What do you think?
Rate this book
Title: The Case Against Christ
Book by JOHN YOUNG
- GenresChristianityChristian
224 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1994
2 people are currently reading
30 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 2, 2024
my grandma has asked me to read some of her christian literature and discuss it with her so I'm being a good granddaughter... also she told me she would give me a little bit of money towards my flights in September so... I guess it's not entirely out of the goodwill of my heart
christianity exhausts me like I just feel utterly disillusioned by it. I didn't grow up terribly religious but my grandma did have a lot of influence on me, gave me a children's bible at my birth which I grew up reading, and I went to church camp and all, where my most vivid memory is singing a terrible Christianised parody of Justin Timberlake's 'Can't Stop the Feeling' (children of the living God / so let's dance, dance dance / tell everybody else about His / plans plans plans).
im ngl i liked how this book was written in good faith and not that preachy. it preempts doubt in a way that is only patronising sometimes and the jokes are cute. it's just that everything is a major reach like.... the quotes are largely pulled from the same people, many of whom are bishops or clergymen, and, while I take no issue with the arguments based on the harmony between christianity and science, everything else is tenuous at best and deluded at worst. true to the Bible's instruction, Young and Wilkinson certainly turn the other cheek–to any evidence or facts that might actually disprove their arguments, especially on the archaeological and resurrection fronts.
saying that Christians who have perpetrated acts of violence, greed, hatred, and discrimination throughout history are all just bad, false christians is too tidy. atrocities have been committed in the name of god for motivations that were largely based on the same desire to spread his word and sow belief in non-believers that this book has–the colonisation of the greater part of the Americas by Spain is the most obvious case in my mind, although I don't doubt there was also an element of avarice for natural resources and women. like I said, the archaeological sections have the most egregious instances of lifted, context-less quotations than any other part of the book and feel distinctly pseudoscientific. we don't know everything about everything yet so who says god isn't real? st paul espoused terribly misogynistic views but women were also in the bible and they were the first to know of the resurrection so checkmate liberals...
quick pause because I know Desmond Tutu was a black African guy and I am a wasian christchurchian girl but eyebrows were raised at his included quotation that states that the missionaries came to Africa and took the land (not to mention the slaves) but the Africans were left with the Bible and that was the better deal like Um.................... um..............
god lets terrible things happen because it lets people experience his glory through suffering. Jesus suffered on the cross, and I love Jesus, but hot take nobody at all can convince me that his pain has an equal balance to that which people suffer every day everywhere and have been since before and after Jesus. God gave his one and only son for the people, which shows that he cares, but he doesn't seem to care about the Palestinian parents who have lost their children to bombings of their entire neighbourhood or the parents worldwide who lose their children to famine or the parents who have to get their children to work in sweatshops in order to stay alive like hot take but people everywhere right now are suffering way more than Jesus and God combined ever had to and idk I feel that is kind of a dumb person argument but it's a major issue for me like Jesus had it easy in terms of human cruelty
girl don't even get me started on the if Jesus wasn't real then why did he tell everyone he was the son of God argument like why does anyone do anything??????? When I was 5 I used to tell my friend I was a mermaid princess that had become a human girl and she had to pour water over my naked body to keep me alive but that wasn't true and I wasn't crazy or evil I was just like whatever, and I liked getting water poured on me. I was glad to see my opinion brought up in a single paragraph of the reality of Jesus' existence but only as a great teacher and not as a divine figure only for it to be concluded with 'this is delusional and wrong' and no evidence given to back up the statement? just a Nope you're wrong like where is the evidenceeeee
way too much emphasis on the New Testament like obvi that's the part where Jesus is actually around and the book is not called 'The Case Against Moses' or something but like that's the majority of the Bible and its foundation and if there wasn't an Old Testament there wouldn't even be a Jesus so... it's a cop out imo like the Old Testament is way harder to ride for but you can't just pretend it doesn't exist unless it corroborates you conveniently..
resurrection part was just bruh moment after bruh moment like they definitely saved the worst arguments for the people that made it through the understandable science arguments and even the moralistic good/evil arguments. STRAWS WERE CLUTCHED AT! what made me laugh was like 'the apostles were the best ever and wrote 'sublime and challenging moral literature' (178) but trust me they were just too dumb to make the whole thing up like it was beyond their mental ability because the resurrection is just that poetic and crazy' like?? help??? so humans can't make good art because we're too dumb? have you listened to girl front by loona????? people will die and suffer for their convictions, not their inventions - have you ever considered the multiple cases in history where those were the same thing?
