The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

More documents

Recommendations

Info

...Every action, under certain circumstances and for certain people, may be a stepping-stone to spiritual growth, if it is done in a spirit of detachment. All good and evil are relative to the individual point of growth.... But, in the highest sense, there can be neither good nor evil (Prabhavananda and Isherwood, 1972, p. 140). If, “in the highest sense” neither good nor evil exists, then obviously mankind has no need of providence. Why should man want God to “look out for” him if there is no evil with which he has to be concerned and if he is all-powerful himself? Fourth, when pantheism is reduced to its basic, core concepts, it becomes clear that God does not have a personality, as depicted within Scripture; thus, He is not a “person” but an “it.” As Geisler observed: “In the highest and absolute sense God is neither personal nor conscious. The Absolute and Supreme is not a He but an It” (1976, p. 185, emp. in orig.). Erich Sauer wrote of how pantheism “...teaches the immanence of the Deity in the universe but denies the personality of God” (1962, p. 163). Fifth, pantheism advocates the view that there is one absolute, unchanging reality—God—and that humans, given time and proper teaching, can come to the realization that they, too, are God. This is exactly the position that Shirley MacLaine takes in her books, Out on Limb, Going Within, and Dancing in the Light. Eventually, she was able to stand on the sands of the beach and proclaim, “I am God!” How should Christians respond to the concept of pantheism? First, we must point out that the pantheistic concept of “all is God and God is all” is wrong because it attempts to sustain itself via a contradiction. In logic, one of the fundamental laws of human thought is the basic Law of Contradiction, which, stated succinctly, says: “Nothing can both be and not be” ( Jevons, 1928, p. 117). Aristotle expressed it more fully when he said: “That the same thing should at the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the same respect is impossible” (see Arndt, 1955, p. x). Another ramification of the Law of Contradiction is the concept that “nothing can have at the same time and at the same place contra- -43
dictory and inconsistent qualities” ( Jevons, p. 118). A door may be open, or a door may be shut, but the same door may not be both open and shut at the same time. The entire system of pantheism, however, sustains itself via a logical contradiction. Corduan commented on this as follows: Pantheism is built around a contradiction, and a contradiction can never be true. No matter how spiritual or profound or enticing a message may appear it must be false if it contradicts itself. The primary contradiction of pantheism is that the two descriptions “world” and “God” are irreconcilably mutually exclusive.... Who (or what) is God? Pantheists agree that God is infinite, which includes that He is eternal, omnipotent, unchanging, and so forth. This understanding of God is at the heart of pantheism.... In pantheism, God is infinite.... What is the world? The world is finite. It is temporal, limited, and changeable. Yet pantheism tells us that this description of reality as finite world and the description of reality as infinite God are both true. Can this be? Can something be both finite and infinite? The answer is clearly no.... The point here is not to ridicule but to show that the pantheists’ attempts to identify God and the world with each other cannot work. It is not just too hard, it is impossible. There is a categorical distinction between God and the world (1993, pp. 93,94, emp. added). This is where the Law of Contradiction sets itself against pantheism. If it is true that “nothing can have at the same time and at the same place contradictory and inconsistent qualities” (and it is!), then one cannot say that God and the world are identical while at the same time asserting that God is infinite and the world finite. If words mean anything, such a dichotomy is the death knell to pantheism. Second, we need to stress that, so far as God’s Word is concerned, everything is not “one.” The Bible clearly distinguishes between two different realms: the material and the spiritual. Solomon wrote: “Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Ecclesias- -44
Page 2 and 3: APOLOGETICS PRESS
Page 4: CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 3 CHAPT
Page 7 and 8: For example, when Joshua—who had
Page 9 and 10: the truth, but they will not. The s
Page 11 and 12: obliged to acknowledge that it was
Page 14 and 15: 2 THE MANY FACES OF UNBELIEF Throug
Page 16 and 17: Impossible task, that—since one w
Page 18 and 19: Neither of these tasks is simple (n
Page 20 and 21: foundation, not in divine guidance,
Page 22 and 23: are monkeys” (see Leonard Huxley,
Page 24 and 25: Such a premise is flawed internally
Page 26 and 27: The development, over the past four
Page 28 and 29: Thus, in the end the skeptic does n
Page 30 and 31: le plethora of men and women who ma
Page 32 and 33: include “Hell” and “Some Mist
Page 34 and 35: In fact, in the late 1970s, while I
Page 36 and 37: future state of rewards and punishm
Page 38 and 39: tion to function on its own; some b
Page 40 and 41: Deism...refers to what can be calle
Page 42 and 43: a God strong enough to create the w
Page 44 and 45: ecomes indistinguishable from evil.
Page 46 and 47: Ryerson who allegedly was able to
Page 50 and 51: tes 12:7). The writer of the book o
Page 52 and 53: the Lord struck him, because he did
Page 54 and 55: ook, Apologetics in the New Age: A
Page 56 and 57: at ease. Yes, it is! Therefore, in
Page 58 and 59: What should be the response of Chri
Page 60 and 61: principle of causality. In its pict
Page 62: a better world, but is limited by t
Page 65 and 66: every citizen enjoys. Or contemplat
Page 67 and 68: since that time that it has very gr
Page 69 and 70: cuse. Man’s failure to see this g
Page 71 and 72: With reference to men the use is pr
Page 73 and 74: in philosophy and science. Life has
Page 75 and 76: Indeed, it may “not be irrelevant
Page 77 and 78: The shock received by the inexperie
Page 79 and 80: there have been those from politics
Page 81 and 82: from the only God ye seek not?,”
Page 83 and 84: This is the first age, I think, in
Page 85 and 86: tle John brought the book of Revela
Page 87 and 88: self, but the fact that “[i]t is
Page 89 and 90: As this section on immorality as a
Page 91 and 92: Democratic Way of Life, a formal st
Page 93 and 94: But science is no synonym for spiri
Page 95 and 96: ate student asked: “Hundreds of t
Page 97 and 98: ather bluntly: “In contrast to th
Page 99 and 100:
a joy to tell him that he does not
Page 101 and 102:
is Steven Weinberg, author of Dream
Page 103 and 104:
At Noel’s funeral, the minister b
Page 105 and 106:
Again, time and space would fail me
Page 107 and 108:
sin? No, they were no worse sinners
Page 109 and 110:
Just as suffering is real, so are t
Page 111 and 112:
The corruptions, or shortcomings, o
Page 113 and 114:
UNJUST ACTS COMMITTED BY BELIEVERS
Page 115 and 116:
million-dollar reward to anyone car
Page 117 and 118:
ted. For example, when law-enforcem
Page 119 and 120:
tain actions are sanctioned by God
Page 121 and 122:
of unbelief. I suppose that some wo
Page 124 and 125:
4 CONCLUSION Every person familiar
Page 126 and 127:
This latter observation needs a lit
Page 128 and 129:
REFERENCES Abelson, Phillip (1964),
Page 130 and 131:
Durant, Will (1980), “We Are in t
Page 132 and 133:
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1896), Darwin
Page 134 and 135:
Raymo, Chet (1998), Skeptics and Tr
Page 136:
Watkin, Edward I. (1936), Theism, A
show all

The Many Faces, and Causes, of Unbelief - Apologetics Press

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?