the author only interviews the religious scholars to proof Jesus' existence, why didn't he interview any atheist? why did he only tell the theist's opinions, as if they will say 'no jesus never existed'?
2007-01-27 09:50:19 · 6 answers · asked by tostosh 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
if its 'for christ' only, then it should put a warning on the front page: Warning, this book only tell one sided story, do not make up your mind based on this one sided argument'
2007-01-27 10:05:59 · update #1
there are a number of detailed books available out there. i have read A CASE FOR CHRIST. i enjoyed it very much. i have also read one, the name of which i forgot, which gives an interesting historical background and states that most people in great power are, in reality ,(drum roll, please) reptiles.and the very fair of skin are (dramatic pause) martains.even people of the Jewish and Muslim faith view Jesus as a man of faith. i suppose interviewing atheists might be sort of like asking adults if Santa Claus or the tooth fairy are real. you kind of know in advance what the answer is going to be, don't you. i get the feeling that the purpose of this book is to validate Christ's life and give it an historical presence. it's stiil a good historical read. there are plenty of books that offer a wide spectrum of views. happy hunting and good reading
2007-01-27 10:58:58 · answer #1 · answered by dawnhousand 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmmm maybe that's because his book was not entitled "The Case for Atheism" The very purpose of his book was to prove Jesus existence. In a court case, the attorneys for each side make the case for their OWN position. Opposing views are brought in by the attorney representing that opposing view. It's up to the jury, those listening, to decide which side made it's case.
Do the books that purport to support Atheism interview those that believe in the existence of God?
Answer Faere: Props to you from "the other side" :) By the way, I love your user name.
2007-01-27 10:01:52 · answer #2 · answered by Q&A Queen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because the author was an athiest, and already had that opinion. He sought the other side because he was willing to be open minded and hear what evidence there was on the other side. I respect someone that is willing to listen to the proof of the opposite of what he believes.
And plus, the title is The Case FOR Christ, not against, and not, both sides. There are plenty of books you can read against Christ, He gave us one the is For.
2007-01-27 09:57:48 · answer #3 · answered by BaseballGrrl 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
ok, I'm an atheist, but the title should give you a clue: a case FOR Christ. It's advocating at particular point of view.
not everything published is required to, or should be required to, present both sides of an issue. My camp is free to put forth their own rebuttal, and has.
edit: oh, for crying out loud! the title IS the disclaimer!
it says it right there: CASE. FOR. it could not possibly be more clear or succinct.
2007-01-27 09:58:13 · answer #4 · answered by answer faerie, V.T., A. M. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never trust anything thats only reviewed by biased sources.
2007-01-27 09:55:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no one can say he never existed cos its a historical fact.
2007-01-27 10:10:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