I was more convinced of the existence of christ before I read this book lol 1.5/5
christianity exhausts me like I just feel utterly disillusioned by it. I didn't grow up terribly religious but my grandma did have a lot of influence on me, gave me a children's bible at my birth which I grew up reading, and I went to church camp and all, where my most vivid memory is singing a terrible Christianised parody of Justin Timberlake's 'Can't Stop the Feeling' (children of the living God / so let's dance, dance dance / tell everybody else about His / plans plans plans).
im ngl i liked how this book was written in good faith and not that preachy. it preempts doubt in a way that is only patronising sometimes and the jokes are cute. it's just that everything is a major reach like.... the quotes are largely pulled from the same people, many of whom are bishops or clergymen, and, while I take no issue with the arguments based on the harmony between christianity and science, everything else is tenuous at best and deluded at worst. true to the Bible's instruction, Young and Wilkinson certainly turn the other cheek–to any evidence or facts that might actually disprove their arguments, especially on the archaeological and resurrection fronts.
saying that Christians who have perpetrated acts of violence, greed, hatred, and discrimination throughout history are all just bad, false christians is too tidy. atrocities have been committed in the name of god for motivations that were largely based on the same desire to spread his word and sow belief in non-believers that this book has–the colonisation of the greater part of the Americas by Spain is the most obvious case in my mind, although I don't doubt there was also an element of avarice for natural resources and women. like I said, the archaeological sections have the most egregious instances of lifted, context-less quotations than any other part of the book and feel distinctly pseudoscientific. we don't know everything about everything yet so who says god isn't real? st paul espoused terribly misogynistic views but women were also in the bible and they were the first to know of the resurrection so checkmate liberals...
quick pause because I know Desmond Tutu was a black African guy and I am a wasian christchurchian girl but eyebrows were raised at his included quotation that states that the missionaries came to Africa and took the land (not to mention the slaves) but the Africans were left with the Bible and that was the better deal like Um.................... um..............
god lets terrible things happen because it lets people experience his glory through suffering. Jesus suffered on the cross, and I love Jesus, but hot take nobody at all can convince me that his pain has an equal balance to that which people suffer every day everywhere and have been since before and after Jesus. God gave his one and only son for the people, which shows that he cares, but he doesn't seem to care about the Palestinian parents who have lost their children to bombings of their entire neighbourhood or the parents worldwide who lose their children to famine or the parents who have to get their children to work in sweatshops in order to stay alive like hot take but people everywhere right now are suffering way more than Jesus and God combined ever had to and idk I feel that is kind of a dumb person argument but it's a major issue for me like Jesus had it easy in terms of human cruelty
girl don't even get me started on the if Jesus wasn't real then why did he tell everyone he was the son of God argument like why does anyone do anything??????? When I was 5 I used to tell my friend I was a mermaid princess that had become a human girl and she had to pour water over my naked body to keep me alive but that wasn't true and I wasn't crazy or evil I was just like whatever, and I liked getting water poured on me. I was glad to see my opinion brought up in a single paragraph of the reality of Jesus' existence but only as a great teacher and not as a divine figure only for it to be concluded with 'this is delusional and wrong' and no evidence given to back up the statement? just a Nope you're wrong like where is the evidenceeeee
way too much emphasis on the New Testament like obvi that's the part where Jesus is actually around and the book is not called 'The Case Against Moses' or something but like that's the majority of the Bible and its foundation and if there wasn't an Old Testament there wouldn't even be a Jesus so... it's a cop out imo like the Old Testament is way harder to ride for but you can't just pretend it doesn't exist unless it corroborates you conveniently..
