Tag Archive for god at Zeal For Truth

Tag Archive for 'god'

Our Introduction to the Holy Spirit (Part II)

Published by Chris A June 11, 2008 in Religion. 4 Comments

Drawn to the Father
There is a time in the life of every believer when he is introduced to the Holy Spirit; more precisely the Holy Spirit introduces the sinner to Jesus. Jesus alluded to this in John 6.

44″No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

Although the Father and the Son are mentioned in this passage and not the Holy Spirit, we must understand that the process of one being drawn to the Father through the Son is not done apart from the Spirit. Jesus sheds more light on this process and the specific role of the Holy Spirit in John 16. Speaking of the Holy Spirit Jesus said,

8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. 12″I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Here we see that the Holy Spirit is intimately involved in revealing one’s own sinful nature so that he is in a position to receive Jesus, who is the only way to the Father. Anyone who ever truly came to faith in Christ did so after the Holy Spirit convinced him of his sin and revealed to him the way of salvation. We must keep in mind, however, that the Holy Spirit’s ability to convict unbelievers of sin hinges on our obedience to communicate the Gospel. Without the preaching of this message the sinner would not have a basis for repentance, and would not be able to receive Jesus.

A Historical Account
In Acts 2:14-36 we see the Holy Spirit working in conjunction with the preaching of the Gospel to bring about the conversion of the hearers. Notice the response of those who heard Peter preach the Gospel in verses 37-41:

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Verse 37 says that those who heard the message were “cut to the heart.” This is the conviction of the Holy Spirit in action. However, their conversion did not end there. Peter instructed them on what they had to do to receive salvation. I mention this to stress that the Holy Spirit is our helper, but he alone does not bring salvation. He works in concert with believers who are led by him.

The Holy Spirit is not an Evangelist
I have heard believers pray that someone would get convicted of their sin and come to faith in Christ. Such prayers are really useless if no one ever bothers to share the Gospel with them because God has ordained that men, not angels or the Holy Spirit, preach the Gospel. A more biblical method of prayer for the lost is described by Jesus himself.

He told them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field (Luke 10:2).

A New Creation
Scripture teaches us that Christians are new creations born from above. A Christian is not an improved fallen creation, but an altogether new species of being created in Christ Jesus, born of the Holy Spirit. The prophet Ezekiel was able to see into the time when this would be possible.

19 I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. 20 Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God (Ezekiel 11:19, 20).

In John 3, Jesus explained this more fully to Nicodemus.

3In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.”

4″How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!”

5Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘Youmust be born again.’ 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

Here Jesus makes mention of two births: a natural birth and a spiritual birth. He contrasts the outward man (or flesh) with the inward man (or spirit). Being born into the kingdom of God is a rebirth of the human spirit by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the new creation is entirely spiritual, making a person both alive to God and dead to sin (Romans 6:11).

So then Christians do not have a sin nature in the same way unbelievers do. We still have the flesh, which is sinful by nature, but being dead to sin we are freed from sin (Romans 6:7). The old spiritual sin nature has been done away with because God make Jesus to be sin on our behalf, effectively redeeming us from the bondage of sin so that we may walk in newness of life (2 Corinthians 5:17, 21). While the unredeemed are overcome by the world, those who are born of God overcome the world (1 John 4:4, 5:4, 5:5). This is the privilege of being made a new creation indwelled by the Spirit of God.

A Biblical Case Against Drug Prohibition and Anti-Prostitution Laws

Published by Colin February 13, 2008 in Religion and Politics. 14 Comments

Author’s Note: This article arose from a discussion following last Friday’s set of links. It was buried in the comments of that piece and is being brought out separately for consideration as part of its own case. For clarity and consistency, there have been some changes and additions to the original post.

