The Case for Christmas: Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The conclusion of this little tome: The Verdict of History, is nothing more than an even more distilled version of Strobel’s other booklet: The Case for Easter.

Yup, there’s another baby booklet out there, in which a few chapters are taken from The Case for Christ and repackaged.

The Case for Easter

Check out the reviews at Amazon: as I suspected, some people did not know when they bought the book that they had already read it as parts of a bigger book.

But in case anyone reading this book is unaware that The Case for Easter is out there, Strobel lets us know in no uncertain terms…that this Christmas book we just read is basically useless:

As I was getting ready to complete my investigation of the child in the manger, I kept returning to the fact that Christmas doesn’t mean very much without Easter.

Strobel quickly runs through a few theologians who (surprise, surprise!) are sure that the resurrection actually happened.  If I wanted to read that book, Strobel, I would be reading it instead of your Christmas book!

So, ironically, it’s the evidence for Easter that provided the decisive confirmation for me that the Christmas story is true: that the freshly born baby in the manger was the unique Son of God, sent on a mission to be the savior of the world.

Freshly born baby?

image

Whatever.  I guess this little booklet about the freshly born baby was an exercise in futility.

So I have to admit to being disappointed.  Even by apologetic standards, I expected more: at least a few arguments I could sink my teeth into.  But it was nothing but appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, and appeal to Michael Murphy.  Hell, Strobel barely even tried to pretend he was the least bit objective.  Why not just write some apologetics, instead of this farce of, “I used to be an atheist”?

I am hardly the first person to point this out with regards to Strobel’s works, but I’ll say it again: an investigation does not mean you only learn about one side of an issue.

Looks like you, my loyal readers, will be proved right this Wintermas season: Christmas Town promises to be much more fun to read than The Case for Christmas.

Advertisements

Posted on December 5, 2012, in Christmas, The Case for Christmas. Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.

  1. Freshly born baby?

    Yeah, the guy at Whole foods taught me how to thump the head so you know which ones are ripe.

  2. Wow.

    OK, so this is a cut-down and hacked-about version, but going by the chapters you’ve quoted, he didn’t even try to build a convincing case in the original book. It’s really argument from authority more than anything else: I talked to this guy, he was sincere, I believed him. So, Lee, talk to a good rabbi or imam, find that he is also sincere, and try to explain why you believe one and not the other. And that’s even without leaving the people of the book!

    I’d love to see some apologetics that used real logic to try to make sense of this stuff. I don’t think it’s possible, but this doesn’t make the attempt.

    Incidentally, some good stuff here on Lewis’ trilemma, looked at from a slightly more sensible perspective on mental illness: http://squid314.livejournal.com/343999.html .

  3. say what you want about his style and his “arguments”, you can’t really fault him or his publisher for their business savvy. Giving his previous work a Reader’s Digest treatment with a holiday twist, and then selling it to unsuspecting Christians (who will of course snap it up like there’s no tomorrow) is highly lucrative and requires only a minimum of effort.

    Glad to know he can do one thing well.

  4. The best part is that his Michael Murphy expert was a far better investigator than he was. Yeah, he mentioned some tidbits, but he came out and said he doesn’t really have conclusive proof. And then Strobel, our great skeptic, tried to convince his readers that it was totally proof anyway.

    And GP, that reminds me of the thought I had when the Asylum started making Christian movies. At first it seemed like an odd career move, given that their previous fair was unapologetic schlock (Megashark vs Giant Octopus) and rip-offs that violate the bearing of false witness by trying to trick people into buying their Dvds when looking for other movies (They made Battle for Los Angeles around the time Battle: Los Angeles came out). But then I realizes it made perfect sense. Their driving force was always to put out low budget, low talent, low effort and low quality movies and then find a gimmick to make people buy it despite it’s F-grade content. Before it was either ‘market it to people who enjoy low quality’ and ‘market it to careless shoppers looking for better* movies’. Now they added ‘market it to people who don’t care about the low quality as long as the content is approved by their tribal standards’. After all, RTC media consumers have a long track records of having to watch crap because the good stuff is made by evil seculars.

    *Perhaps ‘better’ is not the right word for the original movies of ‘Battle for Los Angeles’ and ‘Transmorphers’. ‘Higher budget’ is a better term.

  5. Meh. I am a Christian, and evangelical for European values of that word (not quite the same as North American ones). I am pretty close to the target audience for all this stuff. So I ought to like the “Christmas is nothing without Easter” line. And I don’t. I really, really don’t.

    The reason Christian preachers preach about Easter every time Christmas rolls round (and yes, I am expecting this in my parents’ church on Christmas morning) is that they don’t know what to do with the *incarnation*.

    (I get that many readers of this blog probably think that the incarnation is hooey as well. But you would at least expect Christian preachers to be interested in talking about it.)

  6. That’s it? Man what a disappointment. Shorter Strobel: “So is the Christmas story real? Let’s check out what the guys in this book called the Bible say. They say its real. There you have it folks. Definitive proof.”

    • Oh, be fair. His argument is ‘let’s see what these authorative and passionately sincere people say that the Bible says’. That’s far more believable.

  1. Pingback: Deconstruction Round Up, December 7th 2012 « The Slacktiverse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: