Apologetics for the XXI century.

[Algernon]

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.

For starters, you don't seem to understand what I mean by "doctrine". From "The Random House College Dictionary":
Doctrine - "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated".

Describe the World? When all is said and done, isn't the following your aim?:
"I want to show atheists, agnostics a way to Jesus."

You don't seem to have thought very much of this through. Perhaps you should take the time to do so.

 

[civic]

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.

Personally I believe the most recent apologetic that points to a Creator with an irrefutable argument from evidence and science is the DNA molecule.

Francis Crick and James Watson elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule. In doing so, they discovered that DNA was a carrier of specific genetic information that takes the form of a four-character digital code. This information is contained in an arrangement of four chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G. The sequences of these chemicals provide the instructions necessary to assemble complex protein molecules that, in turn, help form structures diverse as eyes, wings, and legs.got?

As Dr. Stephen C. Meyer has noted,

“As it turns out, specific regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. Just as the letters in the alphabet of a written language may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do the sequences of nucleotide bases (the A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s) inscribed along the spine of a DNA molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell.”

The information-bearing properties in the DNA molecule seem obvious. However, does this fact, by itself, force us to infer an Intelligent Designer as the cause of this information? Meyer continues, “Whether we are looking at a hieroglyphic inscription, a section of text in a book, or computer software, if you have information, and you trace it back to its source, invariably you come to an intelligence. Therefore, when you find information inscribed along the backbone of the DNA molecule in the cell, the most rational inference, based upon our repeated experience, is that an intelligence of some kind played a role in the origin of that information.”

hope this helps !!!

 

[Gary Mac]

For starters, you don't seem to understand what I mean by "doctrine". From "The Random House College Dictionary":
Doctrine - "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated".

Describe the World? When all is said and done, isn't the following your aim?:
"I want to show atheists, agnostics a way to Jesus."

You don't seem to have thought very much of this through. Perhaps you should take the time to do so.

Yes doctrines vary as many belief systems that support them through the laws established for that belief system.

 

[5wize]

Personally I believe the most recent apologetic that points to a Creator with an irrefutable argument from evidence and science is the DNA molecule.

Francis Crick and James Watson elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule. In doing so, they discovered that DNA was a carrier of specific genetic information that takes the form of a four-character digital code. This information is contained in an arrangement of four chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G. The sequences of these chemicals provide the instructions necessary to assemble complex protein molecules that, in turn, help form structures diverse as eyes, wings, and legs.got?

As Dr. Stephen C. Meyer has noted,

“As it turns out, specific regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. Just as the letters in the alphabet of a written language may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do the sequences of nucleotide bases (the A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s) inscribed along the spine of a DNA molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell.”

The information-bearing properties in the DNA molecule seem obvious. However, does this fact, by itself, force us to infer an Intelligent Designer as the cause of this information? Meyer continues, “Whether we are looking at a hieroglyphic inscription, a section of text in a book, or computer software, if you have information, and you trace it back to its source, invariably you come to an intelligence. Therefore, when you find information inscribed along the backbone of the DNA molecule in the cell, the most rational inference, based upon our repeated experience, is that an intelligence of some kind played a role in the origin of that information.”

hope this helps !!!

Category error. It is easy to separately categorize things created by other things from things that are formed from processes. There are very few underlying principles of binding matter and energy that form things. They all follow patterns or they don't form. Patterned outcome does not lead one back to a creator.

 

[philosopher4hire]

For starters, you don't seem to understand what I mean by "doctrine". From "The Random House College Dictionary":
Doctrine - "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated".

Describe the World? When all is said and done, isn't the following your aim?:
"I want to show atheists, agnostics a way to Jesus."

You don't seem to have thought very much of this through. Perhaps you should take the time to do so.

This pattern repeats and repeats…
Someone, who does not care to learn anything about a disputant, is at the same time very eager to say: “you don't seem to understand”. Read your Random definition and think again about my questions:
When you describe a garden, what doctrine is your foundation?
When you describe a man, what doctrine is your foundation?

Besides, You don't seem to have thought very much of this through:
You should get 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.
Perhaps you should take the time to do so.

Finally, find my texts on the Internet. Read them. Then ask yourself this question: “Am I able to write something like that?”

 

[philosopher4hire]

Personally I believe the most recent apologetic that points to a Creator with an irrefutable argument from evidence and science is the DNA molecule.

Francis Crick and James Watson elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule. In doing so, they discovered that DNA was a carrier of specific genetic information that takes the form of a four-character digital code. This information is contained in an arrangement of four chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G. The sequences of these chemicals provide the instructions necessary to assemble complex protein molecules that, in turn, help form structures diverse as eyes, wings, and legs.got?

As Dr. Stephen C. Meyer has noted,

“As it turns out, specific regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. Just as the letters in the alphabet of a written language may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do the sequences of nucleotide bases (the A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s) inscribed along the spine of a DNA molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell.”

The information-bearing properties in the DNA molecule seem obvious. However, does this fact, by itself, force us to infer an Intelligent Designer as the cause of this information? Meyer continues, “Whether we are looking at a hieroglyphic inscription, a section of text in a book, or computer software, if you have information, and you trace it back to its source, invariably you come to an intelligence. Therefore, when you find information inscribed along the backbone of the DNA molecule in the cell, the most rational inference, based upon our repeated experience, is that an intelligence of some kind played a role in the origin of that information.”

hope this helps !!!

Indeed civic. This is one of many puzzles, which if put together properly, will become a full picture I write about. But, at this moment, I do not need more puzzles. I need help in popularizing the puzzles I have, already. I need help in proving them right. I need help in forcing the scientific world to deal with them: falsify or admit correctness.
This is the help I ask for.

And if I write: “if put together properly” I really mean it. Look how easily your argument can be attacked by 5wize, a little later in this thread. Even if you have a good argument, it is still nothing, if you cannot put it cogently. To protect it from easy attacks, by containing a ready answer to them. But this requires lots of knowledge, understanding and thinking. Before one starts to write. And even then, one might have overlooked something. That’s why I need your help in proving my puzzles irrefutable. To many readers.

 

[Redeemed]

Personally I believe the most recent apologetic that points to a Creator with an irrefutable argument from evidence and science is the DNA molecule.

Francis Crick and James Watson elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule. In doing so, they discovered that DNA was a carrier of specific genetic information that takes the form of a four-character digital code. This information is contained in an arrangement of four chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G. The sequences of these chemicals provide the instructions necessary to assemble complex protein molecules that, in turn, help form structures diverse as eyes, wings, and legs.got?

As Dr. Stephen C. Meyer has noted,

“As it turns out, specific regions of the DNA molecule called coding regions have the same property of “sequence specificity” or “specified complexity” that characterizes written codes, linguistic texts, and protein molecules. Just as the letters in the alphabet of a written language may convey a particular message depending on their arrangement, so too do the sequences of nucleotide bases (the A’s, T’s, G’s, and C’s) inscribed along the spine of a DNA molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell.”

The information-bearing properties in the DNA molecule seem obvious. However, does this fact, by itself, force us to infer an Intelligent Designer as the cause of this information? Meyer continues, “Whether we are looking at a hieroglyphic inscription, a section of text in a book, or computer software, if you have information, and you trace it back to its source, invariably you come to an intelligence. Therefore, when you find information inscribed along the backbone of the DNA molecule in the cell, the most rational inference, based upon our repeated experience, is that an intelligence of some kind played a role in the origin of that information.”

hope this helps !!!

DNA is where it's at!

One of the reasons so many people are skeptical about God is that He won’t give an account of Himself. We want to know where He came from, but He won’t tell us. Instead, He just reveals to us that He is and always was, and with no outside help. God doesn’t fit into our cause-and-effect world, and that frustrates us to no end.