Because there is no specific (or implied) biblical mandates for how we are to address the secular legality of drugs and prostitution (some would stop me here and cite certain commandments, but I will deal with those later). Indeed, there is very little political philosophy in the bible at all - we must use a different approach. One legitimate way to determine biblicality then, is to draw logical conclusions from the fundamental nature of God revealed in scripture. There may also be related or implied passages that can then be applied with the knowledge of God’s character. To start, let’s explore the fundamental nature of God, as it relates to these issues.

God Unilaterally Grants, Respects and Supports Free-will through Allowing Choice
God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, but he left the tree in the garden (Genesis 2:9). He left the choice available to them (and they chose poorly). God gave his law to the people and allowed them to chose if they would follow him (Joshua 24:14-15) - he did not make them robots which unconditionally loved him. Jesus died for all mankind and God desires that all men be saved (2 Peter 3:9), but he doesn’t force them into heaven. He does not force them to repent and believe. He educates, he explains the consequences, he unabashedly reveals his desire that men would turn from sin (and drugs and prostitution are sins, morally evil in the sight of God) but yet he does not whisk the drugs and lust away as he well could.

God holds absolute respect for the order he gave the world, and the freedom he gave man. He demonstrates his love by declaring, in frank terms, the consequences for evil that man will bring upon himself if he continues to chose poorly. God’s respect of freewill is based on education, love and choice not on fear and control (2 Timothy 1:7).

Each individual man is responsible for his own sins. Fathers aren’t punished for their son’s sins. God will not destroy the righteous with the wicked. A sin that anyone commits, from lies, murder, drug-use, lust, fornication, etc… is soley accountable to the man who did it. No one else is punished (Ezekiel 18:20).

Real Change Only Comes Through Conversion
The only way a man can make morally good choices is through conversion, otherwise he is darkness (Ephesians 5:8). It is not compliance with God’s law, in and of itself, which converts a man. God’s law is an educational tool, not a list of requirements. Obedience to the law is totally unable to produce actual inward change (conversion). Conversion takes place by education about the law (Psalm 19:7).

The law reveals that man is sinful and requires a supernatural change (Romans 3:20). Through understanding the purpose of the law, he is empowered to seek Gods power to convert his soul and make wise, morally good choices. But God still does not remove the choices, reminding the man whenever he choses evil, that he must depend on God for goodness, not on his own willpower. Were God to remove choice after conversion, man would consider God’s work a one-time-only solution, and not a consistent change in lifestyle for the rest of his life. The converted man now despises sin and is convicted when he sins - the unconverted man has no ability to gauge sin, and has only the inward inclination to continue in sin, without a real desire to change. Sin is not effectively addressed without conversion. Christians have no other solution or alternative to see man actually turn from sin.

Prohibitions on drugs and prostitution are a tremendous detriment to conversion, which is the called work of the church. By forcing the right choice (by removing wrong choices), we disable a man to chose correctly. It is required of a man to humble himself and chose to follow God - this is the responsibility associated with free-will (Micah 6:8). In order to turn from sin, there must be sin to turn from - otherwise it’s a false choice. God is smart enough not to do this, are Christians smart enough to obey God?

Christians Must Emulate God
As Christians (”Christ-like”, “little Christs”) it is our job to emulate God (Ephesians 5:1) not to do things our way, and violate his order. That means we must never (because God does not ever) violate free-will. He has given us no permission to do so and will not because he himself does not violate his own order.

We see that God will act on behalf of innocents to protect them from violations of their free-will by others. And, not surprisingly in perfect consistency, man is given jurisdiction to protect against violations of the above (Gen 9:6), not to violate God’s order and infringe these things. There was, at least, some Christian foundation to our country, as these principles were enshrined in the declaration of Independence. Namely, that

…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

How Should the Christian Deal With All Sin?
To determine what the Christian should do, we must determine what God does. God will punish sin in the day of judgment. His “punishment” though, is interesting because it is a punishment of ultimate permission. That is, God submits his desire that all would be saved to the principle of free-will, and allows man an eternity of total absence from God and all things pertaining to his nature (love, joy, goodness, hope, light, etc…). God’s punishment is not a negative punishment, but a positive one. It affirms man’s freewill rather than deny it (Galatians 6:7).

Continue reading ‘A Biblical Case Against Drug Prohibition and Anti-Prostitution Laws’

Weekly Links: God Ordains Huckabee, Price Controls are Cool Again

Published by Colin December 7, 2007 in General. 18 Comments

God Strikes Again
At Liberty University, Mike Huckabee basically claims that he’s getting a helping hand from God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSQNSlUUoOc

God must really be wanting a smoking ban and a national sales tax. Naturally of course, we all thought God was already voting for Giuliani, seeing as how he wants all those terrorists dead.

Price Controls Are Back
Welcome back price controls, we missed you! George Bush has decided to freeze interest rates to “help out” poor people of course. But this rhetoric is not to be confused with the “save our economy” talk as well - isn’t it nice when these two things magically line up. Of course, no one is talking about the fact that interest rates were dramatically lowered in 2001 and 2002, likely well below market levels causing the very malinvestment that we are paying for today. Unintended consequences are already being predicted.

More Politics
John Edwards’ latest ad says the systems is rigged against you. (video)

Matthew Yglesias says Mitt Romney’s problem is that he did not decide to flip-flop on religion by abandoning his Mormon faith for something more palatable to the Republican base.

In Iraq, “The size of the corruption exceeds the imagination”.

A timeline has just been created of significant acts by the Bush Administration to curtail civil liberties and privacy rights.

Watch what you say on this and other blogs - you may be arrested.

An application for analyzing political values: http://idealog.org/

In Addition
Chris Tilling asks what “proof-texting” means.

An interesting look at Pullman’s Hid Dark Materials trilogy (you know, what the movie Golden Compass is based on): link

God Actually Likes It When We Do Good Things

Published by Hungry Sasquatch October 19, 2007 in Religion. 32 Comments

Editor’s note: In the spirit of pursuing truth and engaging different views, Zeal For Truth will publish guest commentaries such as today’s article written by Josh Herchenroeder. He received a degree in Bible from Abilene Christian University, and then spent three years auditing grad school.

“All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.” These words, taken from Isaiah 64:6, have become a banner verse for many conservative Christians. All believers who think we’re pathetic, horrible people who can’t get anything right or impress God in any way rally to this standard which seems to legitimize their low view of humanity. The prophet’s words become a universal indictment of Earth’s citizens. I have serious problems with this line of thinking. Not only does it ignore both the immediate context in Isaiah and the broader biblical witness, but it doesn’t even make sense.

Context Explained
The dominant theme of Isaiah 63 and 64 is confession and repentance. The prophet, speaking on behalf of the Israelite people, recognizes their corporate sin and its consequences, and he pleads with God to forgive and bring restoration.

The image that the text brings to mind is of a young lover who has wounded his beloved and realized his mistake, and now finds himself knocking on her door, holding a bundle of flowers up to the peephole. He doesn’t try to persuade her with rational arguments, but instead says things like, “I’m sorry. You’re right, I’m wrong. You’re beautiful, I’m ugly. I’m the dumbest guy ever for saying/doing/thinking that.” Is he truly the dumbest guy ever? Probably not. In the same way, the prophet uses self-deprecating hyperbole to say, “We’re screwed up and we can’t do anything right…will you take us back anyway?”

Even if my interpretation is off, it’s still difficult to argue Isaiah 64:6 is a blanket statement on God’s opinion of our actions. Just look one verse earlier: “You come to the help of those who gladly do right…” If our good deeds truly are filthy rags to God, why would he be interested in helping people for doing right?

Jesus Weighs In
I could run off a list of verses which offer a different perspective on how God feels about our righteousness, but I would rather explore an illustration Jesus uses to reveal God’s character. Matthew 7:9-11 reads,

Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him?

Jesus acknowledges that, while we are flawed and certainly not on God’s level, we can give good gifts. But what if we invert the parent/child metaphor and place God on the receiving end—after all, are not our good deeds gifts to our heavenly father?

