| 14 January 2003 at 17.40.53 ZuluTime
|
Posted by Adam Donaghey [129.120.193.42 - gab342PC.gab330.unt.edu] on 14 January 2003 at 17.40.53 ZuluTime:
In Reply to: Saw your profile on yahoo posted by Patrick on 14 January 2003 at 10.35.10 ZuluTime:
Patrick, I won’t even deal with your atrocious bastardization of the English language. Evidently, you don’t enjoy reading.
I found this review when considering your first book:
“The book bills Morison as a skeptic, but in the intro, he explains that he isn't a true skeptic, he was only skeptical about Jesus's rise from the dead.
Furthermore, Morison's entire argument is based on the acceptance of the Bible as historical fact, word for word. If you do not also accept this as true, this book will not help you in any way. There are no references but Biblical ones.
His arguments are a little weak, in that he often, OFTEN, says things like "the way this passage reads, it doesn't sound like a made up story, it sounds like an historical account would read, so it must be true!" Which is a totally bogus argument. He often states his opinion as fact and draws "logical conclusions" that do not follow any defined rules of logic.”
Though this source too might certainly fail high school English, he makes a few points I refuse to ignore. Yes, it is hearsay; but this source seems to make an honest argument.
Here are a few excerpts from reviews of your second book:
“What is the best and most highly recommended book on the market is actually in my not so humble opinion the worst book on the market!”
“I would recommend this book only to test the effiency of a document-shedder. For Christians who think highly of McDowell's works..for crying out loud! Raise your standards! No wonder the Secular Web had a field day picking this book apart! No judge in his right mind would allow evidence like this to be presented to a jury in the first place!”
“McDowell's first section in this book, "The Bible - I trust it" should tell you all you need to know about his "evidence". His argument is that the Bible is unimpeachable and therefore is acceptable as 100% truth. So, inevitably, he uses the age-old circular argument: Christianity must be true because the Bible says it is. I expected OH SO MUCH more. And this, after the book jacket claims to provide "Answers which will satisfy anyone who is willing to honestly weigh the evidence." Too bad the author wasn't willing to offer up any non-tainted evidence.”
The search for your final book warranted no results: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/104-5316237-6847902