Thank God He doesn’t exist within the bounds of cause and effect. If God were the effect of some other cause, He wouldn’t be God and we wouldn’t exist. You see, you can’t have an endless series of causes reaching back into eternity past. If that were the case, you would never get to the present time, and you would never get to you.​

When people first meet you, what do they think?

By reading the four Gospel accounts in the New Testament, we come away with the impression that Jesus was a very remarkable Person. Crowds followed Him everywhere. People listened attentively to His every word. Scholars were either amazed or silenced by the wisdom of His teaching. Jesus wasn’t physically different from us—He didn’t look like a king (Isaiah 53:2)—but He was different spiritually. People may not stand amazed at us when we pass them on the street, but when they get to know us, what do they think?

Through the centuries many people have been won to Christ because they came in contact with a person about whom they said, “There’s something different about that person, and I want in my own life whatever he has.”

I wonder if that difference is evident in our DNA. DNA is perhaps the most powerful form of physical evidence available to crime-scene investigators. Why? Because of its permanence. DNA is not a memory or an opinion, an odor or a color. It is hard, physical evidence that does not change over time. Could whether or not we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior be encoded in our DNA?

Could perhaps when we hear the gospel message presented to us something clicks in our genetic code? Could that be the reason we hear the call then accept it and some don't?

 

[philosopher4hire]

Could whether or not we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior be encoded in our DNA?

Could perhaps when we hear the gospel message presented to us something clicks in our genetic code? Could that be the reason we hear the call then accept it and some don't?

It’s like: “Could it be an invisible, immaterial ball just over one’s head?”
But more daft. Why? Because answering: Yes! – would mean there is a material proof for Jesus existence. But, at the same time, it would mean that Christianity lies about free-will, soul, salvation, and so on. A total nonsense.

Still, I do hope, there is someone willing to help, here.

 

[Gary Mac]

This pattern repeats and repeats…
Someone, who does not care to learn anything about a disputant, is at the same time very eager to say: “you don't seem to understand”. Read your Random definition and think again about my questions:
When you describe a garden, what doctrine is your foundation?
When you describe a man, what doctrine is your foundation?

Besides, You don't seem to have thought very much of this through:
You should get 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.
Perhaps you should take the time to do so.

Finally, find my texts on the Internet. Read them. Then ask yourself this question: “Am I able to write something like that?”

It’s like: “Could it be an invisible, immaterial ball just over one’s head?”
But more daft. Why? Because answering: Yes! – would mean there is a material proof for Jesus existence. But, at the same time, it would mean that Christianity lies about free-will, soul, salvation, and so on. A total nonsense.

Still, I do hope, there is someone willing to help, here.

Actually everyone here is offering help, help as in their own education and agendas limited by what they have been taught to believe through teachings.

What we read and perceive through teachings of man can be and often is misinterpreted from ones own limitations for consuming knowledge that he is not familiar with and automatically sends up a red flag. Christians are notorious for this very thing. They have been programmed to think in certain terms through the creed and laws formed to regulate a belief and not willing to try and understand anything outside that bubble.

Not only Christians are guilty of this limited knowledge atheists are guilty of the same, not willing to examine anything they do not understand outsides of the laws they have developed for their belief systems.

Beliefs are not reality, beliefs are conjured in the mind with no substance for actuality. One can say he believes what ever that may be but the only truth comes in the manifestation of.

Jesus is an excellent example. First he was teaching the lwas of the temple in the temples even from a young age limited by what was presented as lwas for that belief. But a day came when when he was about 30 years old what he understood and perceived of God by law actually became reality when SPirit came to mind and opend up a whole new heaven and earth that is not governd by law but who he actually became.

The manifestation of God who is Spirit no longer became a belief to be governed by man but that man actually became like the author in understanding. The loadstar of God isnt what one believes by atheists or those claiming to be Christian, but by the reality of God coming to the individual and opening up a whole new understanding where everything becomes new where one has not even considered of himself to understand. Anything short of God Himself manifesting Himself in a person is only a belief about Him.

