regardless of your review or what not, but as a Star Wars fan - darth vader is no such thing, as he turns around in the end... seemingly showing there is a bit of good even in the darkest of places... may the force be with you!
You missed the point with the chimp thing. It wasn't the fact that you can be mad at God that made him great. Like you pointed out, you can be mad at pretty much anything. It was the fact that you can be mad at God for the way the world is and how events in space and time play out; that's something pretty huge. If God is huge enough to be mad at for things of that nature, THEN he's huge enough for you to stop asking questions.
@coastTOcoast533 - No, I disagree. Just because your God is all powerful, it does not automatically follow that he is all good, or deserving of blind allegiance. Maybe he's the ultimate corporate boss - an all powerful idiot with his head up his ass. It doesn't do any good to question his intentions or motivations - it won't get you anywhere, but that doesn't mean they should be accepted on faith. That's the reality of the problem of evil - your God doesn't come out looking very good in the end.
To me its clear that you do not understand his points. They seem pretty clear to me, but you can't seem to get beyond that you might not be able to understand God. This is the real problem with devout skeptics. They want to understand everything - when we really can't. It is like we have our perspective which is 2 demetional, and things don't seem to fit. But God has our perspective as well as a third demention (so to speak) that we can't see or grasp because it is beyond our perspective.
I'm a Christian, and I've read this book. I'm not sure that you should be reviewing it chapter by chapter, however, as you seem to misunderstand what Dr. Keller means when he says "Christianity is better". This is explained in a later chapter when he discusses Gods grace.
I'm enjoying your POV though, and I look forward to the rest of this series.
Unfortunately I didn't finish the video reviews of this book. I did finish the book, however, but was too busy at the time to record my thoughts chapter by chapter. My final assessment was that Keller either misidentified his audience or does not truly understand them. As a skeptic - a true skeptic, not a doubter - I expected this book to have arguments addressing the skeptic's philosophy that claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The book did not address actual skepticism. It did not contain the type of arguments that carry weight with a skeptic. It is probably a very good book for people who already believe in the Christian faith, but are struggling with parts of it, or starting to doubt its validity. It does a good job of making the argument for Christianity within the framework of Christianity's own beliefs, but does not step beyond those beliefs to make a sufficient argument to anyone who does not already hold them.
In summary, I think the subtitle, "Faith in an Age of Skepticism" is misleading. Keller is addressing doubters, not skeptics, in this book. I'm really not sure if he knows the difference, though. And I don't mean that sardonically, either. As someone whose entire life revolves around one philosophy, Keller may not fully understand other philosophies as they stand alone, but rather sees them only as they relate to his own. To that person, skepticism would seem the same as doubt.
@Pavoreax And in your summary and video you have not disproven or really even questioned him very hard. You have no evidence supporting any argument, you made you didnt even really make an argument you just kinda said what you didnt understand about the book. i mean this with all do respect but as a actual Christian i could have challenged this book better then you.
@gallegs7 - Yeah, it's a book review, not an attempt to challenge Keller. I've made clear in my comments here (and will on video if I eventually finish the review of this book) that the biggest failing of this book is that is does not address the audience it claims to be aimed at. Keller claims this is a book for skeptics, but he uses religious arguments throughout it. Do I need to explain how that's a fail?
@Pavoreax Most things you said you didnt really understand very well. Especially chapter 1 when you talked about people with good morals vs people who have excepted Chirst. People who have truly excepted Christ have good works in their everyday life. They bare better fruit to this world then anyone. Honestly sir i dont think the problem is that you just cant believe in God. Its you dont want to and you make every excuse not to.
@gallegs7 - I have no reason to. The evidence screams of his nonexistence. But you are right, I do not want to believe in God. I do not want to believe in UFOs or leprechauns or Santa Claus or a hundred other things I know to be fiction. Why, knowing that it's just not real, would anyone WANT to believe in something. Belief, - true belief - is not a matter of what one wants or doesn't want. If you only believe in something because you want to, then I would say your belief is a lie.
@Pavoreax ok you have make it very clear then you flat out just do not want to believe in GOD. From the begining of this book you were convinced that there was no GOd. in your videos it seemed very clear that you were on a mission to not let this book effect that decision.But my friend that is not the way a skeptic thinks. A skeptic will listen to both sides of the argument think about it and then decide.
