Monday, November 3, 2008

Your Turn

It is not a habit of mine, but perhaps I should re-evaluate that behaviour, of recommending books to people. But I have read Islam's version(s) of just who Christ is, a failed muslim prophet at best. To us Christians, he is the Son of God, sent as our saviour. As a child I thought about that saying over and over, that Christ died for our sins and it made no sense to me whatever. I would think of this man dying from crucifixion and think of that saying, nope, nothing there. But as I crossed the threshold into adulthood, I then understood my condition and my non-relationship with God, at that point I understood.

But I believe others can express this better than I can. Christians are encourage to examine their faith. But Lee Strobel was the Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune, not a biased Christian when he decide to take on the role of a prosecutor and as an atheist, began an effort to compiling a case against Christ. He ended up naming his book, A Case for Christ.

I encourage Muslims, atheists, Christians and others to read it but if you do not have time, here is a website that outlines what he had discovered and why he ended up with a totally unexpected conclusion.

I realise a Muslim is not allowed to examine their faith, for those that believe in God, not the god called Allah who is at best a combination of things called God within the range of Muhammad's knowledge and Muhammad's conscious and unconscious imagination , it is evidence of the Islam's weakness and perhaps the most prominent reason for its inevitable demise.

2 comments:

Vinny said...

But Lee Strobel was the Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune, not a biased Christian when he decide to take on the role of a prosecutor and as an atheist, began an effort to compiling a case against Christ.

If Strobel was taking on the role of the prosecutor, how come he did not call a single witness who would support the case for the prosecution? Each and every expert he interviewed defended the conservative Christian view.

PraiaFlamengo said...

Vinny, the book was written post-conversion, obviously from his own clergical view and is his attempt to pass on his faith, his conclusion that is, something he seems genuinely excited about. He doesn’t recount his past atheist views and his book isn't framed as a trial. If we take his account of his motives to be true, that he was trying to disprove Christ’s resurrection and prove his own atheism, who else could be confront? A mixed message in his book would detract from what he was trying to accomplish.

He could have used other sources. Many years ago I read, in a side by side Latin/English translation, a Roman account of the coliseum executions. The consensus of Romans concluded that the movement was quite evil. But that Roman author could not understand why these early followers were unable to retract their beliefs even while being mauled by animals and used as torches to light up the stadium.