Rating: 
Summary: self-contradiction
Review: If God really exists, then why do people have to write books to make it convincing?
Rating: 
Summary: There are answers to your questions!
Review: This book is a superb (and necessary!) follow-up to Strobel's "The Case for Christ." This volume deals with the Big Eight objections to Christianity:1) Evil.
2) Miracles.
3) Evolution.
4) Dying Children.
5) Jesus is the only way to heaven.
6) Hell
7) Christianity's bad example in history
8) Since I have doubts, I can't be a Christian. So if you have any questions along these eight areas, this book can be helpful. Strobel follows the pattern used in "The Case for Christ" by interviewing world-renown experts in these areas. Two conversations jump out-Peter Kreeft, a Catholic theologian and philosopher who discusses the nature of evil; and Ravi Zacharias, an India-born theologian whit one of the keenest minds alive, who discusses Jesus' exclusive claims as Savior of the world. As you can see, this book deals with "Broad Christianity," and has multicultural insights to these questions. I am impressed with Strobel's smooth style of writing. It is written on about the high-school level, so anyone can understand the ideas, issues and responses. This book was a quick read for me, since it is only eleven chapters long. Granted, these chapters are moderately long, but Strobel did a capital job of editing the conversations down to the manageable and essential level. Lastly, I am impressed with the hard answers to the hard questions to Christianity. All of the interviewees are respectful of non-Christians beliefs. This is not a bash book, but a restrained and fruitful discussion of the ideas surrounding Christianity. True for You, but Not for Me : Deflating the Slogans That Leave Christians Speechless by Paul Copan would be a nice companion volume, since they cover the same ground, but have different approaches to the truth. ONE FINAL POINT: On page 96, William Lane Craig, Ph.D., says that there is a "blatant lack of corroboration" in archaeological discoveries with "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ." This is sheer and utter nonsense. For example, Immanuel Tov, Dead Sea Scroll Czar, pointed out in a colloquium that the famous Copper Scroll is similar to the gold plates that the Book of Mormon was written on. Secondarily, the Book of Mormon mentions a place on the Arabian Peninsula called "Nahom,' and a place called "Nahem" was found in Arabia. You do the math. Moreover, there are other evidences besides archeology to support the Book of Mormon, as there are other evidences besides archeology to support Christianity. See Hugh W. Nibley's "Lehi in the Desert and The World of the Jaradites" for a primer on the evidence and data, and then go to "Since Cumorah," and "The Prophetic Book of Mormon," both by Hugh Nibley.
Rating: 
Summary: awesome!
Review: This book is incredible! I have been a Christian for several years now, but reading this book taught me so much about my faith. Strobel's use of interviews and examples are powerful and convicing. If you want to shake up your faith or learn more abot Christianity, I definitly recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: Great - If you have an open mind
Review: This book is a great place to start if you have someone you'd like to witness to who just flat refuses to believe that the Bible could be true.If I had the choice of one book to debate them with - I'd have to pick this one. It's a good read for those who think you are an idiot if you believe that God created life - but have no trouble believing life arose from non-life.
Anyone keeping an open mind, truly looking for answers, will be moved to thought. If your mind is made up, and you refuse to believe any amount of logic or evidence - don't bother.
I'll tell you this - if you are undecided - give it a shot. After all - you're talking about eternity.
