Apologetics is overrated

After reading a bunch of atheist literature recently, I was relieved to pick up The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Not relieved in the sense of having my faith buttressed ... but stylistic-burgeoning relief. Atheistic stuff can seem so ill-willed and hostile, and fortunately Strobel wrote something tame (but not bland!)

The book is great in two ways. One, it reads like a coherent investigative narrative with no sources given easy passes. Two, it's the testimony of Strobel's journey from keen, Yale Law graduated skeptic to believer. I guess it was meant to be read cooperatively since there are group discussions questions at the end of each section. Topics covered:
[] reason to believe authentic authorship of the gospels (did you know Paul's Jewish contemporaries wrote that Jesus was a sorcerer? Jesus vs. Dumbledore = epic)
[] "the canon is a list of authoritative books rather than an authoritative list of books"
[] disregarding the gospels, Jesus is still the most well-documented creator of a religion in secular history (competition: Buddha and Muhammad)
[] hearkening to 48 Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, the chance for someone random to fulfill them is on the scale of the number of atoms in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, billion same-sized universes as this one

I read this book with caution. I usually get really excited when studying apologetics, but Jesus says "You believe because you see; blessed are those who have not seen yet believe." However, I now feel so equipped in defending the Scriptures, yet I know atheists will more likely argue on moral/emotional lines. It's coo'.