Now how does one know God Who is Spirit has manifest Himself in you? Simple, God is Love. Mans perception for love is feelings but the Love of God is not about feelings but is about giving up the right to yourself to help the need for the other. And this isn't something that we do from impulse or desire, but an inner hunger to put the other before thyself.

People say the love God and love Jesus Christ, but they dont have a clue what it is to have the Love of God or Jesus Christ as their own disposition to be as He is and in His same image.

Now I am willing to help as you ask of us but to receive that help? That is a matter of you seeking God first for only He can convey His will for you or any man for His reality only comes by His manifestation of.

 

[philosopher4hire]

Actually everyone here is offering help, help as in their own education and agendas limited by what they have been taught to believe through teachings.

I think, that’s the point. The natural reaction for people willing to help somebody, is to ask:
“ – What do you need? – How can we help you?”
Here, nobody asked. Everyone was eager to share with me his/her knowledge, experience, ideas. Just as I would ask for that. And when I’ve written explicitly what support I need, the only answer was your voice repeating:

“[..]beliefs are conjured in the mind [..]The manifestation of God who is Spirit [..] how does one know God Who is Spirit [..]”

If you claim:

Now I am willing to help as you ask of us

Then do it, please. Instead of giving me your ‘words of faith & knowledge’. It is really far from being a Christian, to give people what you want to give them, and not what they need.
To a starving – words.
To a thirsty – words.
And when a wedding party runs out of wine… Yes! Words could be offered, couldn’t they? (Fortunately, Jesus had thought otherwise.)

Be honest in what you do. If you really want to help somebody, which usually requires some effort, some trouble; then offer your help, and keep your promise. But if helping is too much trouble for you, then be honest and say:
“ – You require too much of us. Seek help elsewhere.”
Instead of suggesting that it is my fault, that I don’t receive help:

but to receive that help? That is a matter of you seeking God first

You see, honesty is MUCH more valuable than thousands of words about Jesus, Spirit, etc.

So, what will it be? Words only, or real help?

 

[Gary Mac]

I think, that’s the point. The natural reaction for people willing to help somebody, is to ask:
“ – What do you need? – How can we help you?”
Here, nobody asked. Everyone was eager to share with me his/her knowledge, experience, ideas. Just as I would ask for that. And when I’ve written explicitly what support I need, the only answer was your voice repeating:


If you claim:

Then do it, please. Instead of giving me your ‘words of faith & knowledge’. It is really far from being a Christian, to give people what you want to give them, and not what they need.
To a starving – words.
To a thirsty – words.
And when a wedding party runs out of wine… Yes! Words could be offered, couldn’t they? (Fortunately, Jesus had thought otherwise.)

Be honest in what you do. If you really want to help somebody, which usually requires some effort, some trouble; then offer your help, and keep your promise. But if helping is too much trouble for you, then be honest and say:
“ – You require too much of us. Seek help elsewhere.”
Instead of suggesting that it is my fault, that I don’t receive help:

You see, honesty is MUCH more valuable than thousands of words about Jesus, Spirit, etc.

So, what will it be? Words only, or real help?

First describe what you would consider as real help? All I can do as far as help is repeat the help that Jesus suggested of us in obediance to God.

According to Jesus the only One who can give help spiritually and open all of His heaven to anyone is by God Himself by His Spirit. Even Jesus received this help in Matt 3:16. That is not my opinion nor is it my teaching it is only testimony how one can receive any help about God and who He is, how He works in man. God is not about what He can do for us, God is about what He can do in us.

If you are seeking help beyond that, I cannot help you at all. And be honest if you really want help from somebody for it seems your own agendas is by words only, real help is to seek God for it. You asked and there it is. And it is words only least you apply it.

Honesty is a virtue isn't it?