The Case Against 'the Case For Christ'

[crowTrobot 2]

http://www.bidstrup.com/apologetics.htm

[keith crime 8]

what does the term apologist mean?

[crowTrobot 2]

what does the term apologist mean?

one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something

[Mattnxtc 0]

This was actually already discussed in the Case for Christ thread. But i guess crow would like everybody to once again have to endure this nonsense. If you take a look at the website I want you to be on the watch for one thing. He offers little to no evidence of anything and when he finds something he cant make up a reason for he calls it propoganda. Hmmm I wonder what the point of his book is...Propoganda anyone?

[crowTrobot 2]

This was actually already discussed in the Case for Christ thread. But i guess crow would like everybody to once again have to endure this nonsense. If you take a look at the website I want you to be on the watch for one thing. He offers little to no evidence of anything and when he finds something he cant make up a reason for he calls it propoganda. Hmmm I wonder what the point of his book is...Propoganda anyone?

i linked it again because it's likely very few people saw it in the other thread.anything stated there can be easily researched. if you read closely his main point (which is well made) is that the "evidence" in stroble's book is based on assumptions.

[natewood3 0]

crow,You are not going to accept the claims of Christ, not because there is not evidence and historical facts. That is not the problem. Your philosophy of life will not allow you to accept the claims of Christ as true because you already presuppose that they cannot be true. You are not giving arguments for the reason you reject the claims of Christ; you are simply giving a demonstration that you DON'T accept the claims of Christ. Just as Strobel had "assumptions," you have your assumptions too.

[crowTrobot 2]

crow,You are not going to accept the claims of Christ, not because there is not evidence and historical facts. That is not the problem. Your philosophy of life will not allow you to accept the claims of Christ as true because you already presuppose that they cannot be true.

no, the only thing i presuppose is that one shouldn't start by ASSUMING they are true, which is what Stroble's book is doing. note that i am not arguing against faith-based belief. if you already believe there's no point to this discussion because it's pretty easy to spin historical "evidence" to seem like it supports your pre-existing belief. the point is that to someone who isn't already a believer there is no compelling reason to believe based solely on historical evidence. to an objective observer logical evidence and historical facts are a HUGE problem. since you seem to have me generalized you should read the case for christ thread above for more on this if you're really interested in specifics.

You are not giving arguments for the reason you reject the claims of Christ; you are simply giving a demonstration that you DON'T accept the claims of Christ.

i'm demonstrating that i don't think there is a reason to accept them. again, your reasoning seems to be that i should assume they are true and try to disprove them.

[natewood3 0]

Crow,I appreciate a reply that was thought out and not just reasons why I am stupid.My point is that you already assume the claims of Christ are false, so you are going to interpret evidence and facts in such a way that the claims of Christ fit into your presupposed conceptions of what can or cannot be true. I am NOT saying that Strobel does not presuppose the truth of the claims of Christ when arguing for them. When you are seeking to demonstrate the truth of your ultimate standard of truth, you must presuppose that, otherwise it wouldn't really be your ultimate standard of truth, would it? If you appeal to something else to prove your ultimate standard, then your "ultimate standard" is no longer your ultimate standard.Why do you believe God does not exist?

[Mattnxtc 0]

no, the only thing i presuppose is that one shouldn't start by ASSUMING they are true, which is what Stroble's book is doing. note that i am not arguing against faith-based belief. if you already believe there's no point to this discussion because it's pretty easy to spin historical "evidence" to seem like it supports your pre-existing belief. the point is that to someone who isn't already a believer there is no compelling reason to believe based solely on historical evidence. to an objective observer logical evidence and historical facts are a HUGE problem. since you seem to have me generalized you should read the case for christ thread above for more on this if you're really interested in specifics.i'm demonstrating that i don't think there is a reason to accept them. again, your reasoning seems to be that i should assume they are true and try to disprove them.

haha...Strobels book isnt meant to be the defining book on why you should believe. His book offers proof though that what agnotistics like yourself will say. There are a good many other books that go much more in depth into the historical evidence and even his second book A Case for Faith goes much more into the issue. The book is meant to be an introduction for those who are looking into christianity. You wont find that anything he says is wrong or unsupported but i suggest that if you want to go mch more indepth to look to other options

[natewood3 0]

It is true, though I personally have not read the book, that Strobel's premises and conclusion can be valid and sound, even though you just simply may not agree with it. Whether or not you accept what he says does not make what he says necessarily wrong or illogical.

[crowTrobot 2]

My point is that you already assume the claims of Christ are false,

no, i'm not assuming they are false. but for someone who claims to be the son of a universal creator when there is no physical evidence that the universe was necessarily created, and for someone who supposedly worked metaphysical miracles that have never been documented as occurring in modern times, objectively i think the default starting point should be that his claims were false, yes.

so you are going to interpret evidence and facts in such a way that the claims of Christ fit into your presupposed conceptions of what can or cannot be true.

perhaps, but in that sense my presuppositions are based on my understanding of the physical world around me today - they are not based on the nature of my personality or anything else abstract.

Why do you believe God does not exist?

i'm agnostic - i don't believe you can prove or disprove god's existence. however by standards of logic that fit with the physical world around me i judge that all evidence strongly indicates that the (specifically) christian version of god is a man-created fabrication. this includes the changing nature of god from old to new testament matching the changing nature of the evolving jewish culture of the times, the overwhelming evidence for mechanical evolution - both of life on earth and of the universe as a whole contradicting creation, the contradictory nature of hell and the plan of salvation, historical evidence that indicates the NT was not inspired (the evolution of the canon was extremely messy), probable alterior motives for the gospel authors (whoever they were) to fabricate events surrounding jesus' life to match what they perceived as OT prophecy for a jewish savior (when some of the OT passages they reference weren't even referring to one), and miriad contradictions and strange omissions among the gospels indicating they are very likely personalized 2nd-hand accounts based on oral tradition about jesus. that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It is true, though I personally have not read the book, that Strobel's premises and conclusion can be valid and sound, even though you just simply may not agree with it. Whether or not you accept what he says does not make what he says necessarily wrong or illogical.

no, because what he says is clearly based on a mountain of unprovable assumptions (that the gospels are first-hand accounts, that corroborating accounts are necessarily objective etc).

