Log in or Sign up

This Board Rocks has been moved to a new domain: CarolinaPanthersForum.com

All member accounts remain the same.

Most of the content is here, as well. Except that the Preps Forum has been split off to its own board at: http://www.prepsforum.com

Welcome to the new Carolina Panthers Forum!
Dismiss Notice

Why do you want to go to heaven?

Discussion in 'Religion & Spirituality Forum' started by hasbeen99, Aug 8, 2007.

Page 6 of 12

Sep 27, 2007 at 10:04 PM #51

mathmajors Roll Wave

Age:

54

Posts:

42,103

Likes Received:

0

Joined:

Jan 8, 2003

hasbeen99 said: ↑

Tharan:

This has been (and hopefully will continue to be) a most enjoyable discussion -- one I most certainly plan to continue at my earliest opportunity. However, I am leaving for Charlotte early tomorrow morning, and may not be around a computer until I get back home on 10/5.

I just didn't want you to think I bailed on this thread if I don't post for a week or so.

To be continued...
Click to expand...

Can I be the mod while you're gone?
Sep 27, 2007 at 11:20 PM #52

hasbeen99 Fighting the stereotype

Age:

52

Posts:

21,242

Likes Received:

0

Joined:

Jan 7, 2003

Location:

Clovis, CA

mathmajors said: ↑

Can I be the mod while you're gone?
Click to expand...

Better ask Ecilam. He's co-mod.
Sep 28, 2007 at 12:02 PM #53

mathmajors Roll Wave

Age:

54

Posts:

42,103

Likes Received:

0

Joined:

Jan 8, 2003

hasbeen99 said: ↑

Better ask Ecilam. He's co-mod.
Click to expand...

Damn!

Oops.
Oct 2, 2007 at 9:29 PM #54

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,680

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

Jeffery Jay Lowder
Updated: June 4, 2002
Review of Lee Strobel The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

Lee Strobel, an ex-investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who describes himself as a "former spiritual skeptic," is a teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church. (Willow Creek is a mega-church with more than 30,000 members and was the site of a very high profile debate--moderated by Strobel--on "Atheism vs. Christianity: Where Does the Evidence Point?" between William Lane Craig and Frank Zindler.[1]) Using his skills as a former legal affairs journalist, Strobel set out to "retrace and expand upon the spiritual journey ... [he] took for nearly two years." The Case for Christ is a summary of Strobel's interviews with thirteen leading Evangelical apologists, including Craig Blomberg, Bruze Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, Ben Witherington III, and William Lane Craig.

...

Part 1: "Examining the Record"
In the first part of The Case for Christ, Strobel defends the historical reliability of the New Testament. He considers five lines of evidence: (a) the eyewitness evidence, (b) documentary evidence, (c) corroborating evidence, (d) scientific evidence, and (e) rebuttal evidence.

(a) Eyewitness Evidence: Strobel dedicates two chapters to summarize his interview of Craig Blomberg concerning the four gospels. Blomberg acknowledges that "strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous" (p. 26). Nonetheless, Blomberg suggests that the four gospels were in fact written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and therefore the canonical gospels are eyewitness testimony. According to Blomberg, this fact is confirmed by Papias (writing circa CE 125) and Irenaeus (writing circa 180); the authorship of the gospels was never in doubt among early Christians. And Blomberg dismisses the Q hypothesis as "nothing more than a hypothesis" (p. 31). Yet the two-source hypothesis--that Matthew and Luke were written with a copy of Mark and Q in front of them--is not just an arbitrary assumption held only by liberal scholars. The evidence has led even conservative scholars to accept the existence of Q. ...

Blomberg also repeats the familiar apologetic assertion that, if the claims of Evangelical Christianity were false, hostile witnesses would have happily shouted that fact from the mountaintops. He says, "If critics could have attacked it on the basis that it was full of falsehoods or distortions, they would have" (p. 66). Yet Edwin Yamauchi gives the decisive objection to this fallacious argument from silence just 48 pages later in the book! As Yamauchi points out, "When people begin religious movements, it's often not until many generations later that people record things about them" (p. 114). This was certainly the case with early non-Christians. Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, notes, "For almost a century Christianity went unnoticed by most men and women in the Roman Empire. ...

Even conservative authors admit that the books of the New Testament originally existed only as oral tradition. But if that is the case, Strobel asks, "How can we be sure that the material about Jesus' life and teachings was well preserved for thirty years before it was finally written down in the gospels?" (p. 53). According to Blomberg, the disciples lived in an "oral culture, in which there was great emphasis placed on memorization" (p. 53). Did I previously say that psychological studies rendered human memory unreliable, even in oral cultures as described by Blomberg? I am grateful to my friend P.W. for correcting me on this matter, and I regret the error.

