Case For Christ - Floppa's Review

[floppa21]

Ok Grnmntsun - First let me say hockey season has cut into my reading a bit along with a certain videogame. I was in the middle of a long book when I received this from you also but I have now read it.

I found that this book is a lot like religion itself. If one is predisposed to believing, than one will and if one is predisposed to being skeptical, one will be. The book read like a debate between a Christian and an atheist, except the atheist gave in too easily each and every time. The fact that each of the interviewees was a hardcore Christian did not help.

Too much of the 'factual proof/evidence' was reliant on whether one takes the Bible for fact or, is a Believer. The 'proof' that the author offers is too similar to the proof one could give on whether or not God exists. It is too based on faith. What Lee accepted as 'proof' I and many others would not. I was a little disappointed with it, but then the story would sound similar if it was written by an atheist with atheist interviewees.

I don't think this book will convert too many people unless they are already on their way. Again, I think it is a lot like religion itself. One's predisposition will affect one's receptitivity.

I haven't seen you around lately but then their has been a lack of religous topics compared to the past. I'd like to hear your reply or any more specific questions you might have for me. Has anyone else read this book?

 

[newfangle]

So your basically saying, that if you already believe in yadda yadda, and you read this book, your belief in yadda yadda will be strengthened?

Hurry up and get to Atlas Shrugged. Its much better.

 

[floppa21]

I was at Barnes & Noble tonight and I was looking at her books... I wasn't sure on what to get so I didn't. There was We the People and Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and plenty more. Just Atlas Shrugged? I thought someone said Fountainhead first... I still spent $45 though.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

If your book miraculously solved all the problems a rational person has when encountering Christianity, then we'd know about it by now, I think

Same goes for objectivism, my dear Newfie I WILL read A.S., I promise. As soon as I finish my current roll of toilet paper

 

[Mark Young]

It is the same on both sides of the camp. Athiest's use other athests to strenghen aethiestic beliefs and religious people do the same.
It's a moot point. The only way that you can solve this dilemma is if their some way that one side could catergorically say this is the right way, The only way I can think of to do that is to die and then we will find out who was right and who was wrong.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Sir Eric
The only way I can think of to do that is to die and then we will find out who was right and who was wrong.

Unless the athiests are right, of course...

 

[Mark Young]

well either way the only way of knowing is when it happens to you personally.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Yeah, but nobody's ever experienced death, because death is by definition non-existence.

So if the atheists are right, you'll never ever feel remorse for being so deluded all your life. I guess you could call that an argument in favor of religion!

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
So if the atheists are right, you'll never ever feel remorse for being so deluded all your life. I guess you could call that an argument in favor of religion!

Except for the fact that there are hundreds of religions, not to mention an infinite amount of religious ideas that could be invented (or I guess I should say "discovered") if someone wanted to, so the chance of getting the right one is pretty darn slim. Therefore, if you decide to be relgious, you'll likely have chosen the wrong one, and if the athiests are wrong, you'll not only have been deluded all your life and will have wasted all your time, but you WILL be able to feel remorse for it, and possibly worse.

GO ATHIESM!!!

 

[Mark Young]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Yeah, but nobody's ever experienced death, because death is by definition non-existence.

OK.... So what do you call it when you body stops working? A good lie down?.....
A long nap?
a permanent out of body experience?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I call it death. I don't get your question

All I'm saying is that because your nerves are dead, your muscles are dead, your brain is dead, etc, etc, etc, it's impossible to experience death[/I].

 

[Mark Young]

maybe you could define what you think IS death.
To me it is physical seperation of the spirit from the body, is this what you were getting at?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I don't think the spirit exists [or at least, it doesn't exist outside the body]. I think death is the end, period. No more body, no more consciousness, no more self.

 

[CurtSibling]

I would ask for proof of a spirit.

I think it is yet another human delusion.

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
So if the atheists are right, you'll never ever feel remorse for being so deluded all your life. I guess you could call that an argument in favor of religion!

No, not the Pascal's bet again...

I shall bring a quote from the Movie Papillon:

"I condenm you for the worst of all crimes. The crime of a wasted life".

Regards .

 

[Smidlee]

Originally posted by FredLC


No, not the Pascal's bet again...

I shall bring a quote from the Movie Papillon:

"I condenm you for the worst of all crimes. The crime of a wasted life".

Regards .

there's people who think watching movies is a big waste of time. in a sense i agree

 

[FredLC]

Originally posted by Smidlee

there people who think watching movies is a big waste of time. in a sense i agree

Some movies are, some movies aren't.

All generalizations are worthless.

Including this one.

Regards .

 

[CurtSibling]

@FredLC:

You made a good point, I agree with you.

 

[newfangle]

Originally posted by floppa21
I was at Barnes & Noble tonight and I was looking at her books... I wasn't sure on what to get so I didn't. There was We the People and Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and plenty more. Just Atlas Shrugged? I thought someone said Fountainhead first... I still spent $45 though.

I am about halfway through Atlas, and I realized it is the most well written out of the three. All of them are good though.

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Same goes for objectivism, my dear Newfie I WILL read A.S., I promise. As soon as I finish my current roll of toilet paper

I understand and accept your point, but fiction is written for entertainment, no? Any philosophical inquiries in fiction tend to be implicit, so they can be ignored if one just wants a good read.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I like stories where the morality, if any, is IMPLIED, and takes an important but backstage role. The Lord of the Rings is a great example, although cliche.

Don't you think that stories written with the specific intent of PUSHING a certain moral view, like Ms. Rand's works, are as reprehensible as sunday-school books about the Little Orphan Boy Who Always Did Good?

That's one of the reasons why I found "Sophie's World" such a boring read, although I could understand its populist appeal and I really liked its central hypothetical message [don't want to give it away here].