that they would have some information about the Jewish religion and would be trying to make it "jive" with the ideas in the new, Hellenistic culture in which they found themselves. None of this implies the conclusions Strobel states as if they are the most rational conclusion to be drawn from the use of such terms.

There are a million ways in which the story could have grown from a small root and turned into a larger concept, most of which become obvious only if you're willing (as Bart Ehrman does, for instance) to look at each story as it's penned, sequentially, and read it as if the author knows none of the things in the later stories. Reading Paul in light of what we know in the (later) Gospels makes you see the words he uses a certain way, but if you read it as if he did not know those things would be penned at all, you see glaring problems and myth-making trends just jump off the page at you... thus all of Bart's books and essays on the subject.

I wonder sometimes why it's so (apparently) hard for Christians to be objective about this, as Shai is being. One can look at all this information and still elect to believe that there remains a kernel of truth amid all the extraneous fabrications, and that God really did decide that sending a piece of himself down to the semi-literate Ancient Near East as a half-human to save us from his own judgment was the best plan. Fine. But be honest about the problems, and be honest about what conclusions may be drawn and which may not, from the available information. It's people like Strobel who convince me that, as Jefferson put it, I should "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

If God prefers liars like Strobel over honest disbelievers like me, then I'd rather burn in hell.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
23-04-2017, 11:02 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Another brief note: the "who would believe women!?" argument is ridiculous, also. Women in Hellenistic culture had status, and were priestesses in the very temples against which Paul spent a lot of his time railing. Half the religion's deities were female. Even in the early church, despite Paul's misogyny, there are reports of women who had status among their congregations, and were considered reliable messengers. It's an absolutely inane argument to say that the early Christians would not have based their witness testimony on "unreliable" women, because only among traditionalist Jews would that have been a problem, at that time, because that culture had undergone 300 years of Hellenization following their conquest by Alexander the Great. The only people who would have likely ignored the testimony of women were the Pharisees, or those who thought like them, and well it's pretty plain by the message of the Gospels that no one was really trying to reach those guys.

It's another bunkum argument, and these jackasses should know better.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
24-04-2017, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2017 09:38 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
(23-04-2017 10:50 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-04-2017 07:47 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Exhibit One is that the Disciples died for their beliefs, and no one would be martyred for a lie. This is different from Muslims who die for their faith, because the Disciples saw Jesus themselves. (Again, this chapter, we accept the Bible as inerrant.)

[...]

Also, what about the Christians who never saw Christ who died in His name in the Coliseums, on crosses, and in so many other places. Much like the Muslims Strobel's expert dismisses as having never seen things directly, so too could the same argument be made for these people.

I've been trying to stay out of this, except to pop in and enjoy the reading (this is the only thread I'm reading), but this argument honestly pisses me off more than any other argument made by fundamentalists.

The Disciples would only die for Jesus if everything said about him in the Gospels is true, because they knew him? Really, Lee? The Disciples were all dead or old enough to be senile by the time the earliest bits of the Gospels were penned. Certainly they were long gone by the time John, from which most of the mystical "definitely claiming to be god incarnate" elements arrive in the story, was written. There's no way they could have known how the stories would have evolved from their root truth, by the time people writing in their names jotted it down.

Even if I take every contention as confirmed (I don't, entirely) that the evidence is strong enough to suggest that Jesus was real, was really crucified, and was really a one-man basis for the tradition that would become Christianity, it still does not follow that this is evidence that the people who followed him would die only if the Gospels are correct. If Jesus was simply the leader of an apocalyptic cult, one which the Romans considered dangerous to their empire (enough to kill him and then hunt down his disciples), then it stands to reason that when they were tracked down and questioned by the Romans--as Tacitus describes happening to regular ol' Christians during the Nero fire-blaming incident--and asked to repudiate their loyalty to their dead-and-Exalted apocalyptic preacher, that they would refuse to do so. Can you imagine such men doing so? Hardly! Without a single miracle, without a single actual claim to godhood, without anything other than the Q-source "sayings" document having actually been said by the man, they would still have died for him. That's the point of such a group.

It is the height of dishonesty to pretend that their unwillingness to die "for a lie" means that the lies? stories later told about him, in ever-increasing godliness and miraculous-ness, over the course of the next century and a half are thus demonstrated to be true. It. Does. Not. Follow. It's simply a way of saying you think the Gospels are dictation-accounts, and not embellishments and re-interpretations of the story in the wake of his not actually coming back "before some of you here taste death", as promised.

Whether or not they saw the real person is irrelevant to these points. Like his own personal testimony, Strobel apparently has a problem with timelines. Angry

I also dislike the assertion that because Paul knew how to use language from the Jewish religion, it means he was an "expert" on Jewish theology. Everything about the Gospels, from the poorly-strung-together "prophecies" that later followers claimed pointed to his arrival (e.g. the egregious misuse of "virgin", parthenos, to translate the word alma, or "young woman", and the fact that the rest of the story in Isaiah 7 is speaking in the present, not the future-tense), to the woeful misinterpretation of the qualifications for the Messiah, to the failure to understand so many other elements of Jewish theology that Aliza has so kindly enumerated for us in the past, tells me that they had only a passing knowledge of the Jewish religion... perhaps enough to use a few "catch phrases", but not enough to pass muster against a theologically literate Jew. Since the Jews had been undergoing a massive diaspora even prior to "the big one", after the rebellion that resulted in the destruction of the Temple, due to the Hellenic invasion and many of them (including Paul) had relocated to Anatolia, it makes sense that they would have some information about the Jewish religion and would be trying to make it "jive" with the ideas in the new, Hellenistic culture in which they found themselves. None of this implies the conclusions Strobel states as if they are the most rational conclusion to be drawn from the use of such terms.

There are a million ways in which the story could have grown from a small root and turned into a larger concept, most of which become obvious only if you're willing (as Bart Ehrman does, for instance) to look at each story as it's penned, sequentially, and read it as if the author knows none of the things in the later stories. Reading Paul in light of what we know in the (later) Gospels makes you see the words he uses a certain way, but if you read it as if he did not know those things would be penned at all, you see glaring problems and myth-making trends just jump off the page at you... thus all of Bart's books and essays on the subject.

I wonder sometimes why it's so (apparently) hard for Christians to be objective about this, as Shai is being. One can look at all this information and still elect to believe that there remains a kernel of truth amid all the extraneous fabrications, and that God really did decide that sending a piece of himself down to the semi-literate Ancient Near East as a half-human to save us from his own judgment was the best plan. Fine. But be honest about the problems, and be honest about what conclusions may be drawn and which may not, from the available information. It's people like Strobel who convince me that, as Jefferson put it, I should "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

If God prefers liars like Strobel over honest disbelievers like me, then I'd rather burn in hell.

Yeah, Strobel putting forth the old "no one would die for a lie" apologetic seriously discredits himself. You have got to be seriously gullible to think this is a good point - or you know that the people reading your books will believe this trite nonsense.

[Image: 13470925_G.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
26-04-2017, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2017 05:50 PM by Shai Hulud.)
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Both of you made such great posts Smile (Even if one is a depressing cult suicide.) I've not had the patience in the reaction ones as I read to go in anywhere near the depth RS has provided. Smile

Still have the Verdict/Conclusion and interview to go (maybe one tonight, that or I just got a copy of "Gramps Goes to College" on DVD.). But one of the people who can't understand why I'd think any of this book is false, and is an Evangelical youth minister at a megachurch posted this on his wall just now:

Quote:[name withheld]

Emotions/feelings are not an accurate barometer of reality. They can change with the wind. Truth is determined by facts, not chemical reactions in the brain.

EDIT: Before anyone comments with "Wait, aren't you a Christian?" I'll address that up front. Yes I am. I'm a Christian because there are facts that support the claims of scripture and I trust those facts. True faith isn't blind or based on feelings.

Drinking Beverage

Edit:

(23-04-2017 07:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-04-2017 05:35 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Well drat, no pretty fire Sad But the garbage company works. Sorry it was *that* bad...heh. Though since he's writing to a younger audience, I'd imagine it would be even worse than TCFC. And filled with even more bullshit if possible.

Thanks Tongue Don't let them divide and conquer the Theist Council of TTA. Divided we fall to atheism. Wink

Resistance is futile. Drinking Beverage

The last person who said that got a transphasic torpedo up their cube's exhaust port.

[Image: 4xBi3Iu.png]

Edit 2: Chas, I owe you an apology. I'm 17 minutes into the film "Gramps Goes to College" and I am cheering for the straw atheists in this film. Main character is such a condescending jerk that I can't be on his side.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Shai Hulud's post
30-04-2017, 06:14 PM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2017 06:48 PM by Shai Hulud.)
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Conclusion: The Verdict of History if his verdict is not that Jesus Christ is God, then I swear to you all I will renounce my faith by the time I hit post. Also we still have an interview with Strobel after this.

Disingenuous chapter title is disingenuous. Implies that there's 100% historical proof of all this. Also page 280, what appears to be a bald faced lie, "I never intended to write about my experience" and that he only decided to later when retracing his steps across the country and expanding on what he had learned, that he decided to write a book. A few things with this: One, you don't spend all that money on travel and research only for personal interest, especially if you were even half the douchebag you would have us believe in your comments in the book, the movie based on the book, and the testimony that you keep parading all over YouTube. Second, this is the first time in the book, that I can recall, where you actually admit that these interviews are an expansion of what you had previously undertaken. Anyhow, the book now comes as close to acknowledging that as it will, on page 280 at the bottom-ish, "In a similar way, I can sum up the substance os what we've learned in our own examination of the evidence through the experts in this book."

We get a paragraph on how Bloomberg showed us the biographies of Jesus can be trusted. Also that Bloomberg argued "persuasively" according to page 281, that the Gospels can be trusted. Page 281 also tells us "world class scholar Bruce Metzger" said the documents we have don't show any doctrinal issues only spelling and grammar differences. Page 281 also informs us that Yamauchi told us "we have better historical documentation for Jesus than for the founder of any other ancient religion". Okay you know what, we're going to skip the paragraph summaries of each previous chapter and go to relatively new material here.

We're revisiting two lessons from the Dixon case at the beginning of the book apparently. So from page 287, "First, has the collection of evidence really been thorough?" Hell, just going to quote the whole paragraph, "Yes, it has been. I selected experts who could state their position and defend it with historical evidence that I could then test through cross-examination. I wasn't merely interested in their opinions, I wanted facts. I challenged them with the current theories of atheists and liberal professors. Given their background, credentials, experience, and character, these scholars were more than qualified to present reliable historical data concerning Jesus."

Okay...let's start with your self selection of experts. You picked people, perhaps unconsciously, who agreed with your pre-existing biases, not people who would neutrally examine the evidence. We've seen you, and your experts bash those people throughout the book. Second, the "cross-examination" doesn't happen at all, that would imply someone else was also playing attorney here, and yet it was just you softballing questions at people with yourself having incomplete knowledge and only interviewing 'experts' in favor of the position you were investigating. Were this a scientific journal article, I'd have gotten an outright rejection for such shoddy methodology. Your challenges of those current theories was lackluster enough that with no theological training I continually poked holes in them, you were naive and lacked the level of knowledge necessary to approach this inquiry. Your literature review prior to your investigation seems to have been lackluster as well and biased in favor of Christianity. Also some of the things you mentioned as being so incredible about their academic credentials were...horrifyingly inadequate for anyone who knows anything about academia. Though, what do I know? I'm just one of those liberal professors you put down.

"Second, which explanation best fits the totality of the evidence" asks page 288, "By November 8, 1981, my legend thesis, to which I had doggedly clung for so many years, had been thoroughly dismantled. What's more, my journalistic skepticism toward the supernatural had melted in light of the breathtaking historical evidence that the resurrection of Jesus was a real, historical event. In fact, my mind could not conjure up a single explanation that fit the evidence of history nearly as well as the conclusion that Jesus was who he claimed to be: the one and only Son of God." I hope the evidence was way better than he has shown us, because otherwise,...yeah...

