I've moved!

Hey friends! Been a long time since I posted here, since I moved my content. 

I've moved to coreysleep.net. All of my content here is over there now - and I'm writing lots more about psychology, mental health, culture, and giving some book reviews. Hope you like it!

Tough Stuff: Homosexuality - Born This Way?

The Question:

This one's a biggie, and I hope to not only address it to the best of my ability in a single post but also help us move forward in the discussion in general:

Do you believe being gay is a choice or are you born with it?

This question relates directly to the controversy of the issue as a whole, which I discussed in part in my last post.

One of the reasons this topic is so hard to talk about and is so controversial is the fact that any attempt at disagreement with or attack on homosexuality as a lifestyle is often perceived as an attack on people themselves (rather than simply on the lifestyle and the actions associated with it). This (I think, in part at least) is because more and more people in our culture today believe that homosexuality is something that you did not choose, but rather it is a part of who you are (often, how you were born). Whether the believed cause is nature or nurture, fewer and fewer people are willing to say that being a homosexual is a choice. I’m going to first give nut-shell insights from science and neuroscience/psychology, then my own personal thoughts.

From what I understand, no science has yet shown that homosexuality is genetic or something that happens from birth. Apparently, and I’d believe it, the attempts are many - but to no avail. However, psychological and neuroscientific insights would suggest that it is something that can, over time, become part of one’s internal wiring. Anyone who knows anything about neurology knows that the brain makes neurological connections for many purposes. Connections in the brain between neurons become stronger the more those connections are used - hence why it’s easier to remember something after you’ve had to recall it hundreds of times. You barely have to think. I’m informed that it is something similar with what you might call a homosexually trained brain. Someone, perhaps at a young age, can begin with small homosexual thoughts or curiosities, and then over time their brain finds homosexualized thinking normal. Effectively, this could explain homosexual tendencies and could explain why many would say that it is not a choice but just how they are wired. In a way, they’re partly correct. So though they may not have been born that way, they find themselves attracted to the same sex quite intuitively, without having to think about it.

So what does this mean? It means that most people, when they try to make claims that they born homosexual, or opposingly, that it is indeed a choice, are in a general sense wrong. Our insights must go deeper.

Here are mine.

Homosexuality, if the above information continues to prove correct scientifically, is not exactly a choice, but not exactly not a choice either. Those thoughts that wire ones brain over time to train itself homosexually are not necessarily choices to become homosexual - but nonetheless they are brought about by the individual, and so the individual here is still somewhat responsible for how they find their brain wired. Therefore, we need to stop arguing over whether it’s a choice or if one is born with it. It would seem that neither is fully true, at least not in the sense that the masses seem to put forward.

“I didn’t choose to be this way…” a gay friend told me a few short months ago. I believed him. Why would he lie? He said he didn’t find women beautiful - inconceivable in my mind, but his mind is not mine. So what do we say then?

It seems simple enough to me. Not completely a choice, yet not something we’re necessarily born with - like a lot of things in life, if not most things. So in a way, it’s easy to see how people would believe that it’s a part of who you are or how you’re born, and in that mode of thinking one could think they are being attacked when they may or may not have been. But at the same time, if we applied this to the rest of the things in our lives (lifestyle choices, beliefs, etc), then we would never be able to have a respectful disagreement would we?

On the other hand, can we justify our actions and lifestyle choices simply because “it’s just who I am now”, or the fact that it might not have been a completely active choice? The clear answer is no. There is so much about us that we might not have wanted to come true in our lives (a brutal temper, bad habits, etc), but we cannot brush aside our responsibilities to own those things and deal with them. In fact, I would argue the same is true even if I am born a certain way. So, as the conversation moves forward, I think we need to stop justifying homosexuality simply on this sort of argumentation.

So to summarize:

1. Homosexuality, it appears, is not simply a choice and yet not how one is born (though we are sure to find developments in this area as we move forward) and;
2. Even if it was, we cannot justify it as morally correct simply on these bases.