(b) Documentary Evidence: ...

Strobel also asked Metzger why some books were included in the New Testament and others (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas) were not. As Strobel puts it, "What about allegations that church councils squelched equally legitimate documents because they didn't like the picture of Jesus they portrayed?" (p. 85). Metzger's answer was that "the New Testament contains the best sources for the historicity of Jesus" (p. 87). He stated that the early church adopted three criteria in evaluating documents for inclusion in the New Testament:
(i) Was the book written by an apostle or by a follower of an apostle?
(ii) Did the book conform with what Christians already believed?
(iii) Had the book been continuously accepted and used by the church at large? (p. 86)

In other words, Metzger admits that "church councils squelched equally legitimate documents because they didn't like the picture of Jesus they portrayed!" After all, consider the implications of these three criteria: (i) excludes a priori the testimony of non-Christian historians; (ii) rules out the possibility of books that did not conform to what Christians already believed; and (iii) ensures that only books popular with the Church were accepted. ...

(c) Corroborating Evidence: Strobel then interviewed Edwin Yamauchi about extra-biblical evidence that confirms the New Testament. Yamauchi first mentioned Josephus's references to Jesus, stating that both the shorter and longer references provide independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus (pp. 101-107). Although I agree with Yamauchi on this point,[11] the evidence for our position is not decisive, especially with respect to the longer reference. Strobel's failure to interview someone who rejects the authenticity of the longer passage is further evidence of Strobel's biased reporting. And while Yamauchi was merely using the writings of Josephus to defend the historicity of Jesus, other Christians have used Josephus to defend certain theological claims about Jesus, including his divinity and his resurrection from the dead. However, as Yamauchi himself shows, the very phrases that are used to support theological claims about Jesus are the same phrases that led scholars to question the authenticity of the entire passage in the first place!

Yamauchi also claims that other ancient sources provide independent confirmation of the New Testament: Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, the Talmud, and the writings of the early church fathers. However, there is no good reason to believe that any of these sources provide corroborating evidence. There is no reason to believe that Tacitus or Pliny the Younger relied on independent sources.[12] As for Thallus, the date of Thallus' writing is not known and therefore the reference could be based on Christian sources. It is not even known that Africanus correctly interpreted Thallus. As the Christian New Testament scholar R.T. France writes, Africanus does not give Thallus' words, "so we do not know whether Thallus actually mentioned Jesus' crucifixion, or whether this was Africanus' interpretation of a period of darkness which Thallus had not specifically linked with Jesus."[13] The Talmud is inconclusive because it is late and much of the Talmudic portrayal of Jesus is a polemical response to Christian claims. Finally, the writings of the church fathers do not provide any independent confirmation; they were late and based on earlier Christian sources.

...

Concluding Thoughts

Case for Christ is a creative, well-written contribution to Christian apologetics. Moreover, Strobel is to be commended for summarizing the work of so many leading apologists for Evangelical Christianity in such a compact and easy-to-read format. Yet Strobel did not interview any critics of Evangelical apologetics. He sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the complete inauthenticity of the Testimonium Flavianium, the failure of Jews to produce the body is inconclusive evidence for the empty tomb, etc.) Perhaps this will be a welcome feature to people who already believe Christianity but have no idea why they believe it. For those of us who are primarily interested in the truth, however, we want to hear both sides of the story.[47]
Click to expand...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel-rev.html

Last edited: Oct 2, 2007
Oct 2, 2007 at 9:40 PM #55

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,680

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

Conclusion:

A critical Review of "The Case For a Creator" by Lee Strobel:

...

All the things described by each person in this book have been found using the atheistic (or naturalistic) method of science; that attempts to show how things work without appealing to anything supernatural. If it wasn't for this purely naturalistic process that is used in science the people mentioned in this book wouldn't be able to describe any of it. The amazing thing is that this process of naturalistic science is able to discover the many things known so far about reality -- atheistic science is very successful. With it a lot of the new knowledge has been gained in just the last century or so.

If there is an external God, this God must reward an atheistic approach over the traditional supernatural approach to learning about reality.
Now natural science must be allowed to continue this road of amazing success, unhindered by ID Creationists, whose objections to natural science would stop it. This includes promoting the study of another successful field of science, Darwinian Evolution.
Click to expand...

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Lee%20Strobel/a_critical_review_of%20The%20Case%20For%20a%20Creator.htm

There is really a lot to this review, with internal links for each chapter. Click the link above for more.
Oct 2, 2007 at 9:42 PM #56

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,680

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

I'm sure there are other reviews of this book worth reading, but I just had to stop and comment on this most amusing one. I am halfway through reading the Strobel book -- as per an agreement made with a Christian colleague -- and am stunned by the fact that this author has the audacity to link his writing in any way to "journalism." A journalist would get his walking papers for writing in such a manipulative and biased manner! I began the reading on a hopeful note, expecting a clinical, journalistic presentation, but Strobel's shortcomings as a journalist were clear to me (and, I believe, to any discerning reader) in less than thirty pages. For starters, he states almost immediately that atheism equals immorality and Christianity equals goodness and caring, in a generalization that is not just grossly inaccurate but deeply insulting to ethical people who may or may not be Christians (look no further than the lost and ruined lives of those sexually abused by Christian priests to debunk this ludicrous notion).