@Pavoreax Look im sure you are very smart i look forward to the rest of you video reviews on this book if you do them however no matter how smart you are unless you start to challenge your own faith that there is no God, it will not matter how much evidence for God you come across, you will not believe in him.. you will just keep using your smart brain to make up new ways not to believe in him.
There is many examples of this in the bible. Look i do not want to argue all i want to do is help you find the truth. I think your wrong and there is evidence for a God. actually i believe the fact we are alive is evidence. I would like to recomend another book for you. If you are a science fan then The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel is a great book with hard evidence for a God.
@Pavoreax Now once again nothing in this book will change your mind unless you decide to challenge your own faith of there is no God. Also i would like you to think about your last post and what you said. At one time you said "But you are right, I do not want to believe in God". Which also means you want to believe there is no God. Then at the bottom you said "If you only believe in something because you want to, then I would say your belief is a lie". You are absolutely right! Think about it.
@Pavoreax A skeptic is someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs. Be a skeptic my man and doubt your own belief. Believe me i have done it with my own belief many times and at one point i was beginning to believe what you believe. However i was skeptic not only toward Christianty but also toward every other view in the world including your view.
I think, this book is not for You... why read anything when You are filled with prejudice? (i know, that is true in my case also). It just doesn't make sense. Why waste Your time proving it wrong? It won't help anyone. Just as it doesn't help proving it right. Proving is just for our own conscience :)) - and without any results...
What a ridiculous suggestion. Are you suggesting that my "sins" - my offenses against other people and the insignificant minor laws of your holy books - are inflicting upon me a sense of logic and reason? That if I jump through the invisible hoops necessary for forgiveness and salvation that I will no longer have a need to critically analyze the claims of some megachurch millionaire? If I become a good Christian slave, will that eliminate my need for logic, or just my ability to appreciate it?
No, I mean if you repented of your need to astonish everyone with your arrogant attitude and snooty way of going after this reasonable and fair book. "Christian slave", "Megachurch millionaire" -- everything you say and write is dripping with disrespect and contempt. Your object of scorn is a civil,erudite man who is well acquainted with world religions and philosophy. I think you are smart too, but you are coming off as little more than rude. "Repent" then, for you, means"examine my hostility."
Civil and erudite, certainly. Well acquainted with world religions and philosophy, possibly. But he has made public his views, and therefore opened them to public analysis and criticism.
I find his philosophy to be ignorant, foolish, self-deluding, and dangerous should it fall into the wrong minds. I am within my rights to publicly disagree with him, and to do it in my own style. You offer no defense of Keller's positions, nor a refutation of my points. You have only attacked my word choice.
Actually -- to be fair -- I do like to hear someone go after public views, and I applaud your criticism. But most of all,I am happy to see that you are also a DEVO fan, thus you are not without hope. "Dangerous in the wrong hands?" Keller does a good job, in his preaching and in this book,of showing how religion per se DOES contribute to world problems -- but actual, orthodox Christianity does not. As for seeing how other philosophies relate only to his own, I think he addresses that fairly.
I love when people quote a small portion of a book/argument and then say, "Basically what he is saying..." Dishonest/unfair paraphrasing makes arguing against a book/argument easy.
Yes I do. Considering you make a lot of conclusions and assertions that Tim Keller does not make himself. Arguing against an argument requires delicate and charitable discussion with it. Not pulling out one sentence and paraphrasing the rest of the argument to make it look flimsy.
ha haa!
the darth vader quote...
"the ultimate embodiment of evil"
regardless of your review or what not, but as a Star Wars fan - darth vader is no such thing, as he turns around in the end... seemingly showing there is a bit of good even in the darkest of places... may the force be with you!
robpallot88 1 year ago
You missed the point with the chimp thing. It wasn't the fact that you can be mad at God that made him great. Like you pointed out, you can be mad at pretty much anything. It was the fact that you can be mad at God for the way the world is and how events in space and time play out; that's something pretty huge. If God is huge enough to be mad at for things of that nature, THEN he's huge enough for you to stop asking questions.
coastTOcoast533 1 year ago
@coastTOcoast533 - No, I disagree. Just because your God is all powerful, it does not automatically follow that he is all good, or deserving of blind allegiance. Maybe he's the ultimate corporate boss - an all powerful idiot with his head up his ass. It doesn't do any good to question his intentions or motivations - it won't get you anywhere, but that doesn't mean they should be accepted on faith. That's the reality of the problem of evil - your God doesn't come out looking very good in the end.
