apologia

apologia

I entirely agree. A robust belief in God and the bible will produce a startlingly different worldview in a living community of followers who shine with the light of Jesus and His truth.

The sad fact is that the church has proved to be a hollow shell and that is what gives its critics, scientist or atheist, the gall to criticise. It is also the reason why we lose debates. We do not seem to know the ground that we stand on and every time we take our eyes off it, the ground disappears. Pity the predator that has to hunt under these conditions!

Yet, the foolishness of the cross is the answer and an answer that no number Dawkinses will be able to deal with. It’s easy to miss the flea when you’re out with an elephant gun, and that is Dawkins frustration.

Despite all that, the apostle Peter urges us to give a reasonable answer to all who would question us and it is precisely this, an effective PoMo apologetic, that we now seem to have lost sight of. Not that I was greatly impressed with any of the apologetics produced for the modern world -except for the delightfully oblique efforts of C.S. Lewis.

Live to serve : Serve to live

God v Science debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins By: paulhartigan (45 replies) 11 November, 2006 - 01:00