(Here he will say that evil entered the world so this isn't god's fault; but wouldn't this "intelligent designer" who is "perfect" have chosen to fix this problem if he is so loving and good? Thus, even if one could buy the conclusion of a creator -- clearly admitted to by Strobel and most of his interviewees as the product of deductive reasoning, and not provable -- why would one feel inclined to conclude that this creator operates out of love? If there is a creator, it is just as likely -- as evidenced by the state of the world today -- that we are just lab rats is a very intriguing and amusing experiment.)

Second, his use of language is stunningly (to borrow one of his favourite words) manipulative. Throughout the book, scientists who support Stroebel's view regularly "chuckle," "grin," are "erudite," etc., while putting forth "eye-opening" views that are "one-two punches" of "genuine evidence"; all the while, they patiently and smugly pick off all challenges put to them (on the contrary, over and over these challenges are shown to actually strengthen the case for a creator!). Conversely, the language used to describe atheist scientists (who have so far been intermittently quoted then immediately dismissed, and have failed to appear in any interview to the point I am at in the book -- though I am still waiting, hopeful that any "journalist" couldn't be planning to interview only theist scientists) includes such terms as "desperate," "outlandish," "clinging to false hope" and engaging in "rank conjecture"! Stroebel regularly comments on how atheist scientists lack any "scientific proof" while seeming to think it perfectly fine to accept the creator version also without proof -- he simply ignores this double standard. And don't get me started on how he editorializes (irritating!), in the vein of "that made a lot of sense to me!". Aren't journalists supposed to leave their personal opinions out of their writing?

With his admitted pre-Christian "immoral lifestyle," it seems Mr. Strobel has a vested interest in taking a religious worldview -- he appears to need it, and opposed to those of us who are able to remain moral and caring without needing to cling to the promise an afterlife. (By the way, how does one make the leap from believing in a creator to believing in the hereafter?!)

I have no problem with his having an opinion and manipulating his writing in an attempt to convince others -- after all, people have been doing that for millennia; take the bible -- but let's not insult true journalists by using the word "journalism" anywhere near this book. This doesn't make a case for a creator so much as it celebrates Strobel's own bias on the topic; up to the point I've read, this book is just a sop to the writer. I have to admit that it does have some entertainment value, though: his pretence at an ongoing skepticism requiring further "investigation" has me chuckling (or should I say "guffawing," since we're putting the language to full use here) over and over. So thanks for that.

cjk
Click to expand...

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-197149.html
Oct 2, 2007 at 9:46 PM #57

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,680

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

From the Skeptical Inquirer Special Issue “Science and Religion 2001”, Vol 25 No 5, Sept/Oct 2001.