resurrection part was just bruh moment after bruh moment like they definitely saved the worst arguments for the people that made it through the understandable science arguments and even the moralistic good/evil arguments. STRAWS WERE CLUTCHED AT! what made me laugh was like 'the apostles were the best ever and wrote 'sublime and challenging moral literature' (178) but trust me they were just too dumb to make the whole thing up like it was beyond their mental ability because the resurrection is just that poetic and crazy' like?? help??? so humans can't make good art because we're too dumb? have you listened to girl front by loona????? people will die and suffer for their convictions, not their inventions - have you ever considered the multiple cases in history where those were the same thing?
I was more convinced of the existence of christ before I read this book lol 1.5/5
February 9, 2019
The title is provocative. In fact, the full title is not registered here. The complete title reads like this: THE CASE AGAINST CHRIST: SOME STATEMENTS FOR THE DEFENCE. So, it is actually an apologetic book.
John Young writes this book answering some of the actual objections leveled against Christianity. His answers are academic and scholarly. But he presents them in an easy language for anyone to follow his arguments. Moreover the chapters are short and so the arguments are crisp.
Some of the questions addressed are:
1. Has Science disproved religion (Evolution vs Creation)?
2. Can science and religion go together?
3. Can we believe in the Bible? Were they not tampered with? How can a book of some ancient times guide us in today's situations? Is the record on Jesus reliable?
4. why is suffering in the world? Does the all loving God care for the world?
5. If Christianity is true, why are there other religions?
6. Is Jesus a historical person? Is his Resurrection real?
7. Can we prove the existence of God?
His answers are interesting. He has read and studied a lot. And that is visible in his arguments. As you read, Young keeps you engaged.
I am always curious about both the objections and defences to Christian Faith. I read about the objections to understand the viewpoints of those stand against the Christian faith. And read about the defences to understand the passion of an apologist. Young in this book emerges a passionate apologist.
John Young writes this book answering some of the actual objections leveled against Christianity. His answers are academic and scholarly. But he presents them in an easy language for anyone to follow his arguments. Moreover the chapters are short and so the arguments are crisp.
Some of the questions addressed are:
1. Has Science disproved religion (Evolution vs Creation)?
2. Can science and religion go together?
3. Can we believe in the Bible? Were they not tampered with? How can a book of some ancient times guide us in today's situations? Is the record on Jesus reliable?
4. why is suffering in the world? Does the all loving God care for the world?
5. If Christianity is true, why are there other religions?
6. Is Jesus a historical person? Is his Resurrection real?
7. Can we prove the existence of God?
His answers are interesting. He has read and studied a lot. And that is visible in his arguments. As you read, Young keeps you engaged.
I am always curious about both the objections and defences to Christian Faith. I read about the objections to understand the viewpoints of those stand against the Christian faith. And read about the defences to understand the passion of an apologist. Young in this book emerges a passionate apologist.
June 29, 2024
4/10
The Case Against Christ is an apologetics book originally written in the 1970s. The book looks over the objections of Christianity. These include Christians being hypocritical, scientific problems with Christianity, problem of evil, problems with the Bible, problems with Jesus and reasons for Christianity.
For hypocritical Christians, the book claims that Christians are sinners and it is watered down so that a "true Christian" wouldn't commit war-crimes. This of course is fallacious- this would be No True Scotsman fallacy. The book argues that Christians have done good things to the world including William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Fry and Barbados. The debate as to whether Christians have been positive or negative to history is debatable. Christians have founded schools, hospitals and charities. Yet, the violence of the Reformation shows Christians can cause significant suffering. Christian areas of the US tend to have lower living standards because of the voting habits of American Christians. I don't think this book gives a good explanation as to why Christians aren't too bad. For example, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism directly created the Anti-Semitism in German culture that led to the Holocaust. So, Christians even the religious leaders are bad. But I guess they are sinners. Depends if the reader agrees or not.
The science part of the book looks over claims about whether science has disproved God. I don't necessarily know whether science can prove or disprove God. The issues of a science is that certain scientific developments contradict claims in Christianity such as evolution, chaos theory (which contradicts Calvinist ideas of sovereignty of God). The book argues that Christians have different views of interpretation and that there are different points of view when analysing events. I don't necessarily think that the book is wrong in this but there are strong disagreements among Christians on issues of science. Evangelicals from the US have become highly sceptical of science. I don't think science contradicts with Christianity but that is only because I view the Bible from a liberal theological position. From a conservative protestant theological position, science is deeply problematic because it contradicts beliefs in a literal view of the Bible.
The section on the Bible is perhaps the weakest section of the book. I have researched Biblical critical theory and there are quite some problems with this section. The part about how accurate the Gospels are is a classic of apologetics. They like to claim that the gospels are written very close to the events unlike other history books of the time period and that they were eye witnesses that were involved in the writing of it. The problem is the academic consensus is that the Gospels were probably not written by eye-witnesses. The Q source wasn't mentioned. Another issue is that it kind of glosses over archeology. It claims "some critics of the Christian faith want too much evidence" which is the author's way of saying there's not much evidence. What is confirmed with archeology is entirely the Iron Age part of the Bible. The Bronze Age part has no evidence for existing. There is no evidence for Moses or Abraham existing.
Looking over contradictions, the author argues that the Bible is written by man and so inspired by God. The problem I have with contradictions in the Bible isn't that there are lots of contradictions. The problem is that the Bible has lots of contradictions and conservative Protestants claim the Bible is inerrant, without error on historical or scientific claims. The contradictions in the Bible are partially responsible for the vast differences in denominations between Christians. I don't necessarily know if one book can explain this. A better way to explain this is the contradictions are expected from people inspired by God as everyone views God through their own understanding.
The section on Jesus looks over whether Jesus was real and the claims about. Given that the vast number of biblical scholars think Jesus is real, so I think this book goes with what the majority of scholar consensus on this. That said, the scholarship consensus isn't clear on which sayings Jesus said were actually correct or not. Still, the section on evidence of the resurrection seems okay.
The last section looks at evidence for Christianity. The amazing universe is one I seem to think is quite a good argument but then if there is the problem of evil, that is problematic. Ironically, the best argument I think is personal experience. Apologetics usually is pitched as a way of transforming unbelievers into believers but I don't think many arguments are that convincing. That said, experience is definitely convincing but then again, other religions are based on experience as well which is a problem. Like Near Death Experiences are determined by the differences in culture and religion to the point that Christians have Christian NDEs, Muslims have Muslim NDEs and Hindus have Hindu NDE e.t.c. The evidence from history is mostly circular reasoning of using the Bible to prove the veracity of the Bible. The last chapter deals with the conclusions of whether Jesus is true- that "either he is the son of God or he isn't", which really misunderstands Christology. Jesus could be the son of God but was he created (as Arius thought) or did he become God (as Nestorius thought).
I think this book is a light hearted, easy to read book for Christians but I doubt sceptics would believe after reading this book.
The Case Against Christ is an apologetics book originally written in the 1970s. The book looks over the objections of Christianity. These include Christians being hypocritical, scientific problems with Christianity, problem of evil, problems with the Bible, problems with Jesus and reasons for Christianity.
For hypocritical Christians, the book claims that Christians are sinners and it is watered down so that a "true Christian" wouldn't commit war-crimes. This of course is fallacious- this would be No True Scotsman fallacy. The book argues that Christians have done good things to the world including William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Fry and Barbados. The debate as to whether Christians have been positive or negative to history is debatable. Christians have founded schools, hospitals and charities. Yet, the violence of the Reformation shows Christians can cause significant suffering. Christian areas of the US tend to have lower living standards because of the voting habits of American Christians. I don't think this book gives a good explanation as to why Christians aren't too bad. For example, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism directly created the Anti-Semitism in German culture that led to the Holocaust. So, Christians even the religious leaders are bad. But I guess they are sinners. Depends if the reader agrees or not.
The science part of the book looks over claims about whether science has disproved God. I don't necessarily know whether science can prove or disprove God. The issues of a science is that certain scientific developments contradict claims in Christianity such as evolution, chaos theory (which contradicts Calvinist ideas of sovereignty of God). The book argues that Christians have different views of interpretation and that there are different points of view when analysing events. I don't necessarily think that the book is wrong in this but there are strong disagreements among Christians on issues of science. Evangelicals from the US have become highly sceptical of science. I don't think science contradicts with Christianity but that is only because I view the Bible from a liberal theological position. From a conservative protestant theological position, science is deeply problematic because it contradicts beliefs in a literal view of the Bible.
The section on the Bible is perhaps the weakest section of the book. I have researched Biblical critical theory and there are quite some problems with this section. The part about how accurate the Gospels are is a classic of apologetics. They like to claim that the gospels are written very close to the events unlike other history books of the time period and that they were eye witnesses that were involved in the writing of it. The problem is the academic consensus is that the Gospels were probably not written by eye-witnesses. The Q source wasn't mentioned. Another issue is that it kind of glosses over archeology. It claims "some critics of the Christian faith want too much evidence" which is the author's way of saying there's not much evidence. What is confirmed with archeology is entirely the Iron Age part of the Bible. The Bronze Age part has no evidence for existing. There is no evidence for Moses or Abraham existing.
Looking over contradictions, the author argues that the Bible is written by man and so inspired by God. The problem I have with contradictions in the Bible isn't that there are lots of contradictions. The problem is that the Bible has lots of contradictions and conservative Protestants claim the Bible is inerrant, without error on historical or scientific claims. The contradictions in the Bible are partially responsible for the vast differences in denominations between Christians. I don't necessarily know if one book can explain this. A better way to explain this is the contradictions are expected from people inspired by God as everyone views God through their own understanding.
The section on Jesus looks over whether Jesus was real and the claims about. Given that the vast number of biblical scholars think Jesus is real, so I think this book goes with what the majority of scholar consensus on this. That said, the scholarship consensus isn't clear on which sayings Jesus said were actually correct or not. Still, the section on evidence of the resurrection seems okay.
The last section looks at evidence for Christianity. The amazing universe is one I seem to think is quite a good argument but then if there is the problem of evil, that is problematic. Ironically, the best argument I think is personal experience. Apologetics usually is pitched as a way of transforming unbelievers into believers but I don't think many arguments are that convincing. That said, experience is definitely convincing but then again, other religions are based on experience as well which is a problem. Like Near Death Experiences are determined by the differences in culture and religion to the point that Christians have Christian NDEs, Muslims have Muslim NDEs and Hindus have Hindu NDE e.t.c. The evidence from history is mostly circular reasoning of using the Bible to prove the veracity of the Bible. The last chapter deals with the conclusions of whether Jesus is true- that "either he is the son of God or he isn't", which really misunderstands Christology. Jesus could be the son of God but was he created (as Arius thought) or did he become God (as Nestorius thought).
I think this book is a light hearted, easy to read book for Christians but I doubt sceptics would believe after reading this book.
Read
April 6, 2017Ok, I've read this now, and I have to say it's fairly sound. It aims its message at those who haven't thought all that deeply about the existence of god, and perhaps need a gentle push in that direction. That allows it to be somewhat frivolous and fun in its execution, and means it can steer clear of hardcore and controversial debate.
Aside from the abiding faith and belief in Christianity, there is no sign of delusion within these pages at all. It is in fact quite erudite and logical. It recognises the validity of science and uses bona fide history and archaeology to support the hypothesis that Jesus really existed. I have no argument with that, as there is indeed such evidence. Whether or not he is the son of god, and whether there even is a god are of course, different matters.
When it comes to answering these questions, Young provides some logical arguments, but has to set a little too much store in them. He ends up making too many assumptions as to what would have happened had Jesus not really been the son of god, and if he hadn't really been resurrected - his teachings would not have been remembered, for example. People wouldn't have bothered devoting their lives to him - things like that, that make sense but fail to offer anything more than circumstantial evidence.
In spite of all that, I have to praise Young's open-mindedness and the breadth of knowledge that he brings to the subject. It actually makes me curious to read the gospels (having failed to get further than Numbers in my attempt to read The Bible from the beginning). One failing Young makes though, is in using the argument that the existence of the universe alone is evidence of the existence of god - that our planet is just the right size, just the right distance from the sun, and contains water -that something must have created it. But if that's the case, how was the creator created?
He also hints upon how science claims random chance could have created the universe, but doesn't go into how the foundation of that claim is that the universe is so vast that the chance of ourselves and our world being created - that just the right conditions for supporting life arose - somewhere within it becomes that much smaller, instead just dismissing the possibility out of hand.
While he does address such issues as if god exists, why do bad things happen?, he doesn't explain why, if he does exist, he has chosen to behave the way he has at all. And by that, I mean why does god's nature change so much between the old and new testaments? How come other religions have arisen? I get that Jesus and the parables provide us good human examples of how we should live, but if god is real, why does he have to rely so heavily on faith? Why not just make it clear to us all that he exists? Why hasn't he given us a shred of "evidence" since Jesus' death two thousand years ago? The whole thing is just contrived and suspicious. Beyond an inability to see meaning in life, beyond wonder at the beauty and complexity of the universe and the limits of our ability to understand it, I still can't see what's logical about belief in god.
Overall I am happy to allow that John Young is definitely not a crackpot. He's a learned, fair, and loyal follower of christ. He hasn't convinced me, but he does make some good points and I wouldn't be surprised if this book had achieved its aims with some people.
Aside from the abiding faith and belief in Christianity, there is no sign of delusion within these pages at all. It is in fact quite erudite and logical. It recognises the validity of science and uses bona fide history and archaeology to support the hypothesis that Jesus really existed. I have no argument with that, as there is indeed such evidence. Whether or not he is the son of god, and whether there even is a god are of course, different matters.
When it comes to answering these questions, Young provides some logical arguments, but has to set a little too much store in them. He ends up making too many assumptions as to what would have happened had Jesus not really been the son of god, and if he hadn't really been resurrected - his teachings would not have been remembered, for example. People wouldn't have bothered devoting their lives to him - things like that, that make sense but fail to offer anything more than circumstantial evidence.
In spite of all that, I have to praise Young's open-mindedness and the breadth of knowledge that he brings to the subject. It actually makes me curious to read the gospels (having failed to get further than Numbers in my attempt to read The Bible from the beginning). One failing Young makes though, is in using the argument that the existence of the universe alone is evidence of the existence of god - that our planet is just the right size, just the right distance from the sun, and contains water -that something must have created it. But if that's the case, how was the creator created?
He also hints upon how science claims random chance could have created the universe, but doesn't go into how the foundation of that claim is that the universe is so vast that the chance of ourselves and our world being created - that just the right conditions for supporting life arose - somewhere within it becomes that much smaller, instead just dismissing the possibility out of hand.
While he does address such issues as if god exists, why do bad things happen?, he doesn't explain why, if he does exist, he has chosen to behave the way he has at all. And by that, I mean why does god's nature change so much between the old and new testaments? How come other religions have arisen? I get that Jesus and the parables provide us good human examples of how we should live, but if god is real, why does he have to rely so heavily on faith? Why not just make it clear to us all that he exists? Why hasn't he given us a shred of "evidence" since Jesus' death two thousand years ago? The whole thing is just contrived and suspicious. Beyond an inability to see meaning in life, beyond wonder at the beauty and complexity of the universe and the limits of our ability to understand it, I still can't see what's logical about belief in god.
Overall I am happy to allow that John Young is definitely not a crackpot. He's a learned, fair, and loyal follower of christ. He hasn't convinced me, but he does make some good points and I wouldn't be surprised if this book had achieved its aims with some people.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews