The Case For Faith

[ColorMixer]

This book blows ass. Like serious amounts of ass.

 

Has anyone read it?

The major problems with this garbage are this:

 

- The majority of "Objections to Christianity" are simply straw men and ones I haven't even heard been used as serious objections

 

-The total one sided graveling at the feet of these people Mr. Strobel interviews. He comes up with an objection, goes to some apologist with a PhD, and then does nothing to probe further or attempt to counter what the apologist says.

 

-Lack of multiple viewpoints. Unless Strobel failed to mention it... for every objection he apparently only speaks to ONE apologist.

 

-Lack of delving into the real issues that the objections are getting at. He brings up some good objections, but fails to understand what the objection really is.

 

-Strobel's ridiculously pompous "atheist" attitude. I can't tell when most of the stuff in his book is supposed to be taking place, but he seems to be suggesting that when he's asking these questions to the apologists, he is some hot-headed atheist."Slamming the book shut with disgust, I looked hard at Woodbridge and asked him in a voice laden with sarcasm:"

Way to go. You're basically a dick. That, or you're trying to portray atheists as a bunch of hot headed closet cases who think they have the answer to everything.

 

See what Strobel really seems to be doing is this: He thinks about some objections he's heard to Christianity. He doesn't do any work to try and understand the objections, he just sets up some straw men in his mind. With the straw men in hand, he goes and finds a major apologist to help cut them down. He sits down with the apologist, starts off with some smart ass comments attempting to sound like some immature dogmatic atheist, and then lets the apologist set him straight.

 

I think Strobel is being flat out dishonest. His book is sub-titled "A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity." He obviously isn't a good journalist. He doesn't probe or ask any of the hard questions. He obviously is wanting to set himself up as the "big bad atheist" who's going to get schooled by the theological genius.

 

Ridiculous. My friend gave this book to me without him even reading it. I guess he thought it would convert me or something. I'm going to try and give him the book back, because it's just terrible.

[Dagan]

He knows his market. Christians in Christian bookstores looking for books to give to the "lost sheep" in their family and friends circles.

 

I found "Reasons to Believe" by John Marks a far more honest book by a journalist exploring reasons to believe/not believe in Christianity.

[Riz]

Not only have I unfortunately read it, but I own practically every book Strobel ever wrote...

 

*shame*

[Bob Rectenwald]

The worst thing about kitsch like this, and his sequel, the Case for Christ, is that it's a bunch of lies. First, he pretends to be a journalist, even though he's a "teaching pastor" at the mega-church of all mega-churches, Willow Creek, and had been for twenty years at the time he wrote the book. I used to be a youth pastor several years ago, but it would be a lie for me to write a book called "One Youth Pastor's Account of Christianity", or whatever. Second, the only articles I was able to find that Strobel ever wrote were Religions, and Christian. He was apparently a Religion contributor for the Chicago Tribune, but from what I saw, he only ever wrote articles that were hyping up Christianity. Finally, when a person seeks "evidence", they do so honestly, and objectively. They don't go out and hand-pick the leading proponents of their own viewpoint, as Strobel clearly does. Not only does he find the cream of the Fundamentalist crop to support his book, but there are millions of Christians who would oppose a lot of what he says, so he's not even accurately or honestly representing Christianity in his writing.

 

But, let's remember--this is how it's always been with Christian writing. It's completely disingenuous, and purposely deceitful, even while pretending to be "the truth".

[Vixentrox]

Christians indeed have always lied, distorted the truth, misrepresented things for Jesus. Con-artists preying on the weak minded idiots of which there is no shortage. Christianity is evil.

[PandaPirate]

Christians indeed have always lied, distorted the truth, misrepresented things for Jesus. Con-artists preying on the weak minded idiots of which there is no shortage. Christianity is evil.

Yes, it is evil. The Gnostics believed that Yahweh was demonic. Any god that would send his son to be tortured and then send his children to hell although he gave us free will to supposedly choose is a psycho.

[MathGeek]

Not a fan of Strobel. The movie version of the Case for Christ showed for me that Christianity is not a logically sound worldview. They come with their conclusions first and then find the supporting evidence.

 

The only he became a Christian was because his wife became one.

[agjohnson]

Lee Strobel is by far the worst apologetics writer that I have ever come across. It is all emotional appeal and getting information from "THE" expert, as opposed to actually researching multiple viewpoints.

[Shyone]

Lee Strobel is by far the worst apologetics writer that I have ever come across. It is all emotional appeal and getting information from "THE" expert, as opposed to actually researching multiple viewpoints.

The strategy is indeed defective, but I'd like to see how he would take a review of theological questions from other religions.

 

Would he go to an Ayatollah for questions on Islam?

Would he go to the Dalai Lama for questions about Tibetan Buddhism?

Would he go to Thomas S. Monson, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, regarding questions about Mormonism?

Would he go to the Pope regarding Roman Catholicism?

 

I suspect that his experts were chosen because they would agree with his beliefs (what he has been taught). Especially in the field of religion, a variety of viewpoints is necessary to prevent theological myopia and inbreeding.

[Shion]

I unfortunately read the book after I was given a copy for my birthday one year (and after a lot of bickering with friends).

 

At the time being an archaeology geek, I found a lot of his arguments lacking.

[Xerces]

I read his books, I wasn't impressed. None of the material in his books is convincing in the slightest. Yet I have had people tell me how wonderful his books are ect. If I wanted to read a book arguing for Christianity, I would read something from a person who is actually educated, not a washed up journalist or lawyer, whatever the dude is I forget.

[Sybaris]

I was given that book or Case for Christ by a minister after I questioned some of his sermons. This same minister tried to tell me that there was more evidence for Jesus' existence than for that of George Washington. Idiot. Anyway, As someone else mentioned, Strobels books are written for the choir.

[JohnK]

I remember reading "The Case for Faith" a few years back when I was still a Christian, and not being very impressed. In fact, the book brought up unsavory stories in the bible that I would not have known to exist had I not read the book, such as God's ordering of the massacre of the Amalekite women and children in 1 Samuel 15. The apologist that Strobel was "interrogating" for this chapter of the book (titled Objection: God Isn't Worthy if He Kills Innocent Children) explained it away by saying the Amelekite children were born into a cursed culture and would have turned into evil people anyway, and that's why biblegod was justified in killing them.

 

Oh right, that makes sense. Does anyone have a choice as to when or where they are born, and what their upbringing is like? So after having them be born in the wrong culture, he kills those children for being brought up in the wrong culture? The flimsiness of the apologist's arguments struck me even back then.

 

Strobel has another book out, titled The Case for a Creator, where he supposedly interviews prominent scientists who disagree with the modern scientific consensus on evolution, the origin of life, etc. Anyone without "God goggles" on will easily be able to see how flawed and disingenuous this book is, same as The Case for Faith.