Pavoreax 1 year ago
To me its clear that you do not understand his points. They seem pretty clear to me, but you can't seem to get beyond that you might not be able to understand God. This is the real problem with devout skeptics. They want to understand everything - when we really can't. It is like we have our perspective which is 2 demetional, and things don't seem to fit. But God has our perspective as well as a third demention (so to speak) that we can't see or grasp because it is beyond our perspective.
SHORTGUY53 2 years ago
Chapter 3, 4 ,5, ect?
HANNIG43 3 years ago 2
Just curious on your final assessment of the book?
lamase24 3 years ago
I'm a Christian, and I've read this book. I'm not sure that you should be reviewing it chapter by chapter, however, as you seem to misunderstand what Dr. Keller means when he says "Christianity is better". This is explained in a later chapter when he discusses Gods grace.
I'm enjoying your POV though, and I look forward to the rest of this series.
ggazoo 3 years ago
Unfortunately I didn't finish the video reviews of this book. I did finish the book, however, but was too busy at the time to record my thoughts chapter by chapter. My final assessment was that Keller either misidentified his audience or does not truly understand them. As a skeptic - a true skeptic, not a doubter - I expected this book to have arguments addressing the skeptic's philosophy that claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Pavoreax 3 years ago
The book did not address actual skepticism. It did not contain the type of arguments that carry weight with a skeptic. It is probably a very good book for people who already believe in the Christian faith, but are struggling with parts of it, or starting to doubt its validity. It does a good job of making the argument for Christianity within the framework of Christianity's own beliefs, but does not step beyond those beliefs to make a sufficient argument to anyone who does not already hold them.
Pavoreax 3 years ago
In summary, I think the subtitle, "Faith in an Age of Skepticism" is misleading. Keller is addressing doubters, not skeptics, in this book. I'm really not sure if he knows the difference, though. And I don't mean that sardonically, either. As someone whose entire life revolves around one philosophy, Keller may not fully understand other philosophies as they stand alone, but rather sees them only as they relate to his own. To that person, skepticism would seem the same as doubt.
Pavoreax 3 years ago
@Pavoreax And in your summary and video you have not disproven or really even questioned him very hard. You have no evidence supporting any argument, you made you didnt even really make an argument you just kinda said what you didnt understand about the book. i mean this with all do respect but as a actual Christian i could have challenged this book better then you.
gallegs7 1 year ago
@gallegs7 - Yeah, it's a book review, not an attempt to challenge Keller. I've made clear in my comments here (and will on video if I eventually finish the review of this book) that the biggest failing of this book is that is does not address the audience it claims to be aimed at. Keller claims this is a book for skeptics, but he uses religious arguments throughout it. Do I need to explain how that's a fail?
Pavoreax 1 year ago
@Pavoreax Most things you said you didnt really understand very well. Especially chapter 1 when you talked about people with good morals vs people who have excepted Chirst. People who have truly excepted Christ have good works in their everyday life. They bare better fruit to this world then anyone. Honestly sir i dont think the problem is that you just cant believe in God. Its you dont want to and you make every excuse not to.
gallegs7 1 year ago
@gallegs7 - I have no reason to. The evidence screams of his nonexistence. But you are right, I do not want to believe in God. I do not want to believe in UFOs or leprechauns or Santa Claus or a hundred other things I know to be fiction. Why, knowing that it's just not real, would anyone WANT to believe in something. Belief, - true belief - is not a matter of what one wants or doesn't want. If you only believe in something because you want to, then I would say your belief is a lie.