A young child takes a few crayons and a piece of paper, and five minutes later presents an incoherent scribble to his or her mother. She doesn’t glance at it and declare, “This is crap; you’re a lousy artist.” No, her eyes widen with delight, and before you know it, the refrigerator has another masterpiece hanging on the door. If we respond with such joy at the meager offering of our children, how much more so does God, the source of all that is good in the world!

Does it Even Make Sense?
My house was broken into and robbed last week, and I was still in a foul mood when I showed up to work the next day. A cleaning lady named Ana stopped by my station to talk for awhile. Now, she barely knows any English, and I only know about twelve words in Spanish (and they’re all foods) but this has never deterred her from chattering on for several minutes straight. It always makes me smile, and this day was no exception. Later that day someone randomly brought me a cinnamon bagel, which also made me smile. These two small gestures brightened my day when I really needed it. Did God look at those two acts that were so meaningful to me and say, “That’s gross!”

And what about volunteers who are trying to bring peace and healing to a ravaged Darfur region? Surely God doesn’t view their efforts as useless.

In Man’s Search for Meaning,” Viktor Frankl recounts his tortured existence in a Nazi extermination camp. But alongside the horrors, he tells of the powerful impact when someone could find the strength within himself to offer encouragement, or even to generously offer his daily piece of bread to another. Did God observe such episodes and toss them in the laundry heap? Perhaps, instead, he thought to himself, “Yes, this is what I created them to do. See, even in the worst of times, my creatures can still do good.”

I really don’t have any way of knowing what goes through God’s mind, but I’m not sure why anyone would want to follow a God who treats our best efforts with contempt. Love is reciprocal in any legitimate relationship. If our good deeds truly are filthy rags to God, then how can anyone convincingly argue that he wants our love? If our righteous acts are no more than a dirty dishcloth, then what’s the point of moral living?

God is Selfish (and that’s ok)

Published by Colin July 20, 2007 in Religion. 2 Comments

Selflessness has been a constant mantra in the church - especially in modern times. It is held by many Christians that the greatest and noblest virtue is self-sacrifice - after all, was this not demonstrated by Jesus’ death on the cross? Is that not the crux of much of the New Testament and the message carried throughout the Old?

Let’s take a closer look at our terms in this examination. Selfishness, as it is defined in modern dictionaries, is indeed a very negative trait because most dictionaries make selfishness at the expense of others. Yet we see that this is not the case. For example, John Stossel talks about the “double thank you” when you buy a hamburger. A hungry man selfishly desires some food; a profit-seeking business selfishly desires money - rather than beat each other up for what the other has, they trade and both are better off by the result - both are grateful. This is how selfishness is a driving force behind cooperation, consent, free-will and even morality. So selfishness does not require exploitation, rather, selfishness is an expression of will. There is no victim in virtuous selfishness.

We know that God has such a will. It is the praise given in Revelation 4:11:

You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.

Paul speaks of it at the beginning of Colossians (1:16):

For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Ultimately everything was created, not for humanity or out of some blind sense of sacrifice, but for God himself. It is the supreme, holy and sovereign will of God that everything is as it is. God is without need - he is perfect and complete. He is the essence of the self and thus his will is in perfect selfishness.

Jesus’ death and resurrection, the central aspect to Christianity, must be realized as the will of God - that is what makes it so amazing. It is God’s will that Jesus died for our sins. The love of God is so selfish, so complete, that Jesus would even die for it - not as an affirmation of selflessness, but as the most noble expression of his will.

God is so consistent, so thorough, that he would give more than any of us ever could to save us from our the poor choices made in our free-will. Thus, God does not give out of self-sacrifice because he is not made worse off overall. Just like the man who buys a hamburger, he loses something (the death of Christ on the Cross) but he gains something better than he had to give - reconciliation with his creation.

Paul wrote with such clarity on this subject as he continues in Colossians (1:19-21):

For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled…

When Jesus chose the will of the father - he was not sacrificing himself, but aligning with the perfect will of God. That phrase, “not my will but yours be done” was an acknowledgment by Jesus of his purpose for coming. It was a recognition of the tremendous cost that the will of the Father required in order to reconcile men to God.

This subject is made unnecessarily difficult to discuss because the term “selfish” has come to gain such a terrible definition in both society and the church. Quite a number of teachings and sermons focus on this word as the enemy, or the essence of pride. But selfishness is only pride when it becomes rebellion against the will of God. Selfishness is actually a requirement of salvation because we must make the same decision Jesus did - to accept the will of the Father as better than our state of rebellion. We must chose it, selfishly.

However, some readers will not make it past the term to see the meaning. That is unfortunate because understanding true selfishness gives the love of God and the power of the gospel full meaning. Knowing that God’s will is so loving towards unregenerate humanity is truly amazing.

Science, Physics and God

Published by Bryant July 12, 2007 in General. 9 Comments

Sometime in the latter part of 2006, Queen’s University (or rather a student body within the group) held a debate. It was marketed under the title “Does God Exist”. In the days leading up to the debate I overheard a fellow classmate saying he’d go to the debate to see the Christian debater get destroyed. That seemed to be the mood of the class in general, well at least the vocal ones.

I showed up at the debate and watched from an elevated position as the debate took place. Both participants in the debate were highly educated with accolades in various fields of study. The participant speaking against the existence of God argued all the classic arguments said by just about anyone who doesn’t believe in Him (I can’t see Him, why does He let bad things happen to good people etc…); the person speaking in favour of His existence focused on the existence of a protein existent in certain organic beings that is so complex that it could not have been produced by common means, which suggests a higher power or intelligence. If he could convince his opponent to admit that then he could then move on to counter arguments as to the nature of God.

I am currently reading a book called Angels and Demons, by Dan Brown. As some of you may know, Dan Brown is the author of the book the Da Vinci Code, which follows protagonist Robert Langdon, a specialist on symbology, as he tries to uncover a mystery that affects the very foundations of Christianity. Though it is a fictional book, I did find it rather interesting to read. Anyways, Angels and Demons is a prequel to the Da Vinci Code, introducing Robert Langdon as the protagonist who tries to help when a high ranking physicist working for a physics lab in CERN, located in Geneva, is murdered and branded with the symbol of what is supposedly a long dead secret society of academics persecuted by the Catholic church.

Book plot aside, what I found particularly interesting was how the victim was described. The book’s premise is that, for as long as scientists and churches have existed, there has been a separation of church and state, which still exists to this day. The generally accepted theory of how everything came into existence among scientists and physicists is that of the Big Bang, which accords to The First Law of Thermodynamics (or Conservation of Energy), which states, essentially, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only reformed. And for the vast majority of applications in physics, or worldly applications this holds true.

The creationist theory by the Church is found in the book of Genesis, where God created everything.

The Big Bang theory suggests that at one point in time, there existed a super dense and hot singularity that suddenly exploded and began to expand, creating what we know now as the universe.

The problem with the Genesis theory (which non-creationists love to point out) is that it does not agree with the laws of thermodynamics. Conversely, the problem with the Big Bang theory, which the Church often likes to point out, is that, while the math and physics behind the theory seem to work for history as it goes back, it breaks down as they get to time zero, the very instant of the time of the bang, which they cannot account for (String Theory has a theory for this too but that’s another matter).

Back to the victim. As mentioned before, he was a highly renowned physicist working for CERN who had been responsible for many of science’s breakthroughs in physics. He was also a priest. His belief was that science, specifically the nature of physics, didn’t deny the existence of God, but rather proved or confirmed it. Thus, he was working on an experiment deep underground to create what is known as antimatter.

Antimatter, as the name suggests, is the physical opposite of matter. Theoretically, if everything is composed of matter in this universe, than it’s opposite would be a world composed of exactly the same matter and particles, just with opposite charges. Antimatter, though, is highly unstable as once it is mixed with matter, it destroys the particle of matter it touches along with itself in what is known as mutual annihilation.

