In my last post I made a reference to Dorothy Sayer’s assertion that a ‘well informed Zoroastrian’ could- or at least in principle, should- be able to explain what Christianity is all about. This was in context of my pursuit for a book that lays out in simple terms just what the historic orthodox Christian …
One of the main lines of attacks that skeptics have employed is along the lines of language. For example, ‘Intelligent Design’ should be a redundancy, but today evolutionists talk all the time about organisms being ‘designed’ but insist that design was done by natural processes. This gives them the advantage of being able to admit …
Two quotes to start this off with. First, from atheist Bertrand Russell, answering a question in an essay by the same title, “Why I am not a Christian”: “I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions. Nowadays it is not quite like that.”
Mr. Russell is about right about this.