The Case for Christ

[Mike]

Strobel's books are okay. I'm afraid though, that I have to say there are better examples to cite. I would suggest a more in-depth book by Josh McDowell called "The Evidence Demands a Verdict".

Strobel's road to faith is more convincing than his book. He was a staunch agnostic atheist before coming to faith and that is interesting, considering how he has allowed himself to be used by the Lord today. My problem with this book (haven't seen the video) is that he interviewed Christians and didn't really ask them tough follow-up questions as a professional reporter should have. To me, honestly, it read like he was setting up soft-balls for the Christians to hit off the tee. That's fine, but it's not going to convince many agnostics along the way.

McDowell's book is very steep in evidence that supports the historicity of scripture, and it presents a very compelling case for the validity of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Strong-willed agnostic atheists who are not willing to acknowledge Christ will not be forced to.

 

[Oats]

Strobel's books are okay. I'm afraid though, that I have to say there are better examples to cite. I would suggest a more in-depth book by Josh McDowell called "The Evidence Demands a Verdict".

Strobel's road to faith is more convincing than his book. He was a staunch agnostic atheist before coming to faith and that is interesting, considering how he has allowed himself to be used by the Lord today. My problem with this book (haven't seen the video) is that he interviewed Christians and didn't really ask them tough follow-up questions as a professional reporter should have. To me, honestly, it read like he was setting up soft-balls for the Christians to hit off the tee. That's fine, but it's not going to convince many agnostics along the way.

McDowell's book is very steep in evidence that supports the historicity of scripture, and it presents a very compelling case for the validity of the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Strong-willed agnostic atheists who are not willing to acknowledge Christ will not be forced to.

I was inspired to make this thread by watching the documentary

but if Deavonreye
would read the op he would see that i said this is to discuss any outstanding evidence for Christ...not just the evidence in the film


I'm more of a W.L. Craig , N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis kind of guys
------

asking for an unbiased answer to belief in God is retarded

simply put

 

[Mike]

I have seen the evidence proposed by Mr. Strobel. I'm sorry, it is merely apologetics. If you want to see them as answers, then that's fine, Oats. No harm, no foul.

So you're saying Oats was guilty of no harm or foul for endorsing a Christian documentary on a Christian site? Whew! Oats, you had to be relieved to read this! ;)

 

[Deavonreye]

Hehehe, . . . yeah Mike, . . . that would be a poor choice of words on my part.

Oats, please feel free to discuss any outstanding evidences for Christ.

 

[Mike]

Hehehe, . . . yeah Mike, . . . that would be a poor choice of words on my part.

Oats, please feel free to discuss any outstanding evidences for Christ.

Just curious... what are you hoping to achieve here rather than to make a feeble effort to debunk Christ? Are you setting up a challenge for Oats to state the greatest evidences for Christ so you can weigh them OR are you here to play games and upset threads? I'm thinking the latter rather than the former.

Deavonreye, with your history, you know what we Christians should do when the Gospel has been presented and rejected. It's time to reach those with open hearts.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

My problem with this book (haven't seen the video) is that he interviewed Christians and didn't really ask them tough follow-up questions as a professional reporter should have. To me, honestly, it read like he was setting up soft-balls for the Christians to hit off the tee.

Exactly. We agree on at least this. Not so much agreement on McDowell though...

 

[Deavonreye]

Just curious... what are you hoping to achieve here rather than to make a feeble effort to debunk Christ? Are you setting up a challenge for Oats to state the greatest evidences for Christ so you can weigh them OR are you here to play games and upset threads? I'm thinking the latter rather than the former.

Deavonreye, with your history, you know what we Christians should do when the Gospel has been presented and rejected. It's time to reach those with open hearts.

If evidences are solid, there's no worry about them "being debunked". I'm quite open minded about things and weigh them fairly.

I am open hearted, and was very much so when I was a christian. Nothing entered my open heart is all.

 

[Mike]

Not so much agreement on McDowell though...

Come on, Casey. Certain that you haven't read the book, let me just assure you that there are some pictures to keep you entertained, some big words (but you can gloss over those, and it not a quick read, but you can skim past the sections that go over your head.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

Come on, Casey. Certain that you haven't read the book, let me just assure you that there are some pictures to keep you entertained, some big words (but you can gloss over those, and it not a quick read, but you can skim past the sections that go over your head.