Is that making sense? I’m not trying to end the debate here, but rather move the discussion forward, as I think that is helpful and healthy. On that note, here are some practical tips as we continue to engage each other in this discussion and elsewhere:

1. When you disagree with someone’s lifestyle choices or beliefs or whatever, you should not make the disagreement an attack on a person. This never helps anyone. Now this doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t say what you believe and be honest - but an honest, respectful disagreement (or even an honest plea with someone you think needs to change their ways or what have you) is not the same as an attack. Try and discern the differences.
2. No matter what you believe about yourself and who you are, you cannot take honest disagreement with your lifestyle (etc) as an attack on you - it isn’t! And if someone does attack, be the more mature person and don’t let immature comments or critiques derail your internal security. Help them see their mishap, if they will.
3. And as a general, all around awesome principle: seek first to understand, then to be understood.

Hopefully this helps us move forward in the conversation more clearly. And hopefully we can strive to be more informed about how a person’s sexual orientation finds its origins.

Sorry again for the length between posts! Hopefully you find this insightful and helpful.

Keep thinking.

Corey

Tough Stuff: Christianity and Homosexuality

Instead of simply giving my thoughts or sharing what I believe about Homosexuality and it's relationship with Christianity, I decided this time to answer some of your questions on the subject. Here are some of the ones I've decided to answer for the present time as I introduce the topic and begin the discussion. Stay tuned for more, as I couldn’t answer every question in detail in one post!

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?/WHY IS THIS TOPIC SO CONTROVERSIAL?

I figure this is a good first question to explain the problem and begin the discussion. Why is it such a big deal in the first place?

Across the globe (but perhaps more so in the West) homosexuality is a hot button topic, and the question of the legality of same-sex marriage is still being discussed (or not). I could talk about homosexuality in general but I think for my purposes I’ll focus on the topic as it relates to Christianity.

One of the reasons for the high level of controversy with regards to homosexuality is a lack of proper understanding of how the Bible understands and treats it by much of the professing Christian church. Homosexuality for no real biblical reason is and has been treated with a relatively higher degree of harshness (or at least sharpness) whereas other sexual sins are allowed to pass by the wayside and never really talked about or addressed. It perhaps doesn’t help that homosexuality is perhaps more obvious and easy to point out, but the failures of the church in addressing this sin appropriately has nonetheless fanned the flames of strife and has even given non-Christians or cultural christians justification for negative treatment of those who live the homosexual lifestyle. Thus, something that maybe shouldn't itself be a particularly big and stand alone issue has become one. These, I think, are actually failures of the Christian Church on the whole, but thankfully I see more and more desire on behalf of many believing communities to mend the situation whilst holding true to their values. Which leads us to another part of why this is even a problem in the first place…

WHY IS HOMOSEXUALITY SEEN TO BE A SIN? (MORE THAN “BECAUSE GOD SAYS IT IS…”)

This question rightfully assumes that the Bible sees homosexuality as a sin. Obviously, there will then be controversy, so we’ll discuss that here.

The simple answer is because the Bible is very clear: like sex before marriage, like adultery, like lustful intentions with people who are not your spouse, like whatever else that is not sexual activity with one’s spouse of the opposite sex, homosexuality is not considered morally acceptable by the Bible, and therefore by the God whom Christians believe to be revealed in the Bible. It is clear in both the Old and New Testaments.

I'd like to elabourate and expand this answer, however (and not simply because I was asked to - which I was!), because only saying "God says it is" isn't really helpful to those who do not believe in the God that I believe in. A vital part of any discussion is not only seeking to understand but being willing to be clearly understood, and to give the other side the respect of clear thoughts and explanations. Here's my attempt at that, without writing a whole book on it:

Real Christians believe that God is a loving father who knows everything and created everything. He designed this world with beautiful purpose and with intention - and violation of this purpose and intention is to go against a loving father's will. More than mere disobedience though, it is to go against that which is actually for our very benefit and deeper purpose! Like the child who wanders to the dangerous place his father warned against, we put ourselves (and others) in harms way when we disobey the father who desires our good and benefit. Thus when Christians stand for their own moral view of things, it is (read: should be) out of concern for the benefit of the individual, of society, and out of a love for the Grand Designer, who's design is seen to be the pinnacle of beauty and fulfillment of the designed.