Pavoreax 1 year ago
@Pavoreax ok you have make it very clear then you flat out just do not want to believe in GOD. From the begining of this book you were convinced that there was no GOd. in your videos it seemed very clear that you were on a mission to not let this book effect that decision.But my friend that is not the way a skeptic thinks. A skeptic will listen to both sides of the argument think about it and then decide.
gallegs7 1 year ago
@Pavoreax Look im sure you are very smart i look forward to the rest of you video reviews on this book if you do them however no matter how smart you are unless you start to challenge your own faith that there is no God, it will not matter how much evidence for God you come across, you will not believe in him.. you will just keep using your smart brain to make up new ways not to believe in him.
gallegs7 1 year ago
There is many examples of this in the bible. Look i do not want to argue all i want to do is help you find the truth. I think your wrong and there is evidence for a God. actually i believe the fact we are alive is evidence. I would like to recomend another book for you. If you are a science fan then The Case For A Creator by Lee Strobel is a great book with hard evidence for a God.
gallegs7 1 year ago
@Pavoreax Now once again nothing in this book will change your mind unless you decide to challenge your own faith of there is no God. Also i would like you to think about your last post and what you said. At one time you said "But you are right, I do not want to believe in God". Which also means you want to believe there is no God. Then at the bottom you said "If you only believe in something because you want to, then I would say your belief is a lie". You are absolutely right! Think about it.
gallegs7 1 year ago
@Pavoreax A skeptic is someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs. Be a skeptic my man and doubt your own belief. Believe me i have done it with my own belief many times and at one point i was beginning to believe what you believe. However i was skeptic not only toward Christianty but also toward every other view in the world including your view.
gallegs7 1 year ago
I think, this book is not for You... why read anything when You are filled with prejudice? (i know, that is true in my case also). It just doesn't make sense. Why waste Your time proving it wrong? It won't help anyone. Just as it doesn't help proving it right. Proving is just for our own conscience :)) - and without any results...
elodsson 3 years ago
Repent of your sins, and some of this will make a little more sense.
jmorra 3 years ago
What a ridiculous suggestion. Are you suggesting that my "sins" - my offenses against other people and the insignificant minor laws of your holy books - are inflicting upon me a sense of logic and reason? That if I jump through the invisible hoops necessary for forgiveness and salvation that I will no longer have a need to critically analyze the claims of some megachurch millionaire? If I become a good Christian slave, will that eliminate my need for logic, or just my ability to appreciate it?
Pavoreax 3 years ago
No, I mean if you repented of your need to astonish everyone with your arrogant attitude and snooty way of going after this reasonable and fair book. "Christian slave", "Megachurch millionaire" -- everything you say and write is dripping with disrespect and contempt. Your object of scorn is a civil,erudite man who is well acquainted with world religions and philosophy. I think you are smart too, but you are coming off as little more than rude. "Repent" then, for you, means"examine my hostility."
jmorra 3 years ago
Civil and erudite, certainly. Well acquainted with world religions and philosophy, possibly. But he has made public his views, and therefore opened them to public analysis and criticism.
I find his philosophy to be ignorant, foolish, self-deluding, and dangerous should it fall into the wrong minds. I am within my rights to publicly disagree with him, and to do it in my own style. You offer no defense of Keller's positions, nor a refutation of my points. You have only attacked my word choice.
Pavoreax 3 years ago
Actually -- to be fair -- I do like to hear someone go after public views, and I applaud your criticism. But most of all,I am happy to see that you are also a DEVO fan, thus you are not without hope. "Dangerous in the wrong hands?" Keller does a good job, in his preaching and in this book,of showing how religion per se DOES contribute to world problems -- but actual, orthodox Christianity does not. As for seeing how other philosophies relate only to his own, I think he addresses that fairly.
jmorra 3 years ago
I love when people quote a small portion of a book/argument and then say, "Basically what he is saying..." Dishonest/unfair paraphrasing makes arguing against a book/argument easy.
Lono1981 3 years ago
I paraphrased the exact passage that I read. Do you believe that I paraphrased it incorrectly?
Pavoreax 3 years ago
Yes I do. Considering you make a lot of conclusions and assertions that Tim Keller does not make himself. Arguing against an argument requires delicate and charitable discussion with it. Not pulling out one sentence and paraphrasing the rest of the argument to make it look flimsy.
Lono1981 3 years ago
Such as...? If you would like to discuss any specific point I made, please, let's. But you will have to be specific.
Pavoreax 3 years ago
So we've gone from a literate YokeUp to Darth Vader. Nice!
The best solution I've seen for the problem of evil is that the premises are false. (Oops! That's the atheist solution to the "problem".)
CousinoMacul 3 years ago