Clearly, I don’t think Christians have anything to fear in the marketplace of ideas.

Of course you don’t — you’re not buying!

I interviewed Templeton for my book, Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. He didn’t break down over Jesus at all. That was in 1993-94. He had not yet completed his book, Farewell to God. He also sent back edits of his chapter, which he wanted to be based on a chapter in his autobiography, about his Christian minister days. Year later I read that Templeton had Alzheimer’s, and Billy Graham had visited him, but he could not recognize Graham. So you must have interviewed Templeton at some point after I did, but before Graham visited him.

On the topic of Templeton missing Jesus, I doubt that anyone could help missing things they once spent a LOT of time growing attached to. Chuck used to explain that his Youth for Christ services were the largest in North America. He was a mega church pastor in the 1950s. He said then had thousands in attendance, and an orchestra. He called them extravaganzas or a similar term.

Hence his comment about “missing Jesus” was honest, and along with his writings it shows he left the fold for a variety of reasons, certainly not because he hated Jesus (as some Christians contend atheists do).

As for me, my studies of the N.T. demonstrated to me how little I knew for sure about Jesus, the Jesus that I had been taught about in church and read about in the N.T. Gospels. I’m not a Jesus myther, I just have plenty of questions, even when Gospel stories are compared.
For instance, I read Habermas’ debate with Flew that you mentioned above, and wrote Habermas on that topic, the resurrection. See here. At least one Christian read my piece online and says the night he read it he suffered his greatest doubts, and he wound up leaving the fold. Another Christian who read it said I had raised some “knotty questions.”

HABERMAS-BABINSKI
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~slocks/asym/babinski-jordan/2.html

Most are from the original thread. Some were sent to me by email. Some were my own. Many were edited to combine similar questions and for the sake of clarity.

I have the original list. If you have doubts, I can check it later.

What really bugs me about Strobel is that he’s hiding behind this facade of reasonableness and politeness while he’s lying to people’s faces. It makes a mockery of politeness and it’s an insult to people who honestly struggle with difficult spiritual questions. He muddies the water, he poisons the wall.

I can understand paraphrasing or combining questions that are similar, and ordinarily I would have no objection. But now, after having seen how coyly Mr. Strobel can equivocate and obfuscate, I think that even the questions he is supposedly answering are suspect.

In the 263 comments so far to all these posts there have been several clear, simple and excellent questions, needing no paraphrasing. I would like to see just one of these questions taken straight, no chaser and answered without first “spinning” it into something that facilitates a glib and mind-massaging response.

I think the question here is not whether Strobel’s authorial choices are defensible, but whether they’re consistent with how the book, and his coversion process, are presented.

Oh, I know. I’m just saying we’re holding him to a higher standard than he, his audience and his publisher do. I’m sure he really believes he has the understanding to present the skeptic’s point of view, at least to the satisfaction of his audience.

Honestly, I can’t fault him for that. He’s an author and he has to make a living.

Tao Jones, I don’t fault him for that either. His authorial decisions aren’t shocking—apologetic works, whether by Dawkins or C. S. Lewis, are going to be one-sided. I think the question here is not whether Strobel’s authorial choices are defensible, but whether they’re consistent with how the book, and his coversion process, are presented.

Who asked this question and how was it presented to Mr. Strobel? I thought the whole idea was that he would answer our questions.

No need to create straw man arguments and manufacture objections. Just answer the question.

If the answer is “because I didn’t want to,” that would at least be intellectually honest. Your answers, though heart felt, are not intellectually honest.

Is a straight answer too much to ask?