Thus, homosexuality, which is revealed to be the violation of design and purpose in the Bible (and, as I will contend, in the apparent world around us) is a sin, and part of a fallen world which is in need of God's restoration.

I’d also like to make note here that a homosexual is not deserving of unique treatment here… Which is why much of the professing church’s response to homosexuality is quite sad in my opinion. The Bible does NOT say that a homosexual is any more in sin than I am when I have lustful intentions or when I watch pornography. Someone living a homosexual lifestyle is no more in sin than unmarried couples having sex (something almost norm in our culture by now). All these things are considered sexual sin in the Bible, violations of God’s good intentions, and so forth. So if you’re reading this and you’ve had trouble in the past because you thought the Bible hated the sin of homosexuals in a particularly harsh or mean way, please know that this trouble is unwarranted. All have sinned and are guilty - and those of homosexual orientation are no more guilty than the rest of us who also sin (or at least have sinned) sexually.

In this way, I hope you can see the Christian's perspective. God is not some evil totalitarian dictator intent on making you submit to his every will just for the heck of it. He loves you, he loves his creation, and he desires to see it live as it was meant to. Creation is broken and in need of fixing - and it starts with the human heart being changed and living a life honouring to its Creator, which is what the true Christian church seeks.

WHAT IS THE BIBLICAL CONTEXT WHEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS DISCUSSED? WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THAT?

For those who've requested a deeper look into the Bible, I offer the following look at a key passage that discusses homosexuality:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:18-27

The passage in Romans chapter 1 is especially key, and very relevant to this question I was asked:

What is the context of the NT teaching on homosexuality? Does it ever actually address 2 people who desire a loving, committed relationship or is the primary context idolatry (pagan worship, older men dominating younger men, etc)? Was the concept of 2 men or 2 women being in a loving/romantic relationship even something they had conceived of in the first century AD? Good luck!

Sure enough, the context of this passage which talks about homosexuality is not focusing in on "romantic relationships", but rather idolatry and sin of a fallen world who has betrayed it's Creator and His creative design. This is helpful and consistent with what I've been saying already. We often miss the point in the discussion on homosexuality and think that God is condemning or forbidding love, when he is actually loving us by desiring us to live in accordance with his will and design.

However, in asking and answering this question, we can't miss the reality that still stands: homosexuality is still forbidden by the Scriptures here. It is clear that the Apostle Paul (writing this letter) sees homosexuality and the other things he mentions are fruits of the bigger problem - the fallen and broken nature of mankind. Also, the words used in the original language (Greek) are literally "the natural sexual use" (keyword: natural) of men or women, implied to be heterosexual intercourse, the "giving up" (verse 27) of which is violation of God's natural law, deemed here to be "dishonourable" and "shameless" (26, 27), just like many other sexual sins (1 Timothy 1:8-10; 1 Corinthians 6:12-18).

The same is true for other key passages that discuss homosexuality. The sin itself is not seen as the focus but it is no less seen as one of the many manifestations of the sin and broken nature of mankind. It is not "good", like God said his creation was at first, and when his first heterosexual couple were created by his own hands (Genesis 1, 2).

So let me summarize…

Sin, you might say, is in essence the violation of purpose, which any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage qualifies as.

Thus the Bible indeed sees homosexuality as a sin, but it is no better or worse than any other sexual sins that even the best of us have committed. Before God, we’re all on an even playing field, and I hope that humbles you if you’ve ever caught yourself thinking you’re better than someone else.

I also hope I'm being tactful and yet clear, and that you're finding this helpful! Please, if you have any questions you want answered, personal or in the blog, feel free to message me or comment on Facebook or below.

Now I know we’re not finished. Answers to other burning questions are on their way!!

Until then,

Corey

Justice, Love, and Hell

A very common objection people have today regarding the Christian concept of hell is the very idea that a supposedly loving God could send people to such a place. At first glance, this objection seems totally reasonable. After all, if you love somebody, why would you send them to such an awful place for an eternity? It just does not compute in our minds, at least at first.

But why does it not compute? Why is this idea of hell so hard to accept if indeed God is loving? It is in that very question that we may find the answer. Why is the question formed so as to call God "loving" and yet say nothing of his other attributes which must also be considered?

What we usually fail to grasp at this point is the goodness, righteousness, and justness of God. Perhaps due to cultural bias, we concoct a view of God that is more convenient than correct. In this case, it's really convenient for me (and all the wrongs I've committed) if God loves me but doesn't care so much about "what's right and what's wrong". What really ends up happening is we make up our own God to suit our needs, shrinking and devaluing the concepts of love, justice and goodness (and therefore how just, good, and perfect God really is) while we're at it. In other words, though at first we focused on the lovingness of God, we have now reduced even that attribute to some kind of nonchalant, all-inclusive "whatever's cool, man" divine attitude. The god of our minds is no longer loving, even though we'd say he is according to our definition.

Let me give an analogy a friend once used. I've had a few friends of late that are getting married or engaged. Say I walked up to their lovely fiancés/wives and started insulting them. If this continued and you saw their partner do nothing about it, wouldn't that seem a little strange to you? Yeah, probably. And probably more than "a little" strange. You'd probably question whether or not the husband/husband-to-be really cares about his fiancé/wife or not, right? And with good reason. Anyone who truly loves will in turn be against that which is in opposition to the object of his love. Sin is against all things good, and is against God and his creation - and that includes you! Sin destroys, and God wants you to be free from sin.

So God, in being loving and good, will hate that which is evil and will NOT be accepting of sin. Indeed, if he is loving, God cannot be accepting of sin. And so there is a hell. A place that exists because God is loving. He loves good, can't stand evil, and will deal with it accordingly. He also loves you, and wants you to turn away from sin because sin is destroying you! In choosing to reject God, you are rejecting the source of life… So life will slowly be sucked out of you until there is nothing left, and you are in hell, devoid of any divine presence and blessing (like you wanted, but maybe didn't expect).

Make no mistake: God loves all people. But that doesn't mean he will sacrifice justice and goodness and "be OK" with our sinfulness. So too, we must not be OK with sin.

 If you have read my past post on hell (please do), you know that hell is a place for sinners (all people) who do not repent of sin and receive the forgiveness that God provides through Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection (not all people). Another way of putting that: people who don't want to be forgiven so that they can enter into a relationship with the God who loves them despite their sin get exactly what they want - isolation and separation from God in hell.

Keep in mind too that this forgiveness is not earned, nor can it be faked into. God knows the heart, and he doesn't screw up - those who get hell get what they want. And those who are broken by the realization that they can't do anything to fix themselves up before God believe and are saved.

Again heavy truths, but I hope I'm handling them appropriately. Please, any feedback, questions or anything is gladly welcome! So hit me up.

Til next time, keep thinking!

Corey

The Hope That I Have: Understanding Hell

To my own surprise, I've yet to discuss the Christian concept of Hell. This is a big obstacle for many when it comes to some of the world's religions in general and Christianity in particular. A spiritual realm of torture and punishment, complete with pointy eared, pitch fork wielding inhabitants? The former sounds evil, and the latter sounds silly - why should I believe in such a place, and indeed why would I want to? Perhaps a deeper and more personal struggle for people is whether or not a loving God could actually allow a place like this to exist, and I think that's ultimately at the root of people's issues. I'm hoping to look at the concept of hell and share why I think the Christian concept of it is both loving and just - and therefore something a loving God would not allow but even create. 

I think I'll deal with misconceptions first, as that is often where problems arise. In later posts I'll deal with the justness and lovingness of hell, though we may here graze the surface of those issues.

The Cartoon Devils?

We might as well deal with the obvious first. There are no pointy eared devils with pitch forks in hell. I'm really not sure where this came from, but it's not from the Bible. Hell is a place to be taken seriously - it is no cartoony reality.

Isn't Hell a Place of Brutal Physical Torture and Punishment?

Hell is a place of punishment - but it is not a place where you are physically tortured like some scene from the Saw series. It is a spiritual realm "created for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41) - spiritual beings, and it is a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:50). Once you die, your physical body is gone for good - and your soul, if you have never entrusted it to the person and work of Jesus Christ and his forgiveness, will enter into hell, isolated from all that is God - and therefore, separated from all things good.

People Don't Want to Go to Hell
This is a misconception because people think that hell is simply a bad place for bad people - like a prison is thought to be. But it's much more than that. On the Christian view, all people are sinners no matter how saint-like they might seem externally. In the end, sin is rebellion against a loving God and Creator, who is not only the creator of all things that are good, but is literally the definition of goodness and love in his very character. So when people reject God and reject His Son Jesus, they're really saying "God, I don't want you" - much like Adam and Eve did when they wanted to be their own law-makers in the Garden of Eden. And the Bible is also clear that no one actually seeks after God (Romans 3:9-20).
So people do want to go to hell, because they don't want to be with God. They just don't realize that hell is not the freedom that they expect. Thus the "punishment" of hell is actually the isolation from God that people want. And since God is the source of life and all good things, you're in for a pretty terrible eternity.

Only Really Bad People Go to Hell

One thing our culture is notorious for propagating is the very religiously minded attitude that "good people go to heaven, and bad people go to hell". This is completely antithetical to the Bible and (true) Christian teaching - sort of. The Bible doesn't so much talk in terms of "good and bad" in relative senses, but rather would distinguish between "perfect and imperfect"… And unfortunately for all of mankind there's only been one perfect person, namely Jesus. Jesus himself was in opposition to the religious leaders of his time because they thought that by being all righteous and religious they were somehow making themselves right before God. Jesus' message was that people can't rely on themselves to be cleaned up and ready for heaven, as if forgiveness is something that is earned by religious deeds. The simple, very tough to swallow fact is that you can do nothing to save yourself, no matter how "good" you are. God is wholly perfect and just, and so every injustice against him must be dealt with - so every person deserves hell.

The good news is that Jesus (God himself) chose to take on himself the guilt of those who have rebelled against him. So while hell is a fully deserved punishment for all, and even though those who go there are actually getting what they want (isolation from God), those who truly repent and believe in the person and work of Jesus Christ and his forgiving work and thus enter a relationship with him for eternity. The sins you deserved punishment for were placed upon Jesus, who was "made sin for us, that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:21), and thus you are forgiven of your sins and given a righteousness eternal and perfect.

"That's not fair!"

I often find myself sympathizing with this first cry against the gospel (the "good news" message of Christianity) - even the Bible admits that the gospel is an offensive message to mankind. But let's dig deeper. What's not fair? That I get to go to heaven because God chose to save me despite my brutal sins, whereas another person rejects God and his forgiveness (chooses hell) and is thus separated from him in hell? Or is it not fair that God came down as a man and was tortured and murdered even though he did nothing wrong? Make no mistake, the offense here is NOT that some people go to hell and others don't… The offense should be that we're all not in hell right now.

I'll admit though that the gospel message is still offensive. It's offensive because, unlike pretty much every other religion, Jesus says that there's nothing you can do to save yourself and get to heaven. All people are before God and can't bring a single thing to the table to barter with. All they can do is receive him or reject him.  If God were a brutal tyrant of a leader this would be an awful truth, but thankfully he's not. At the same time, for those who do continue in sin and to hate God, it's still an awful truth… Because you're opposing the man with ultimate authority in the universe. But that's your own fault, and when the one you're opposing is God, you're in the wrong whether you like it or not.

Why This is So Hard

Some of you may read the above and think that this is a really easy thing for the Christian (in this case, me) to swallow. Why? Cuz, well, I'm going to heaven… right? Totally wrong. This is an incredibly hard truth to embrace, especially at first. Yeah, sure, I'll be in heaven for eternity - and being with God is more and more all that I really want in my life as he becomes more and more important to me. At the same time, I'm a people person and want nothing more than for everyone I know and care about to come with me. The Bible talks of tears being shed right around the time the New Heavens and New Earth are formed as God redeems this fallen world, and I have no doubt in my mind that many of those tears will be shed weeping for those who did not repent of their sins to be with the people of God forever in a renewed world. I imagine even God, though he will be fully joyful in taking care of evil and dealing out due justice, will himself endure some emotional turmoil as he defeats the enemies he still loves. And it is he who will be the one wiping away the tears like the comforting and loving father he is.

I know the above is heavy - but hopefully it's challenging too. Give me your feedback! My very purpose for starting this blog was to make people think about the truths of Christianity because I want them to enjoy God now and forever, thus being saved from hell because of Jesus' work.

Expect another couple posts as we delve into this!

From one sinner to another,

Corey

Existence of God: Pascal's Wager

As it is relevant to my most recent post concerning the Existence of God, I had the idea of discussing the thinking of a French mathematician and philosopher from the 1600's who many will be familiar with.

Blaise Pascal is known of course for incredibly significant contributions to mathematics and sciences, but lesser known is that he was also a bit of a philosopher and apologist on the side. While he has written an entire book entitled Defense of the Christian Religion, right now I intend to only look at one stream of thought he had. I don't call it an argument per se, but I do think it relevant to the existence of God and to one's thinking about whether or not God actually exists - and if I should believe in Him or not.

You may or may not have heard of "Pascal's Wager". It's a quite simple "argument" (though again I use the term loosely), and is often put forth in a simplified manner like so:

One who believes in God has nothing to lose and everything to gain,

While he who disbelieves in God has everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Now that is greatly simplified, and deserves some explaining. Pascal would argue that all people, whether they think they do or not, place a wager on one truth - whether or not God exists. A wager, he would say, because of the life-changing implications (gains or losses) that depend on the outcome. If God exists, then we have everything to gain by believing in him and everything to lose by not; and yet if he does not exist, I have nothing to lose if I believe in him (it changes nothing), and there is simply no gain if he does not exist.  For I may lose everything if I have chosen to reject God, and I have both wasted my current life and made no investment for the life to come.

Do you see the point? It's almost like life is a game of probability (but since it is life, this is a most serious game… and everyone plays!). As I assess my options, I find that one could hold great eternal reward, and a small (though disappointing) result if I lose (being: nothing to look forward to after death). But then I see that the other has literally no positive benefit if I am right and yet could have a host of great losses if I bet wrongly… The choice I make then, assuming that both are equally likely, should be an obvious one if I'm no fool. Of course, I ought to bet that God exists! In fact, I think I would devote the entirety of my life to finding out the truth of who God is - it is the most important thing I can think of. It would not be simply enough to think that God exists - the implications are that I must find him also! 

For me, this kind of thinking is very supportive in rationalizing why one ought to believe in the existence of God, though it is not itself evidence for the existence of God. Nonetheless, I thought it a helpful thinking exercise and one worth giving you as you contemplate the very important question of God's existence and what that could mean for your life. Be sure to see my other posts arguing not just for the existence of God but for the truth of the God of Christianity! It is then when things get interesting.

Keep thinking

Corey

The Existence of God: The Cosmological Argument

"There's just no proof..."

In all my posts thus far, I've been making a case for "the hope that I have" - that is, I have been giving reasons for why I believe in Christianity and it's core truths.

Surprisingly, I haven' t yet given my reasons for believing one of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity (and all of the monotheistic religions): the existence of God.

Many in our fairly secular society believe that the belief in the existence of a deity is something that "one must take by faith". Which, in their mind, usually means that there is no real reason to believe that one exists... but if it is to your liking, then go ahead and believe.

If you are convinced that faith and reason are mutually exclusive and that "faith doesn't look at the evidence" or something along these lines, then check out my post on Faith & Reason/Science & Religion. I won't deal with that directly here, but you need to know that this is simply not the case (at least not in Biblical Christianity).

On the other hand, you may think that these areas are not completely separate and that you could probably be a pretty reasonable person and still believe in a religion or something to that effect. But when it comes to the existence of God, "Well," you say to yourself, "that's another story. There's simply no evidence at all."

I'd like to challenge you on that today.

An Argument for Belief

I used to think that since God is outside time and since he is really not a physical being, that he very well could be there but we could never really truly know for sure. So I would default into this kind of aforementioned "there's no proof, but believe if you want" way of thinking - or something like it. But when I entered University and was faced with the question of whether or not I should believe in the God of the Bible, I was forced out of this position. I felt myself unable to "just believe" anything - such thinking just seemed fantastical and foolish. I knew that I had had an undeniable experience when I was younger that convinced me of the truth of what Jesus had taught. But the questions came from all angles, both internally from my own skeptical mind and externally from the many who only years ago were assailing any and all religious belief in our quickly secularizing Western culture. "Where's the evidence? Can we outsiders really trust your subjective experience? If God is indeed real, why would he not make himself more obvious?" I had to face these if I was going to continue to be a thinking person at an academic institution and yet still hold genuinely to my belief in the God of the Bible.

If you've been following my posts at all, you've seen a few arguments for the truth of the Christian faith. I've looked at why evil and suffering are not reasons to disbelieve in God (and why they actually support Christian truth), I've looked at the miraculous historical reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, and I've even given what I think to be more than valid reasons for trusting what the Bible says about Jesus and what happened surrounding the rise of Christianity in the first century common era. Some of these arguments already give weight to the existence of the God of the Bible. But what about specific arguments for the existence of God?

To start, I think I will discuss my favourite and probably the most accessible argument for the existence of one personal God (though it's not necessarily an argument for the existence of  the Christian God). The argument actually comes from a Muslim many years ago, and is called the "Kalam Cosmological Argument". It is very simple, and is laid out in the following three premises:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

The idea behind the above progression is that if premises 1 and 2 are true, premise 3 naturally follows (hence the "therefore" at the beginning of premise 3). Now hundreds of years ago when the argument was made, we had no real idea about the Big Bang and the Universe's history. But in recent times, scientific data gives this argument great weight as astronomical and cosmological findings point to a finite beginning of the Universe. "But," you may ask, "why does this cause have to be God?" Good question, because it might not seem so obvious at first. But if we understand the Universe to be all time and spae (and therefore, the Big Bang was actually the beginning of both space and time), then whatever this cause is has to be spaceless and timeless. What things are spaceless and timeless? You would be hard pressed to imagine much of anything besides abstract objects (like numbers) and minds. I sincerely doubt an abstract object would have the power or the intentions of creating a Universe - so I think it's most reasonable that this cause of the Universe is a mind. And given that this mind actually had intention to create something like the Universe (and in doing so bringing about the existence of beings such as ourselves), I think it's pretty reasonable to assume this mind is also personal and not just a supernatural force with great power and ability. Thus, I think it is not only reasonable but actually more reasonable, given the data we have about the Universe, to believe in the existence of a personal God. [If you want a quick and very insightful video going a bit more in depth into the argument, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0]

Make sense? For the most part I think it's actually quite a simple argument even though it involves big topics such as cosmology and other philosophical themes. It also holds great weight despite it's simplicity, and (I hope) puts a huge dent in the prevalent position that "it is unreasonable to believe in the existence of God." I hope you agree!

If you've followed my posts you know this is a significant topic for me, and that I think issues like "does God exist?" are very important to one's life. I think this largely because I believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate, and that believing in Him has indeed changed my life and can change yours.

As always, please message me if you have any of your own questions regarding God, faith, Jesus, spirituality and the like! Any and all questions are welcome.

I have a few more arguments I think helpful on this specific topic, so look out for those soon! Sorry the posts haven't been more regular!

Happy thinking. Until next time -

Corey