Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 8:00AM | by Otter I took an hour or two today to watch Lee Strobel’s “The Case For Faith.”
The Amazon reviews are typically full-throated exultations of the video’s power.
I found it weirdly lacking in substance.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 7:00AM | by Otter Undeception, a blog worth tucking into your biblical study bookmarks no matter what your spiritual inclinations, contains this gem from C. S. Lewis that actually makes a terrific point that Touchstone, myself, and others are constantly at pains to make to Christians: that God is either not worth worshiping or that he is good, and where the Bible says he is not good, we mustn't hesitate to identify the conflict for what it is: a serious problem for views of inerrancy (or at least the inerrancy of a simplistic historical reading of those texts).
The Undeception blog entry is specifically in reference to the Canaanite genocides described in the Bible's Deuteronomistic history, passages where the God of Israel demands the obliteration of ethnic communities.
That's not to say that subtleties are not possible. But they are not endlessly possible or even desirable to any great extent.
Lewis:
On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to, say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him ‘good’ and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.
Saturday, December 17, 2011 at 10:11AM | by Otter
Doug Wilson and Christianity Today see this as a pastoral occasion in which they reinforce the group’s orthooxy about hell and redemption. Everything is. Everything has to be, as Hitchens would probably be the first to admit: if you’re right about hell, you should say so. But the flock needs to know what its own intellectuals make of this stuff so it can feel secure about what to say.
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 7:58AM | by Otter Maybe I'm what scripture calls a "scoffer," or maybe I'm just too good a teacher to let these things go. But whatever the reason, I know when I hear certain religious phrases that a tiresome discussion is coming, and I have to either ignore it or challenge it. But for some reason I just have the hardest time ignoring it.
Friday, July 15, 2011 at 4:36PM | by Otter 
The rest of scripture you can take metaphorically, historically, literarily, or any other way that you like, if the facts don't contradict you. But the two critical things that really apologize for the Christian faith, the ones that make it differ from any other major religion or philosophy, are the Resurrection and the life of God.
Sunday, January 9, 2011 at 8:41AM | by Otter As it happens, I have seen miracles, some more persuasive, others a lot less: we could go on at length about the position that puts us in, but it's getting late.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 1:33PM | by Otter 
But it would have been asking too much of Lewis to speak both to post-War England and America as well as to post-Internet England and America.
I'm not even sure one can do that.
But regardless, I'm very sure one can only milk so much out of Jack Lewis's legacy, and the more one tries to wring out the last drop, the more caricatured, ghostly, and put upon he seems.Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at 12:33PM | by Otter 
Reflections on the idea of "fact" as it relates to the Resurrection, with an eye on some major failures in late 20th century American Christian apologetics. I look at what it means to claim the Resurrection is "historical."
Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 8:40AM | by Otter There is a structural problem that Christianity creates for itself, an internal contradiction that it seeks endlessly to evade, but really cannot. It doesn't have to be there. But it is. You cannot be both non-coercive and coercive, and Hitchens is (I think) right to point this out.
Friday, November 26, 2010 at 3:11PM | by Otter Christopher Hitchens and Tony Blair will be debating the place of faith in the world at 7 ET. The resolution, for those forensics club geeks in the RipChurch, is "Be it resolved, that religion is a force for good in the world."
Blair and Hitchens... neither man is a fool. They have interesting and important things to say on this question.
The Munk Debates are a production of the Canadian Salon Speakers Series, which is a for-profit group. Consequently, you'll need to fork out $4.99 (Canadian) to watch. Here's the link to register.
And yes. The resemblance to a Pay-Per-View boxing match is pronounced. Sporting events for clever people, or people like me who would like very much to be clever.