Rating:
Summary: Good starting point for anyone who wants answers
Review: Although I'm not a Christian, recently I have been interested in exploring spiritual issues (probably a product of turning 30!). As a mechanical engineer, I tend to have a logical approach to life, and so I have rather systematically been reading literature ranging from books by atheists (such as George Smith) to books by people defending their faith in God (such as Patrick Glynn's "God: The Evidence"). Of all the books I've read (more than 30 at this point), I have to rank "The Case for Faith" and its companion volume "The Case for Christ" as among the best. I know that conclusion will rankle people whose approach is to fold their arms across their chest and defiantly dare anyone to try to provide any evidence for faith. But adamant skepticism becomes just plain silly after a while. In my view, a person who's honestly evaluating the evidence will have to admit that there are, indeed, significant strands of evidence that point toward the veracity of the Christian faith. At least, that's my opinion at this point. Contrary to some others, I think this book's treatment of the pain and suffering issue is well-reasoned and as persuasive as anything I've seen on the subject. If people want something more in depth, they should try the writings of Alvin Plantiga, the most respected philosopher of the 20th Century, who has written extensively on this topic from a Christian perspective. While this is an emotional issue (and one the author admits is a stumbling block for many), the existence of pain and suffering falls far short of disproving the existence of God. That's why few atheists even bring it up in debates anymore -- the last time one tried, Dr. William Lane Craig demolished him. Further, as Dr. Peter Kreeft points out in this book, critics must then wrestle with more than 20 arguments in favor of Christianity. And that's the point -- anyone can claim the Christian evidence falls short, but why can't they come up with a coherent philosophical viewpoint that accounts for ALL of the evidence? As the author claims in the last chapter of this book, only a theistic viewpoint -- in fact, only a Christian viewpoint -- can account for all of the evidence offered in these two books. That's why I'm taking the claims of Jesus seriously at this point. Other chapters were very enlightening in helping me sort through my faith questions. The chapter on the impossibility of life emerging from nonlife was, in my assessment, extremely powerful. There seems no way around the scientific hurdles there. The author's interview with Dr. Ravi Zacharias on Jesus being the only way to God handled this touchy subject very well. And I could relate very much to Dr. Lynn Anderson's discussion of doubt. Doubts are what have kept me away from becoming a Christian. Personally, I felt like the author went as far as he could in exploring these eight objections to Christianity. To pursue some of the rabbit trails others have suggested would have resulted in an encyclopedia. These books are like overviews. What I especially liked was the bibliography. This has pointed me toward books that go much further in depth on each objection covered in the book. All in all, I found "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for Christ" to be great resources. I recommend them both.
Rating:
Summary: Nice....if you have a hard time thinking critically
Review: Blabber disguised as critical thinking. The logical steps the author and his "experts" take are disturbing. This is susposed to prove christianity??? Oh, and I love how his first "expert" links atheism to communism, slick one there!
Rating: 
Summary: Lets you down when you need it most.
Review: At the beginning of The Case For Faith, I found a list of questions which inspired me to buy this book. Each one is a roadblock to faith. To some degree, I have wrestled with every question posed. In some cases, I have answers that I find satisfying. In others, I certainly do not. Unfortunately, Mr. Strobel does not change my mind on any point. I had hoped for fresh perspectives and thoughts, logical answers I hadn't considered before. Instead, I find the same unsupported, illogical rhetoric I endured in church in my youth. It is full of straw men. When he quotes Atheists and Agnostics, he chooses statements that are plainly naive and wrong, and easily refuted. He purports to face the hard questions, the ones you are discouraged from asking in sunday school. But when the questions are hardest, he punts. I won't bother with a long, boring theological argument. But here's the kind of "logic" you'll encouter: "The Moon is made of green cheese. Since it is made of green cheese, it'll make great sandwiches." Typically, he makes a statement of fact without defending or backing it, and then proceeds to his conclusions based on that "fact". When he proves to me the part about the moon being made of cheese, I'll be more impressed with the part about the sandwiches.
Rating:
Summary: a response to the agnostic
Review: This is in repsonse to the agnostic that "leans toward atheism." I find it interesting that he leans toward atheism yet at the same does not want to believe that he is merely a product of time plus chance. He finds Theism to be a difficult belief because of the existence of evil. If he really leans towards atheism is he actually in a position to say what evil is? After all, he recognizes the implications of atheism, namely that if atheism is true then all that exists is merely atoms in motion. In this view there is no evil. So, eiither he admits that evil is real, and atheism is therefore false, or he says that atheism is true and thus there is no evil. Next, since he does claim that evil exists I would like to know how he accounts for it. He does not like the response given in the case for faith that humans are rational agents with free moral agency. If he does away with free will then the ONLY alternatie is a type of deteriminism, which gets everyone off the hook anyway. Finally, as for prayer, I will quote C. S. Lewis: "I don't pray to change God, but for God to change me."
Rating:
Summary: The name of this book is accurate
Review: I believe some readers may have missed the point. This book does not pretend to prove the tenets of Christianity to a scientific certainty. Rather, the author is presenting his CASE much like a lawyer presents his case in court. Are there questions that remain unanswered? Absolutely. As he points out, if there were no unanswered questions, faith would not be necessary, and of course faith is a major element of Christianity. He presents his case for FAITH in light of some very difficult questions (such as, why would a loving God allow children to suffer) and he provides arguments which show that Christian faith is not entirely illogical. If you are looking for a book that proves the existence of God beyond all reasonable doubt, I suggest that you may be missing the point entirely. The book is clearly written for Christians who already understand the concept of faith but who can't overlook those difficult questions he raises. He shows us why we are justified in making that leap of faith. While some readers may scoff at his reasoning and logic, it's unlikely that those readers really understand the concept of faith in the first place. He may not miraculously turn atheists into believers but he does provide a good bit of support for those of us who chose faith. I would have given him 5 stars except that I prefer the writings of C.S. Lewis.
