I want to be convinced - an experiment

To be fair to Lewis the book was originally a series of radio broadcasts and the medium as well as the intended audience would have influenced the presentation. So really we shouldn't expect it to contain much in the way of rigorous argument. I think that Lewis could have done better (and I think that he should have done better - by taking the time to expand on the arguments before publishing them in book form).However, saying that it isn't entirely Lewis fault that the arguments are poor doesn't make the arguments any better. Nor does suggesting that others make similarly bad arguments.

Well actually we tried to discuss _Mere Christianity_ once here, but the Lewis supporters seemed to be more interested in attacking a point I raised only as an example of Lewis' superficial level of argument than actually discussing the main line of Lewis' argument.
And even there they couldn't back up their points and made many false claims.http://EvC Forum: Proofs of God -->EvC Forum: Proofs of God

Well, I wouldn't call it anything more than an attempt at a debate. It's a bit hard to have a real discussion when the other side is more dedicated to attacking a side point - and in a dishonest and evasice way at that.I agree that the nastiness of the Old Testament God in Joshua (as well as Exodus and Numbers) is a real obstacle to accepting Christianity. It seems to me that the whole issue of the Promised Land and Jewish exclusivity is very much tied into the whole Messiah concept - or perhaps more accurately the concepts that led to the idea of a Messiah which - so far as I can tell - strictly speaking postdates any of the Old Testament books.