I'm wondering, can I use ad hominems too?

I can guarantee you I've read more apologetics than you have read skeptical books. And, yes, I have read McDowell. I used to be a Christian. I've got Moreland, Swindell and other apologists on my bookshelf as well.

 

[Deavonreye]

Mike, after reading your last post, I am left with a feeling of concern . . . in the way it was written. Perhaps I didn't catch it as being humorous due to seeing it in text form.

Critical thinking is necessary for progress. Information that is backed up solidly can stand on its own and will prove to have some inoculation against attack. Much of science has this level of inoculation. It is hard to deny the efforts of science when one types messages on a computer that was created through the efforts of science, or talk on their cell phone to their friends about it.

The problem with apologetic books is that they don't have the needed inoculation or else they would be accepted outside of the religion that promotes it. I don't make the rules.

 

[Mike]

I'm wondering, can I use ad hominems too?

I can guarantee you I've read more apologetics than you have read skeptical books. And, yes, I have read McDowell. I used to be a Christian. I've got Moreland, Swindell and other apologists on my bookshelf as well.

Mike, after reading your last post, I am left with a feeling of concern . . . in the way it was written. Perhaps I didn't catch it as being humorous due to seeing it in text form.

Critical thinking is necessary for progress. Information that is backed up solidly can stand on its own and will prove to have some inoculation against attack. Much of science has this level of inoculation. It is hard to deny the efforts of science when one types messages on a computer that was created through the efforts of science, or talk on their cell phone to their friends about it.

The problem with apologetic books is that they don't have the needed inoculation or else they would be accepted outside of the religion that promotes it. I don't make the rules.

Okay, my bad. I was trying to be facetious, but obviously my sarcasm got lost in the text. I exaggerated the comment about McDowell's book being short and having a few pictures, and obviously (I was responding to caseagainstfaith) both of you are fully equipped to handle this book.

I will say that you had your way with Oats from the beginning of this thread, and I didn't like the tenor of it. It looked like mob-agnostic gang mentality, feeding off each other. So I stepped in to try to get funny with my last post, and it wasn't taken that way. Dev, I was being serious when you said "no harm/no foul" because Oats was championing a Christian book on a Christian board. I found that a little condescending at best.

I believe if read in its entirety, http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295071757&sr=1-
will demonstrate a very strong case which includes the sciences, archeology, historicity and other academics and he drills down very deep. You will see science is widening the canyon between Christianity and agnostics. I would say over the past 200 years archeology and what we know about the human body on a microscopic level has actually swayed the case toward the Christians. I'd like to draw your attention to an amazing thing this atheist admits, and how even more amazing is how he responds to his own proof.

George Wald - "The Origins of Life"
"Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

Wald in his book, actually admits that the evidence overwhelmingly points to an intelligent creator, but then he says something that seems to contradict the whole law of science which is to always go where the evidence leads. He says in spite of evidence that shows Spontaneous generations in living organisms being left with nothing, he's going to reject that evidence he says is so overwhelming and believe in Spontaneous generation. :shocked! That's a heck of an admission!!

All because they desperately do not want to look in the Face of God. If it doesn't fit in their little box, they dismiss it.

 

[jasoncran]

why am i not suprised. shoot, my brother on fb debated an athiest transgender and he wanted to say that his being changed into a women by docs was part of the natural process.

Hello, natural selection doesnt include man-made selective process otherwise dogs arent artifically selected.

and that person also agreed that the city of new york was built by natural processes.

so its i want to believe what i believe and i wont take no for answer these days with some.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

why am i not suprised. shoot, my brother on fb debated an athiest transgender and he wanted to say that his being changed into a women by docs was part of the natural process.

Well, it then depends on what you mean by "natural". Some people say that by definition humans are "natural", we aren't "supernatural", so, anything that humans do are by definition "natural".

And I suppose that definition might be useful when discussing what is "supernatural". But, that isn't the definition we use normally, when speaking of man's interaction with nature.

So as far as sex change or building skyscrapers, they are "natural" as in not "supernatural" but they are NOT "natural" as in the way nature would progress without man's intervention.

 

[jasoncran]

So as far as sex change or building skyscrapers, they are "natural" as in not "supernatural" but they are NOT "natural" as in the way nature would progress without man's intervention.

that is the point the my bro was making, the man left alone wouldnt change thus via natural selection alone he wouldnt become a women as that isnt natural selection in action. but the athiest disagreeed.

my brother delineated what he meant by natural so that they were clear. and the athiest tried to twist what you said above this quote to mean the same.

nature is bigotted, but that is another topic.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

my brother delineated what he meant by natural so that they were clear. and the athiest tried to twist what you said above this quote to mean the same.

Well, there are people of all worldviews that are, um, "rigid" shall we say?

 

[caseagainstfaith]

my brother delineated what he meant by natural so that they were clear. and the athiest tried to twist what you said above this quote to mean the same.

I can see how some would say that it is an artificial distinction, to discuss a distinction of what man does as being different than "natural". I don't agree by the way, but, to those who would so argue, they would probably say that man evolved the ability to build skyscrapers just like woodpeckers have evolved the ability to carve wood out of trees. In this view, all forms of life interact with and alter their environments and that we do the same. And so building skyscrapers is just as "natural" as digging wood out of a tree.

While, in my view, there is some validity to this view, it is simply obvious that humans alter our environment by orders of magnitude more than any other lifeform. So, therefore, to me, it certainly does make sense to label human activities that are "sufficiently" different from other life-forms as not "natural".

 

[jasoncran]

I can see how some would say that it is an artificial distinction, to discuss a distinction of what man does as being different than "natural". I don't agree by the way, but, to those who would so argue, they would probably say that man evolved the ability to build skyscrapers just like woodpeckers have evolved the ability to carve wood out of trees. In this view, all forms of life interact with and alter their environments and that we do the same. And so building skyscrapers is just as "natural" as digging wood out of a tree.

While, in my view, there is some validity to this view, it is simply obvious that humans alter our environment by orders of magnitude more than any other lifeform. So, therefore, to me, it certainly does make sense to label human activities that are "sufficiently" different from other life-forms as not "natural".

the problem with that is that we have a purpose and goal , is our speech "pre programmed" and also any all actions. no.

natural selection has no goals, for if we set morals by it then what if a sudden 200 persons in the word start killing other persons of color for no reason and its found by a gene.

would it moral to correct such gene?

if so why. if so why not.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

natural selection has no goals, for if we set morals by it then what if a sudden 200 persons in the word start killing other persons of color for no reason and its found by a gene.

would it moral to correct such gene?

if so why. if so why not.

Though I find your scenario highly implausible. But, for sake of argument...

And, well, I've not had much philosophy, so, I'm not really able to give you a philosophically reasoned response. But I don't think many people would even debate whether it was moral to intervene. They might debate what would be the moral way to intervene, like incarceration? Gene therapy? But, few would even debate whether some form of intervention should be taken.

 

[jasoncran]

Though I find your scenario highly implausible. But, for sake of argument...

And, well, I've not had much philosophy, so, I'm not really able to give you a philosophically reasoned response. But I don't think many people would even debate whether it was moral to intervene. They might debate what would be the moral way to intervene, like incarceration? Gene therapy? But, few would even debate whether some form of intervention should be taken.

thus proving my point, we decided what is right or wrong not mother nature.

if so then we have a problem since the toe it self doesnt adress that idea. its called evolutionary pyschocology.

and that is a contraversial field as how does one test a soft science as you cant see the links and observe them in their orginal natural enviroment and how that man came from them

besides heres another one.

if i build a massive super computer, and let it sit there and not program it, will it program its self??

i dont think we really even know how the idea of first concept of culture by h.neatherdalis was and the thoughts they had when the first one appeeared from h.erectus.

 

[caseagainstfaith]

thus proving my point, we decided what is right or wrong not mother nature.

In a way, I agree, in a way, I don't. For those of us that don't have this gene would be acting consistent with not having that gene. Those of us that don't have that gene are pre-disposed to believing that our society is better without people randomly killing people. So, we actually are acting by our nature.