[crowTrobot 2]

haha...Strobels book isnt meant to be the defining book on why you should believe.

it is being presented as a defining book in this forum obviously.

[natewood3 0]

no, i'm not assuming they are false. but for someone who claims to be the son of a universal creator when there is no physical evidence that the universe was necessarily created, and for someone who supposedly worked metaphysical miracles that have never been documented as occurring in modern times, objectively i think the default starting point should be that his claims were false, yes.

So you do assume they are false when trying to show that they are false! That is the point.

perhaps, but in that sense my presuppositions are based on my understanding of the physical world around me today - they are not based on the nature of my personality or anything else abstract.

Your presuppositions already tell you the limits of reality and the possibility or impossibility of God existing, miracles happening, etc.

i'm agnostic - i don't believe you can prove or disprove god's existence. however by standards of logic that fit with the physical world around me i judge that all evidence strongly indicates that the (specifically) christian version of god is a man-created fabrication. this includes the changing nature of god from old to new testament matching the changing nature of the evolving jewish culture of the times, the overwhelming evidence for mechanical evolution - both of life on earth and of the universe as a whole contradicting creation, the contradictory nature of hell and the plan of salvation, historical evidence that indicates the NT was not inspired (the evolution of the canon was extremely messy), probable alterior motives for the gospel authors (whoever they were) to fabricate events surrounding jesus' life to match what they perceived as OT prophecy for a jewish savior (when some of the OT passages they reference weren't even referring to one), and miriad contradictions and strange omissions among the gospels indicating they are very likely personalized 2nd-hand accounts based on oral tradition about jesus. that's just the tip of the iceberg.

You mention standards of logic. How does your philosophy of life account for a standard of logic? Where is this standard to be found?

[crowTrobot 2]

So you do assume they are false when trying to show that they are false! That is the point.

i'm not assuming, i'm logically determining an objective starting point from which to proceed using physical evidence. the term assume implies there is no logical basis for that starting point. stroble' starting point is faith-based, but he does not present his book that way - it is presented as physical evidence that supports the metaphysical, which is where all the real assumptions (mostly about the accuracy of historical evidence) come in.

Your presuppositions already tell you the limits of reality and the possibility or impossibility of God existing, miracles happening, etc.

not at all. i'm pretty open minded about those things - i just don't see any physical evidence for them and i'm not going to start by assuming they are real.

You mention standards of logic. How does your philosophy of life account for a standard of logic? Where is this standard to be found?

as stated in the physical world around us - which includes not only historical considerations but also patterns in modern human behavior.

[natewood3 0]

i'm not assuming, i'm logically determining an objective starting point from which to proceed using physical evidence. the term assume implies there is no logical basis for that starting point. stroble' starting point is faith-based, but he does not present his book that way - it is presented as physical evidence that supports the metaphysical, which is where all the real assumptions (mostly about the accuracy of historical evidence) come in.not at all. i'm pretty open minded about those things - i just don't see any physical evidence for them and i'm not going to start by assuming they are real.as stated in the physical world around us - which includes not only historical considerations but also patterns in modern human behavior.

I probably would not necessarily agree with Strobel's method in the first place, and I haven't read the book either. However, I believe that "facts" are mute. They do not speak for themselves. They are always interpreted by our presuppositions. If you presuppose God does not exist, you will interpret the facts differently than I would obviously.You say you are opened minded and are not assuming the claim of Christ are false when arguing that they are false, but then you turn around in the next sentence and admit you do not assume they are "real." I'm confused...I do not understand how you answered the question of how your worldview accounts and justifies the use of the laws of logic? How can you have a universal and unchanging law? What is the standard of logic and where is it to be found? However, I am not asking whether logic exists or whether we can use it apart from believing in God. The question is how do you justify a standard of logic, universal and unchanging laws of logic?

[crowTrobot 2]

I probably would not necessarily agree with Strobel's method in the first place, and I haven't read the book either. However, I believe that "facts" are mute. They do not speak for themselves. They are always interpreted by our presuppositions. If you presuppose God does not exist, you will interpret the facts differently than I would obviously.

wrong. you presuppose god exists - i presuppose nothing. that is the difference in how we "interpret" the facts.

You say you are opened minded and are not assuming the claim of Christ are false when arguing that they are false, but then you turn around in the next sentence and admit you do not assume they are "real." I'm confused...

i'm confused why you're confused. i don't assume anything either way. i've just reached the conclusion that there is no physical evidence that logically can be used to support jesus as being more than a man (unless you already believe he was through faith).

I do not understand how you answered the question of how your worldview accounts and justifies the use of the laws of logic? How can you have a universal and unchanging law? What is the standard of logic and where is it to be found? However, I am not asking whether logic exists or whether we can use it apart from believing in God. The question is how do you justify a standard of logic, universal and unchanging laws of logic?

i'm not sure why you think everything has to be so deep and philosophical about this. there are rather obvious patterns to how the physical world around us behaves that can be directly observed, and that information can be used to parse any supposed physical evidence - a methodology that creates predictions that can be tested, thereby confirming the usefullness of the method (essentually the scientific approach). if you're saying that there is more to life than the physical world around us that's fine - again i am not arguing against faith-based belief. however the evidence in stroble's book is virtually all physical (based on historical documents) and cannot be used to prove anything about jesus.