Page 289, "After a personal investigation that spanned more than six hundred days and countless hours, my own verdict in the case for Christ was clear." Ha, looks like no renunciations for me! Boom, title drop. Now we really know this is a subpar Christian product. Anyhow, he takes John 1:12, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." to create a "formula of faith" as it were. "Believe +receive = become". And now we're going to have a section on each of these.

Lee now tells us how he was before Jesus, on page 289, "And there was plenty of wrongdoing, I'll spare myself the embarrassment of going into details, but the truth is that I had been living a profane, drunken, self-absorbed, and immoral lifestyle." Way to go Lee, you know how to use the Oxford Comma, unlike some people. He talks about routinely backstabbing colleagues and violating legal and ethical standards. He says he realized he believed eventually, with the moral lessons resonating with him and showing how he had been a bad person.

He talks about other faiths he investigated being on the "Do Plan", that they had things you had to do, a pilgrimage, or alms, etc. However according to page 290, "Christianity is unique. It's based on the 'done' plan -- Jesus has done for us on the cross what we cannot do for ourselves: He has paid the death penalty that we deserve for our rebellion and wrongdoing, so we can become reconciled with God." Then cites Bible verses about grace. Umm Lee...no. Yes, Jesus died for sins and rose again, but...Christianity still has you "do" things. Even your wishy-washy Evangelical "Sola Feels" (as I like to refer to it) thing. You still had to accept Him. That's a "do".

Page 290 to 291, quoting without comment, I'm sure you all have your own snark readied, "Yes, I had to take a step of faith, as we do in every decision we make in life. But here's the crucial distinction: I was no longer trying to swim upstream against the strong current of evidence; instead I was choosing to go in the same direction that the torrent of facts was flowing. That was reasonable, that was rational, that was logical. What's more, in an inner and inexplicable way, it was also what I sensed God's Spirit was nudging me to do." (Fair enough on the last part Lee.) "So on November 8, 1981, I talked with God in a heartfelt and unedited prayer, admitting and turning from my wrongdoing, and receiving the gift of forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus.I told him that with his help, I wanted to follow him and his ways from here on out. there was no lightning bolts, no audible replies, no tingly sensations. I know that some people feel a rush of emotion at such, a moment; as for me, however, there was something else that was equally exhilarating: There was the rush of reason."

He also talks about how his daughter saw the change in his life from that acceptance of Christ and accepted Jesus only a few months later. Now we're asked to reach our own verdict. He tells us it's our decision to embrace this self-evident evidence as he did, but maybe we just can't. Not every book can cover everything, or so he says. Basically covering his own ass if we're unconvinced by this point. Also if we're unconvinced he recommends we get a special edition of the Bible called The Journey, for those who don't yet believe the Bible to be the word of God.

Page 292 says, "Resolve that you'll reach a verdict when you've gathered a sufficient amount of information, knowing that you'll never have full resolution of every single issue. You may even want to whisper a prayer to the God you're not yet sure exists, asking him to guide you to the truth about him. And through it all, you'll have my sincere encouragement as you continue in your spiritual quest. At the same time, I do feel a strong obligation to urge you to make this a front-burner issue in your life. Don't approach it casually or flippantly, because there's a lot riding on your conclusion. As Michael Murphy aptly put it, 'We ourselves--and not merely the truth claims--are at stake in the investigation."

And we're done with the book proper. One more thing to go, the interview with Strobel himself. Were I an atheist, I'd be less than convinced (see: not at all).

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Shai Hulud's post
30-04-2017, 06:30 PM
RE: Shai Reads The Case for Christ
Why in God's name are you fucking subjecting yourself (and me) to this bullshit? The case for Christ lies in The Word, not the particular embodiment or realization of it. Christians care more about Biblical literalism than just fucking practicing what they motherfucking preach. I think it's because you're all pussies afraid to assume the responsibilities demanded of you by your Lord and Savior.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: