Apologetics for the XXI century.

Have you ever thought about a new apologetics? We’ve learnt a lot in the modern era. About reality. About ourselves. We learn from successes and failures. Has anyone tried to summarize our current knowledge, show “the big picture” of our reality? The truth about reality should point to the Truth of the Ever-Existing, shouldn’t it? At least, it was pretty obvious for millennia. But not nowadays in the Western world.

Is it impossible? Is our knowledge so wide and big, that nobody is able to grasp the general picture of the state in which we are? Many tend to answer: Yes. But the logical consequence of such answer is the inability to see contradictions, falsehoods, which may arise between “parts of our knowledge”. If you see everything separately, you are unable to tell if it is still coherent, logical, wise. On the other hand, the fact that ‘I cannot see, how someone could do it.’ does not necessarily mean that it is truly impossible. Is it not worth to try?

I wrote, that “We learn from successes and failures”. A sheer banality. But if applied to what we call “science”, for instance; it may give some additional understanding, a better knowledge. For an example, let’s consider the Artificial Intelligence concept. It is a great example of a fleeing horizon. In 70’s of the last century it seemed inevitable. In 80’s we’d seemed to lack only the processing power. In 90’s the processing power had been achieved, but the human-like AI have not emerged. Now, we are being fed with fairy-tales about the quantum processors or the digital singularity. When the quantum processors tale fails, another will be presented. Cause the desire to become ‘gods’ able to create conscious, thinking beings is much stronger than rational thinking. (The ‘digital singularity’ will survive, as it is so elusive, that it is impossible to show it false. Like ‘the fact’ that there is an invisible, immaterial ball just over one’s head.)

But returning to the point. Does not our failure in the field of creating a human-like AI tell us something? About reality? If we look closer at this issue, we will find some other clues: like the failure of the driverless cars. They are still not impressive. To put it mildly. These things are connected. Anyway, we have many more failures to ponder about. If we clean up our science and knowledge, free them from falsehoods and biases, it will be beneficial not only to apologetics, but to mankind, too. Cause staying in error is impractical and stupid.

I know. The easiest is to disbelieve and laugh. But where would we be, if we would not try ‘the impossible’ from time to time? I’m sure, there are people who, like me, are bold enough to try. The only problem is to reach them. Are any of them on this forum?
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Have you ever thought about a new apologetics? We’ve learnt a lot in the modern era. About reality. About ourselves. We learn from successes and failures. Has anyone tried to summarize our current knowledge, show “the big picture” of our reality? The truth about reality should point to the Truth of the Ever-Existing, shouldn’t it? At least, it was pretty obvious for millennia. But not nowadays in the Western world.

Is it impossible? Is our knowledge so wide and big, that nobody is able to grasp the general picture of the state in which we are? Many tend to answer: Yes. But the logical consequence of such answer is the inability to see contradictions, falsehoods, which may arise between “parts of our knowledge”. If you see everything separately, you are unable to tell if it is still coherent, logical, wise. On the other hand, the fact that ‘I cannot see, how someone could do it.’ does not necessarily mean that it is truly impossible. Is it not worth to try?

I wrote, that “We learn from successes and failures”. A sheer banality. But if applied to what we call “science”, for instance; it may give some additional understanding, a better knowledge. For an example, let’s consider the Artificial Intelligence concept. It is a great example of a fleeing horizon. In 70’s of the last century it seemed inevitable. In 80’s we’d seemed to lack only the processing power. In 90’s the processing power had been achieved, but the human-like AI have not emerged. Now, we are being fed with fairy-tales about the quantum processors or the digital singularity. When the quantum processors tale fails, another will be presented. Cause the desire to become ‘gods’ able to create conscious, thinking beings is much stronger than rational thinking. (The ‘digital singularity’ will survive, as it is so elusive, that it is impossible to show it false. Like ‘the fact’ that there is an invisible, immaterial ball just over one’s head.)

But returning to the point. Does not our failure in the field of creating a human-like AI tell us something? About reality? If we look closer at this issue, we will find some other clues: like the failure of the driverless cars. They are still not impressive. To put it mildly. These things are connected. Anyway, we have many more failures to ponder about. If we clean up our science and knowledge, free them from falsehoods and biases, it will be beneficial not only to apologetics, but to mankind, too. Cause staying in error is impractical and stupid.

I know. The easiest is to disbelieve and laugh. But where would we be, if we would not try ‘the impossible’ from time to time? I’m sure, there are people who, like me, are bold enough to try. The only problem is to reach them. Are any of them on this forum?
In terms of God and His kingdom, either He is manifest in you and expose His reality of to be like Him or He is not manifest in you and ones reality is confined to beliefs spawned through opinions about Him.
 
In terms of God and His kingdom, either He is manifest in you and expose His reality of to be like Him or He is not manifest in you and ones reality is confined to beliefs spawned through opinions about Him.
You seem to have a talent of putting simple things in complex ways. Anyway, have you tried to convince any atheist with words like that? Because this is what apologetics is for. In our times.
 
There is nothing cogent in your OP. In reality, it could have been written by an atheist with too much time on his hands
Did you really expect one sentence to be “cogent”?
If you want something “cogent” search the Internet for my nick. You should find something in the eu domain. What I’ve written here is not apologetics. It’s a question whether anyone is interested in helping to create one.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
You seem to have a talent of putting simple things in complex ways. Anyway, have you tried to convince any atheist with words like that? Because this is what apologetics is for. In our times.
Either He is in you by the Spirit He is and you are like Him or He is not in you by the Spirit that He is and you are not is complicated for you? What would be simple for you?

Atheists? Yes I am speaking to all who do not have God as their own disposition. Anyone who does not believe they can have from God that what Jesus had from Him is atheist. Many of these claim to be Christian but actually do not believe God that they can have what Jesus had from God and actually refuse to receive from God His anointing as Jesus did to be of Christ, anointed of God by His Spirit.
 
I am speaking to all who do not have God as their own disposition. Anyone who does not believe they can have from God that what Jesus had from Him is atheist. Many of these claim to be Christian but actually do not believe God that they can have what Jesus had from God and actually refuse to receive from God His anointing as Jesus did to be of Christ, anointed of God by His Spirit.
My aim is not to discuss Christian orthodoxy. You see, the mission given by Jesus to His apostles and through them to every Christian was to tell and teach others about Him. To bring them to Him. I want to show atheists, agnostics a way to Jesus. To do this, one have to speak their language. Start in their worldview. You might be right, but your language is useless while speaking to people who will only shrug to your words. I do not intend to “show Christians the true Faith”, as you want to do. We assume different audiences, different ‘environments’. Perhaps, you could start your job, where I end mine.
 

Algernon

Active member
I want to show atheists, agnostics a way to Jesus. To do this, one have to speak their language. Start in their worldview.
Presumably "their language" would be logic and reason. Wouldn't the starting point be a sound and coherent doctrine that holds up under scrutiny?
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
My aim is not to discuss Christian orthodoxy.
Mine either, only witness for what it is to know God.
You see, the mission given by Jesus to His apostles and through them to every Christian was to tell and teach others about Him. To bring them to Him. I want to show atheists, agnostics a way to Jesus. To do this, one have to speak their language. Start in their worldview. You might be right, but your language is useless while speaking to people who will only shrug to your words. I do not intend to “show Christians the true Faith”, as you want to do. We assume different audiences, different ‘environments’. Perhaps, you could start your job, where I end mine.
I agree that Jesus moission was to lead people to his God but did Jesus really speak their language? From what I read of it not one, not even one of Jesus own disciples heard what he had to say of the Father. Every single one of his disciples flat out denied to be identified with him in his trials and tribulation. Did Jesus learn to speak their language that they may hear? If he did he sure didnt do a very good job at it. But what I read of what he said the language he spoke was as foreign to them and it is today.

Jesus did speak their language in the temple even from a young age teaching the laws they understood, but the moment His language changed from the stipulations of the law to the stipulations of Spirit when he was about 30 years of age not one heard him. These didnt get his message until he was no more available to answer their questions when they had to turn to God Himself as Jesus did instruct, then they heard and got the message Jesus tried to convey and actually became like him in the Father of it in an upper room by God Himself opening up His will just as He did in Jesus in Matt 3:16. Jesus didnt hear either until God opened his hearing.
 

Berserk

Member
I'm fascinated by the growing consensus from neurology and the philosophy of mind that we are not a ghost within a machine. Our brain's source of thought and consciousness cannot be readily localized in one part of the brain. Rather, our mind seems a non-spatial phenomenon that uses our brain like a radio transmitter. This may have profound implications for how we understand postmortem survival and apparent mind mergers that make ESP and other paranormal phenomena possible. "Miracles" may both point to a higher power and reflect unrecognized laws of consciousness in such a way that the concepts of "natural" and "supernatural" may merge in new models of spirituality. I believe in the evolutionary role of natural selection an genetic mutation, but reject the notion that these 2 principles are sufficient to explain evolution on a grand scale. I believe that undiscovered laws of consciousness/ life also played a vital role in a way that points to a higher power. And if evolutionary forces are at work in our world, why not in spiritual realms as well. Perhaps theological concepts like "a new heaven and a new earth" reflect such processes in spiritual realms.

For example, read my spiritual journey thread in the Introduction/ Testimony section. My many premonitions recorded there may well correlate with unknown mental principles and merge brain function with divine guidance.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Presumably "their language" would be logic and reason. Wouldn't the starting point be a sound and coherent doctrine that holds up under scrutiny?
Sound and coherent doctrine as in Catholic, Mormons, AOGs, COCs, Muslims, Baptists, Methodists? All of these say they have sound doctrine but none of these can agree about doctrines.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
I'm fascinated by the growing consensus from neurology and the philosophy of mind that we are not a ghost within a machine. Our brain's source of thought and consciousness cannot be readily localized in one part of the brain. Rather, our mind seems a non-spatial phenomenon that uses our brain like a radio transmitter. This may have profound implications for how we understand postmortem survival and apparent mind mergers that make ESP and other paranormal phenomena possible. "Miracles" may both point to a higher power and reflect unrecognized laws of consciousness in such a way that the concepts of "natural" and "supernatural" may merge in new models of spirituality. I believe in the evolutionary role of natural selection an genetic mutation, but reject the notion that these 2 principles are sufficient to explain evolution on a grand scale. I believe that undiscovered laws of consciousness/ life also played a vital role in a way that points to a higher power. And if evolutionary forces are at work in our world, why not in spiritual realms as well. Perhaps theological concepts like "a new heaven and a new earth" reflect such processes in spiritual realms.

For example, read my spiritual journey thread in the Introduction/ Testimony section. My many premonitions recorded there may well correlate with unknown mental principles and merge brain function with divine guidance.
The mind is subject to its ability to absorb and store information. Problems arise when the mind forms opinions instead of actually receiving the manifestation of a fact -- As in one can believe anything about anything, but actual reality that only comes through actual experience that is not through speculation is another matter.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Have you ever thought about a new apologetics? We’ve learnt a lot in the modern era. About reality. About ourselves. We learn from successes and failures. Has anyone tried to summarize our current knowledge, show “the big picture” of our reality? The truth about reality should point to the Truth of the Ever-Existing, shouldn’t it? At least, it was pretty obvious for millennia. But not nowadays in the Western world.

Is it impossible? Is our knowledge so wide and big, that nobody is able to grasp the general picture of the state in which we are? Many tend to answer: Yes. But the logical consequence of such answer is the inability to see contradictions, falsehoods, which may arise between “parts of our knowledge”. If you see everything separately, you are unable to tell if it is still coherent, logical, wise. On the other hand, the fact that ‘I cannot see, how someone could do it.’ does not necessarily mean that it is truly impossible. Is it not worth to try?

I wrote, that “We learn from successes and failures”. A sheer banality. But if applied to what we call “science”, for instance; it may give some additional understanding, a better knowledge. For an example, let’s consider the Artificial Intelligence concept. It is a great example of a fleeing horizon. In 70’s of the last century it seemed inevitable. In 80’s we’d seemed to lack only the processing power. In 90’s the processing power had been achieved, but the human-like AI have not emerged. Now, we are being fed with fairy-tales about the quantum processors or the digital singularity. When the quantum processors tale fails, another will be presented. Cause the desire to become ‘gods’ able to create conscious, thinking beings is much stronger than rational thinking. (The ‘digital singularity’ will survive, as it is so elusive, that it is impossible to show it false. Like ‘the fact’ that there is an invisible, immaterial ball just over one’s head.)

But returning to the point. Does not our failure in the field of creating a human-like AI tell us something? About reality? If we look closer at this issue, we will find some other clues: like the failure of the driverless cars. They are still not impressive. To put it mildly. These things are connected. Anyway, we have many more failures to ponder about. If we clean up our science and knowledge, free them from falsehoods and biases, it will be beneficial not only to apologetics, but to mankind, too. Cause staying in error is impractical and stupid.

I know. The easiest is to disbelieve and laugh. But where would we be, if we would not try ‘the impossible’ from time to time? I’m sure, there are people who, like me, are bold enough to try. The only problem is to reach them. Are any of them on this forum?
"The truth about reality should point to the Truth of the Ever-Existing, shouldn’t it? At least, it was pretty obvious for millennia. But not nowadays in the Western world."
- haven't we been getting closer to that by cleaving away mythological thinking surrounding reality? Thor does not throw thunderbolts. Less is becoming more, not a drive to store all reality into a ball and process it.

"Cause the desire to become ‘gods’ able to create conscious, thinking beings is much stronger than rational thinking. "
- Science has its zealots too. You are correct that looking at single slices of the problem, such as information and processing power alone will always fail in an attempt to emulate something so biological and chemical as well.

"I want to show atheists, agnostics a way to Jesus. To do this, one have to speak their language. Start in their worldview. "
You also say "The ‘digital singularity’ will survive, as it is so elusive, that it is impossible to show it false. Like ‘the fact’ that there is an invisible, immaterial ball just over one’s head."
- You have expressed the issue you are going to have with atheists right there.
 
Last edited:
Presumably "their language" would be logic and reason.
and science.
Wouldn't the starting point be a sound and coherent doctrine that holds up under scrutiny?
You should got acquainted with the history of philosophy. It is full of thinkers, who started with “a sound and coherent doctrine”. And each of them had reached absurdity. I do not want to seduce people with yet another fancy doctrine. I want to tell the truth about our reality. Describe it, as we know it now. So little, and yet so much.
Besides, “a sound and coherent doctrine” excludes Christian apologetics. Doctrines about reality are a competition to religious view.
 
I'm fascinated by the growing consensus from neurology and the philosophy of mind that we are not a ghost within a machine. Our brain's source of thought and consciousness cannot be readily localized in one part of the brain. Rather, our mind seems a non-spatial phenomenon that uses our brain like a radio transmitter. This may have profound implications for how we understand postmortem survival and apparent mind mergers that make ESP and other paranormal phenomena possible. "Miracles" may both point to a higher power and reflect unrecognized laws of consciousness in such a way that the concepts of "natural" and "supernatural" may merge in new models of spirituality. I believe in the evolutionary role of natural selection an genetic mutation, but reject the notion that these 2 principles are sufficient to explain evolution on a grand scale. I believe that undiscovered laws of consciousness/ life also played a vital role in a way that points to a higher power. And if evolutionary forces are at work in our world, why not in spiritual realms as well. Perhaps theological concepts like "a new heaven and a new earth" reflect such processes in spiritual realms.

For example, read my spiritual journey thread in the Introduction/ Testimony section. My many premonitions recorded there may well correlate with unknown mental principles and merge brain function with divine guidance.
Basically, that’s what I’m talking about. BUT!
But I want to remove the materialistic (naturalistic) explanations, which fall apart easily under logic and reason. Like: “mind mergers that make ESP and other paranormal phenomena possible”. They seem reasonable only if you don’t try to build a big picture. They just don’t fit a reasonable world description (worldview).
Moreover, ESP is just a modern, scientifically sounding name for the very old practices of witchcraft, shamanism, etc. We do not discover anything new, here. It’s just our contempt to old knowledge, our feeling of superiority, which result in rediscovering old things time and time again.
 

Algernon

Active member
and science.

You should got acquainted with the history of philosophy. It is full of thinkers, who started with “a sound and coherent doctrine”. And each of them had reached absurdity. I do not want to seduce people with yet another fancy doctrine. I want to tell the truth about our reality. Describe it, as we know it now. So little, and yet so much.
Besides, “a sound and coherent doctrine” excludes Christian apologetics. Doctrines about reality are a competition to religious view.
Without the foundation a sound and coherent doctrine, you are doomed to lose the endgame as it cannot hold up to logic and reason - it cannot hold up under the light of truth.

By all means, "show atheists, agnostics a way to Jesus". But first make sure you begin with a solid foundation.

Luke 6
46 “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 “But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.
 
Without the foundation a sound and coherent doctrine, you are doomed to lose the endgame as it cannot hold up to logic and reason - it cannot hold up under the light of truth.

By all means, "show atheists, agnostics a way to Jesus". But first make sure you begin with a solid foundation.

Luke 6
46 “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 “But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great.
When you describe a garden, what doctrine is your foundation?
When you describe a man, what doctrine is your foundation?
Then, why would I need a doctrine, to describe the World?
Truth about things does not require any doctrine. Quite the contrary. Doctrine is your enemy in writing an unbiased text.

And I’m pretty sure, Luke did not think of doctrines, while writing what he’d written.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
When you describe a garden, what doctrine is your foundation?
When you describe a man, what doctrine is your foundation?
Then, why would I need a doctrine, to describe the World?
Truth about things does not require any doctrine. Quite the contrary. Doctrine is your enemy in writing an unbiased text.

And I’m pretty sure, Luke did not think of doctrines, while writing what he’d written.
Yes doctrines are the enemy of God. What doctrine did Jesus read that lead him to God and for God Himself come to him and open all of His heaven to that man that he should obey God?

A whole lot more follow doctrines such as Paul in his opinions than ever did follow Jesus to receive from God Himself to be ones own disposition. The manifestation of God in you is the only reality one can know Him, everything else is second hand information and only testimonies of their own beliefs, doctrines.

Jesus was of doctrine teaching the laws of in the temples even at a young age, but the moment God reveled Himself and was manifest in Jesus doctrines went out the window and he actually became like the God of His kingdom, and it doesnt come with observation, it is within you. In receiving from God Himself doctrines for beliefs cease for God Himself will show you His will for man..
 
Top