Lee Strobel's 'Faith Under Fire'

[stevencarrwork]

This is at http://www.faithunderfire.com/

They want Farrell Till to be a guest on the show. Till has challenged Strobel to an *unedited* debate on whether or not the Bible is the word of God.

Strobel will refuse point-blank to debate Till one-on-one , of course.

However if enough requests come in to the producer
asharp@faithunderfire.com perhaps she can persuade Strobel to take on Till in a debate where he cannot edit out things he cannot answer.

[Amazing Rando]

This is at http://www.faithunderfire.com/

They want Farrell Till to be a guest on the show. Till has challenged Strobel to an *unedited* debate on whether or not the Bible is the word of God.

Strobel will refuse point-blank to debate Till one-on-one , of course.

However if enough requests come in to the producer
asharp@faithunderfire.com perhaps she can persuade Strobel to take on Till in a debate where he cannot edit out things he cannot answer.

These live debates generally prove little except who is the better debater, or often, who looks better on TV.

[Piebald]

perhaps she can persuade Strobel to take on Till in a debate where he cannot edit out things he cannot answer

Who has edited stuff out of a debate with Till?

[salvationfound]

awwwwww are they upset that Lee Strobel only interviews experts who
support the Bible in his books?

awwwww I'm so sorry well now you know we feel when experts who don't
accept evolution are not allowed to teach their views to students.

Besides the debate would prove nothing. After all the books are about
Strobel INTERVIEWING experts not about whether or not Strobel is an
expert himself.

[Lazy Agnostic]

There is an installment conversation with JPH and the author of a critique on Strobel's book Case For Faith, in the Tektonics forum.

[Lazy Agnostic]

awwwwww are they upset that Lee Strobel only interviews experts who
support the Bible in his books?

...and not a single non-believing theologian.

awwwww I'm so sorry well now you know we feel when experts who don't
accept evolution are not allowed to teach their views to students.

I think creationism and bible criticism should be taught side-by-side. Let the little boogers make up their own minds.

Besides the debate would prove nothing. After all the books are about
Strobel INTERVIEWING experts not about whether or not Strobel is an
expert himself.

No, they are about Mr Strobel claiming to ask the "tough questions" in a quasi-journalistic manner. He doesn't. He allows them to give responses which a skeptic would not allow to go unrebutted.

Mr Strobel cannot afford to have a qualified skeptic have a full say. It is unlikely he will allow a setting in which he is unable to pot-down a caller and give a filibuster-like response.

[Xavier]

...and not a single non-believing theologian.

... You mean like Spong... The Atheistic Christian ()...

I wonder why a Christian wouldn't want someone like Spong in their book...

[salvationfound]

I think creationism and bible criticism should be taught side-by-side. Let the little boogers make up their own minds.

Amen! You've just gone up 80% in respect in my books. I agree creation
and evolution should be taught side-by-side. I think students are smart
enough to decide themselves.

...and not a single non-believing theologian.

Well if you agree that creation should be taught side-by-side then I'd be
willing to agree with your point of view on this as well.

I just got nuts when I heard someone complain cause Strobel doesn't
interview skeptics yet they believe creation has no place in classrooms with
evolution.

No, they are about Mr Strobel claiming to ask the "tough questions" in a quasi-journalistic manner. He doesn't. He allows them to give responses which a skeptic would not allow to go unrebutted.

The only problem I see though is when does it end. Let us think about it for
a moment.

The Christian expert says his opinions on the subject.
Then the skeptic expert then responds with his opinions on the subject.
The Christian might find it unfair that the Christian expert couldn't respond
to the rebuttal. So the Christian expert rebuts the rebuttal.
But then the skeptic finds it unfair that the Christian rebutted to the
rebuttal so the skeptic expert will now rebut the rebutted rebuttal.
The question is who is allowed to get the last word in Strobel's book.
I mean after all Case For Faith starts with Lee Strobel interviewing a Skeptic
expert and then the rest of the book is Christian experts responding to it.
Was that not acceptable enough?

[jpholding]

Strobel will refuse point-blank to debate Till one-on-one , of course.

But of course. Why should Strobel soil his hands debating an ignorant, backwards hayseed like Lord Till who thinks that Lev. 25:23 can't mean "mine" because it would cause problems with coveting and can't even define "feudalism" properly.

Lord Till should count his blessings that anyone wants to pay any attention to him at all.

[Mountain Man]

...and not a single non-believing theologian.

And what exactly is a non-believing theologian?

As for this debate, it's probably in Strobel's best interest to avoid it unless he is an experienced debater. From what I've seen, Till can be a pretty ruthless opponent (not "ruthless" as in has a keen command of the facts and can eloquently state them but "ruthless" as in mean spirited).

[Lazy Agnostic]

But of course. Why should Strobel soil his hands debating an ignorant, backwards hayseed like Lord Till who thinks that Lev. 25:23 can't mean "mine" because it would cause problems with coveting and can't even define "feudalism" properly.

Lord Till should count his blessings that anyone wants to pay any attention to him at all.

The last I heard, Mr Till has an open challenge to have one of your debates analyzed by a scholar; loser pays the scholar's stipend. There is also a standing offer for a televised debate. If he's a backward hayseed, I would think neither would present a problem for you. C'mon, say yes.

[jpholding]

The last I heard, Mr Till has an open challenge to have one of your debates analyzed by a scholar; loser pays the scholar's stipend. There is also a standing offer for a televised debate. If he's a backward hayseed, I would think neither would present a problem for you. C'mon, say yes.

Yes, LA, I hear you burping.

I say let's have what's said between us at http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html analyzed by Richard Rohrbaugh.

Oops. Lord Till just owed me 90% of the cost of my website.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Yes, LA, I hear you burping.

I say let's have what's said between us at http://www.tektonics.org/tillstill7-5.html analyzed by Richard Rohrbaugh.

Oops. Lord Till just owed me 90% of the cost of my website.

That wasn't a debate. I'm sure Mr Till and you can agree on a disinterested scholar.

And I can just hear you flatulating as your boss tells you to go get a job instead of sitting in front of that computer all day for about $1.12/hour.

[Seasanctuary]

And what exactly is a non-believing theologian?

Well, there are all those folks who go to divinity school and come to find what they're taught unbelievable.

[$cirisme]

These live debates generally prove little except who is the better debater, or often, who looks better on TV.

Exactly.