Rating:
Summary: Garbage, a tortuous read
Review: Since I only have so much room here, I will focus my review on the issue of the existence of evil.... (For commentators on my original review here, please see the end of this review.) I'm an agnostic, but I have to say I learn more towards atheism. I don't want to believe I'm nothing more than chance atoms, but the apologetics that I've read to support faith, including this one, are so utterly inane that I had to force myself to read. One of the editorial reviews commented, "Strobel's occasional melodramatic note (did he really speak 'in a voice laden with sarcasm' to any of these, his fellow believers?) seems ridiculous" is on target. Such comments by Strobel just scream, "SEE HOW OBJECTIVE I AM, AREN'T I!!!" Puke. For the question on the the existence of evil and suffering argument, Strobel used the two standard responses: 1. God gave us free will, and therefore the ability to create evil. 2. Suffering is sometimes necessary for a greater good we cannot at the time see. The person he interviewed for this question used an analogy that someone trying to free a bear trapped in a hunter's trap might be interpreted by the bear as being an attacker rather than a helper. In the process of getting the bear's paw out of the trap, it might hurt and seem to only prove to the bear that the rescuer is an attacker. The bear cannot see the good that is coming from the pain of pulling the paw out of the trap. Sometimes we cannot understand what God can, and we are like the bear unable to see the good to come. Superficially, that seems reasonable... But not really. First off, why did God make us not more wise so that we can better see the good that is to come? If He made us like the bear, unable to understand what He understands, He should not be surprised that we come to conclusions consistent with our level of understanding any more than we should be surprised that the bear comes to conclusions consistent with its level of understanding. Another analogy given is that there is supposedly a Twilight Zone episode where a man dies and goes to heaven. No suffering. No pain. But soon he is bored and wishes he could go to the "Other Place" instead - only to find out he already is in the "Other Place". So he says that an existence on Earth without evil and suffering would be like the hell of the Twilight Zone episode where you are quickly bored and spoiled. Oh, gimme a break! If Strobel is REALLY trying to ask "the tough questions" and if he REALLY believes that a world without pain, suffering and evil would make us bored and spoiled, then what exactly does Strobel think heaven is really like? Is Satan, Hitler, Stalin, etc. up there randomly wreaking havoc in heaven, torturing and killing people so that we aren't bored all the time? If this is the case, I have a suggestion for God, force people in heaven to read Strobel books as a form of occasional suffering... Here is, in my opinion, the real crux of the matter. Heaven, if it exists, would have to be entirely different than life on Earth. A life that is known to be infinite would be inherently different than a mortal life such as ours. Any explanation of why evil and suffering exists on Earth such as the arguments given by Strobel may sound plausible, until you realize such arguments could not possibly apply to heaven. And if they don't apply in heaven, then why would they have to apply to life on Earth? And if life is infinite in heaven, and therefore completely different, then what possible value is life on Earth? Of what importance is our existance here? In a billion years from now, while in heaven, are you going to be talking about the time your aunt died? And nobody has ever come up with a plausible explanation for what value prayer is. If things happen like the terrorist attack on New York because God cannot intercede in the free will of the attackers, then why bother praying? He can't do anything anyway. Or, if God can sometimes decide to do something, sometimes, based on whether or not people pray for it, what kind of a God is that? This seems to be a God that lets evil and suffering happen unless He decides that there have been enough people praying. No, ultimately, God either can't do anything, and is therefore useless, or He can do something, and is therefore fully responsible for all evil and suffering. There really isn't any plausible in-between. I notice that a couple of other reviewers have commented on my original version of this review. One says that I don't understand faith. What you don't know is how hard and for how many years I've tried to have faith. I've tried, but when I can't find logical answers to my questions, I've found it impossible. Another reviewer claims simply understanding the concept of evil, which would have no absolute meaning without God, in itself implies there is a god. But this is not true. "Hot" is a relative term, but I have a biological basis for what is hot and what isn't. "Pain" is a relative term, but I have a biological understanding of pain. The concept of evil comes from our biological understanding of pain and our biological ability to empathize (survival of the species mechanisms.) By the way, I see that even one Christian reviewer feels the arguments in this book are just straw-man arguments. This book is garbage.
| 