BOOK REVIEW by Barry Fagin
The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity. By Lee Strobel. Zondervan Publishing, New York, 1998. ISBN 0310209307. 304 pp. Paperback, $12.99.
As a skeptic who works alongside evangelical Christians on a regular basis, I'm often asked to read material not normally of interest to SKEPTICAL INQUIRER readers. The Case For Faith, by Lee Strobel, is an exception. Books like this are important for skeptics to pay attention to, though perhaps not for the reasons their authors hope.
Subtitled "A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity," the book is written by the former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, by his own admission a former atheist and now devout Christian. The book is a painful read for skeptics, not so much because of its prose or because we might find its conclusions difficult to accept, but because of its dramatically different use of words and concepts from what we are accustomed to.
For example, when a skeptic reads that an investigation is to be performed by a journalist, the standard use of those terms suggests an impartial search by an individual using methods designed to separate truth from falsity. We would expect such a person to be prepared to accept any conclusion derived from those methods, and the assumptions made before starting the process to be independent of the conclusions drawn.
But from the very first page, it's clear this not what the author is about. Instead, Strobel begins from a perspective of evangelical Christianity. He "investigates" it by posing hard questions about Christianity and traditional theism to "experts," and seeing if some set of plausible answers to them exist. This is not an investigation in the sense that most of us understand it.
Clearly, Strobel asks the right questions. Chapter titles include "Since evil exists, a loving God cannot," "It's offensive to claim Jesus is the only way to God," "God isn't worthy of worship if he kills innocent children," and so forth. The "experts" he interviews, of course, are all evangelical Christians. Space prohibits a detailed discussion of the answers they provide. I think it safe to say, however, that while they are unsatisfying to skeptics, neither are they outside the realm of possibility.
But not outside the realm of possibility is very different from true, or even likely.
Throughout the book, Strobel wants readers to equate “not incompatible with reason or evidence” to “shown conclusively by reason or evidence”. Strobel, along with most evangelical Christians interested in these issues, uses words from the vocabulary of science very differently from how scientists use them. At the very least, both skeptics and believers owe it to the rest of the world to make that distinction dear.
Since the belief system Strobel espouses can explain everything, it is not incompatible with anything, and therefore the book is uninteresting on a purely logical level.
Why, then, is it important? Because of its intended audience and the way it chooses to reach them.
Throughout The Case For Faith, Strobel uses the rhetoric of journalism, evidence, investigation, and analysis to make a case. Why? Conventional theology has long argued that faith is beyond reason, and therefore unaffected by it. Why must a different case be made now?
Why is it so important to the author and his publisher that reason be used to support their faith? Perhaps their decision reflects a growing recognition among fundamentalist Christians of the importance of science, reason, and rationality.
For believers, this book is reassurance that they need not set aside their rational faculties to practice their faith. Are there a significant number of Christians who feel that way? Strobel thinks so. The book also can help evangelicals respond to rationalist attacks. Do Christians encounter many such attacks today? Strobel thinks so. For non-Christian skeptics, the book's primary purpose is to convert us to Christianity. Are we now a sufficiently important audience to write for? Once again, Strobel thinks so.
That the author believed his journalistic credentials to be of interest to prospective readers, that he chose the rhetoric of reason, logic, and investigative reporting to tell his story, and that he made a great deal of the academic credentials of his experts is evidence that fundamentalist Christians recognize how influential critical thinking and the scientific method are today. At a time when skeptics are often discouraged at the gullibility of the media and the poor level of science education of the average citizen, books like The Case For Faith serve to remind us that the other side sees things a little differently. For skeptics, that's truly Good News.
Click to expand...

http://faginfamily.net/barry/Papers/caseforfaith.htm
Oct 2, 2007 at 11:01 PM #58

WLfan Full Access Member

Posts:

418

Likes Received:

0

Joined:

Apr 19, 2007

Darwin's loophole

If you investigate all of what Darwin said about his theory, you'll find out that if he were alive today he would say the theory is impossible. His words, not mine. He didn't have access to the technology we have today that gets into the dna and such, but he did stipulate that if xx were true (and it's been proven to be), then scratch the whole theory.
Oct 7, 2007 at 6:13 PM #59

tharan000 Full Access Member

Posts:

24,680

Likes Received:

1,625

Joined:

Jan 30, 2005

Location:

Seattle

WLfan said: ↑

If you investigate all of what Darwin said about his theory, you'll find out that if he were alive today he would say the theory is impossible. His words, not mine. He didn't have access to the technology we have today that gets into the dna and such, but he did stipulate that if xx were true (and it's been proven to be), then scratch the whole theory.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the science lesson, Christian. Try posting a link.
Oct 8, 2007 at 5:38 PM #60

WLfan Full Access Member

Posts:

418

Likes Received:

0

Joined:

Apr 19, 2007

tharan000 said: ↑

Thanks for the science lesson, Christian. Try posting a link.
Click to expand...

Why, thank you for the kind words! I wear that label with pride. But if you consider that a science lesson, I hate to think what school did for you. I've given you something to research, maybe you've never heard of google? or yahoo?. You and I both know that you will reject whatever is put right in front of you. I hope you're not one of those guys who are "wise in his own eyes", but so far that's the impression you give. Here's a start, you can expand from there.

http://www.apologetics.org/articles/doubts.html

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 6 of 12

Share This Page

Sign up now!Don't miss out!

Recent Threads

Panthers vs Cardinals Running...
Black&Black replied Dec 22, 2024 at 1:51 PM
Chapel Bill
Black&Black replied Dec 22, 2024 at 8:36 AM
Hornets 24-25
dig-it replied Dec 20, 2024 at 8:38 PM
2020 Week 16 Pick-em
stirs replied Dec 20, 2024 at 11:08 AM
Around The League 2024
PantherPaul replied Dec 19, 2024 at 8:56 PM
NIL and Portal
dig-it replied Dec 19, 2024 at 9:20 AM
Songs That Some TBR Members Like
dig-it replied Dec 18, 2024 at 11:55 PM
2024 Week 15 Pick 'em
CoachMcFly replied Dec 17, 2024 at 7:27 PM
2025 NFL Draft
stirs replied Dec 16, 2024 at 9:27 PM
Panthers vs Cowboys Running...
presidence99 replied Dec 16, 2024 at 11:48 AM

Loading...