areyoukiddingme;616631 wrote:O'Trap,
Respectfully, if you can find a hole on each page, start by stating them. I'm not saying the entire book is without some scrutiny, but most of that book offers solid, theological answers.
Many of them are penned in the pages, as I tend to read books with pen in hand. Foregone conclusions were, as I recall, the one I kept seeing (admittedly, it's been many years since I read it). I just recall having that book "pitched" to me as a solid defense for the Christian worldview. I was actually kind of excited, because I thought that by saying that, they meant that it was a defense that could stand up against the commonplace logical objections to Christianity with at least some level of competence.
Think about it like this: I'd been searching for a solid defense for the Christian worldview, purely because at the time, I'd never seen one constructed. When the person who gave the book to me (a dear friend of mine to this day, and a fantastic Christian man), they touted it very highly, which got me VERY excited to read it. When I did read it, all that elation was quickly deflated.
It's like when you go to see a movie. If you go in with no expectation, you might find it palatable, even enjoyable. However, if your friends hype the movie for weeks before you go see it, telling you it's the GOAT movie, and then you go see it with that expectation, the letdown is greater because the bar has been set so high.
Lee Strobel is a bright mind, don't get me wrong (not everyone graduates with a Law degree from an Ivy League school). However, his books are lightyears from a "slam-the-door-shut end-of-story" final word on the validity of the Christian life, and I suppose what gave me such a distaste for it was the fact that it was (and still is) touted that way. If someone ever has questions about the legitimacy of an aspect of the Christian walk, inevitably someone pipes up with, "Oh, well then you should read <enter Strobel "Case" book or McDowell "Evidence" book here>!"
I know that, as a non-believer, such advice only frustrated and disenfranchised me further in regard to the reality of the Christian worldview. Benevolent as these folks were, they unknowingly did me a disservice. I certainly don't hold it against them, as I was never mad at them about it, but I was indeed VERY frustrated by their recommendations ... which they thought were good at the time.
If I had been given the choice between reading something that was frustratingly over my head or frustratingly unfulfilling, I would suggest that the "over the head" option will ALWAYS be the more solid case made. Will it force a person to grow and bring them some level of aggrivation? Most assuredly. Still, I don't think the aggrivation is any less if it is caused by being promised answers to questions you've been asking for years, only to find out that your questions remain. You find yourself desperately asking, "Is THIS really what you would consider a solid defense?" If you don't know any better, and others acclaim it like it's the best Christianity has to offer, it's almost crushing.
The Gospel/Good News/Message of Salvation/etc. has POWER! It has the power to reach the emotive and the logical. The simple and the complex. It has the power to successfully engage ANYONE on their level. It has the power to engage the questions we ask with GENUINE answers ... or at the very least, the ability to exist reasonably in the midst of those questions.
I think that was the most convincing thing about Dr. Plaster to me ... what made him so different. He was the first person I'd met who spoke about the Gospel as though he actually believed it had power, and I could tell that he had a "well-reasoned" faith that had been built on decades of pondering, doubting, questioning, and learning.
If someone tells you something worldy is true. Suppose your boss tells you he has a Diet Coke in his office. He will rarely do so by saying, "Well, I just believe that the Diet Coke is in my office. I have a really strong feeling that it is. So I believe it."
That kind of logic indeed
may be sufficient for HIM to believe it, it's hardly showing him as being "ready to give a defense" for it. Now I know that is just a silly example, but the point is the same. If you ask him how he knows (after he's done laughing at the silly question), he'll probably give you a logical reason for him saying so ("Because I saw it there with my own two eyes!" or "Because this morning, I was called by my wife who has a track record of being trustworthy about trivial things, and she said she was bringing it in.").
After that, if you still don't believe him, he'll use terms you'll accept (like maybe he'll take you to his office and show you).
Lee, intelligent and learned as he is, just didn't really bring that kind of conviction in the book. It felt a lot more like him trying to convince the reader, instead of him telling how HE had been convinced (even though it is pitched as the latter).
ernest_t_bass;616645 wrote:O-Trap - I respect your intellect on a lot of this stuff, but one thing you have to realize is that most people aren't of the same level. For some people, that particular book might be their "answer."
To be sure, though, I have to admit, I've never met or heard of someone being convinced by the book if they weren't already leaning in that direction. I've
experienced how the book can have an adverse effect, though. Thus, I try to handle it with care.
ernest_t_bass;616645 wrote:I think stating something like that (holes in logic, etc.) only hurts, more than it helps.
In saying that, I'm just trying to be intellectually honest. There are a lot of people out there that are smarter and more logical than I am, and I would hate to see the truth of the Gospel presented to someone like that in a way that might seem irreputable.
It's more the attitude that would rather present a Doctoral Thesis on metaphysics than a high school report paper on metaphysics ... because the explanations and reasonings contained are thought out more clearly and likely do a better job of engaging real questions being asked in the proverbial public square.
I met a lot of Christians who depicted either cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty when I asked them questions about the subject. I was MUCH more interested in listening to someone who recognizes a flawed argument and addresses it, showing their faith that the Gospel doesn't need to rely on undetected flaws in order to be seen as viable.
There are good, provoking discussions on the legitimacy of the Christian worldview. Why would we, then, offer anything but the best when asked about it?
ernest_t_bass;616645 wrote:For some people, their faith is purely enough, even though you hate hearing that. Not everyone needs "proof" or "evidence" of God existing. Again, I respect (and appreciate) your logic and thoughts on the subject, but I just think that everyone needs different types of affirmation.
Certainly. As I said, I know many, and they are no more or less redeemed than any other disciple of God. However, to a genuinely wondering mind, they are generally less helpful to engage questions about their faith.
I remember hearing that in order to believe in God, one needed faith. But I didn't know where to get faith. Was it like a precious stone that I might trip over the woods? Was I in the wrong line when they were handing it out?
It just sort of begged the question for me. It worked for them, which was fine, but it wasn't helpful to me, because it didn't engage me on terms I understood or accepted at the time.
ernest_t_bass;616645 wrote:Respectfully, I think you're coming off as a little pompous.
I'm so sorry. I wasn't meaning to at all.
Con_Alma;616648 wrote:Theologically, does not "believing" come from the Holy Spirit as a gift as opposed to some rational thought process?
I don't think so, biblically speaking. As I recall, the Holy Spirit never really inspires the unwilling or those not wanting to follow God already. I just did a two-week study on the Holy Spirit, both in the OT and the NT, and the Spirit in the NT church is, as Jesus put it, a "helper" for those already following. It CAN have an impact on the unbelieving, as Peter was "filled with the Holy Spirit" and spoke convincingly to the people on numerous occasions in Acts. I do think that this happened with Dr. Plaster.
Con_Alma;616648 wrote:I ask because it's my understanding that one cannot think their way into a Christian faith. It doesn't mean that study and investigation should not exist but rather that true faith does not emerge from it.
Interestingly, the Bible references faith fairly regularly in the New Testament ... NEVER in the context of being a prerequisite for non-believers to become believers. It is a
command to the believers, rather.
K7P7uZFf5o]