In his creation of this antimatter he had succeeded in creating something out of nothing, which was his goal in helping him unify religion and science.

***

So while the book is fiction (some ideas in it are true, some are false; these can be seen on Dan Brown’s website for the book), it does have an interesting concept of using physics to unify religion and state instead of trying to prove one over the other.

The Declaration of Independence

Published by Colin July 2, 2007 in General. 3 Comments

The fourth of July is coming - one of my favorite holidays because it means so much. It’s not simply marking a celestial event, selling Hallmark cards or pagan fertility gods. The Fourth marks the day when a government based on natural law, with almost no central authority, highly skeptical of government intervention in both the economy and in the affairs of other nations, was born. A real grand social experiment in freedom, flying in the face of monarchies and mercantilism - and thousands of years of governments with too much power vested in themselves.

It is critical to understand the nature of the Declaration. In fact it was “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” which compelled the declaration in the first place. It was these laws that were being violated and these laws which should reign supreme.

In more specific terms, Thomas Jefferson outlines examples of such laws and the rights that are derived from these laws:

…all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note that there has yet to be a discussion about government in the document. This is how Jefferson saw nature existing pre-government - that rights are not derived from government but from God’s nature and nature’s law. Rights of life, liberty and property come from nature, not government - from the equality and image in which God first created us. Only after rights are established in nature does government enter in “to secure these rights”

This is so valid to the situation in which the spawn of Jefferson and men of similar disposition finds itself in today. The US is in Iraq right now, for example, to liberate and provide freedom to individuals. This is a direct contradiction with Jefferson’s view of where human rights come from - not codes, agreements, constitutions or institutions, but from nature and nature’s God. Liberation is not the job of governments, but of people. Governments secure rights - they don’t dole them out in the form of social programs or wars of liberation.

This is what I celebrate when I consider the Fourth. I celebrate my rights and freedoms - not thanking the government, not thanking the military (certainly not thanking politicians) but thanking God for breathing life into me and for providing rational laws governing his creation.

Atheism’s “Plus 1″ Argument

Published by Jasen Tracy July 2, 2007 in Apologetics. 3 Comments

Rallying behind people such as Richard Dawkins, a more militant form of atheism is rising. Ironically enough, they often share the worst traits of the religious fundamentalists that they decry. Please note I’m using the term atheism as it’s commonly used today, and not as the original and dictionary correct meaning of “not theist.” Much could be said on this issue, but all I want to do today is to discuss an argument by atheists that seems to be becoming quite popular for them to use. Here’s a few brief quotes that demonstrate the argument.

The atheist argument begins by pointing out that Christians (or another variety of monotheist) do not believe in a large number of gods (Odin, Poseidon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc). It then states that atheism merely takes that disbelief one god further and applies it to the monotheist’s god. Thus, beliefs are divided like this:

Monotheism - Denies the existence of “X” number of gods.
Atheism - Denies the existence of “X + 1″ number of gods.

The atheist argument then concludes that the monotheist position is actually quite close to atheism, but that atheists merely have disbelief in one more god (which of course is the reasonable thing to do according to atheism). This argument can get tricky for atheists if they instead face polytheists, and it would seem incapable of addressing other religious positions like pantheism, universalism, and others.

I would argue, however, that the atheist claim is a much larger claim than the mere disbelief in one more god than monotheism. It is the complete rejection of the supernatural. Despite huge differences in religious positions between groups diverse as Christianity, Wicca, Hinduism, and others, they all acknowledge the existence of something that is supernatural. Thus, beliefs can be divided like this:

Atheism - Denies the existence of the supernatural.
Everything else - Acknowledges the existence of the supernatural.

I think this shows why the atheist claim is a much greater claim than a mere “plus 1″ on the list of gods not believed in. The claim that no supernatural exists is an extraordinary one.

Zeal For Truth