Plato is dear to me, but dearer still is truth.
— Aristotle
I started this blog at the end of 2006, when I was a fundamentalist Christian. During 2010, I posted no articles, because I was in the midst of studying my way out of my religion. At the beginning of that year, I ran across articles that pointed out where the Book of Daniel contained inaccurate historical information. As I studied to try to disprove those claims, I found that the evidence actually came in against the Bible’s inspiration, not in support of it. That led me into further studies about the prophecy fulfillment issues, the internal inconsistencies, the historical and scientific inaccuracies, and all the problems involved in selecting and assembling the various manuscripts. And then, of course, there are all the problems with Christianity’s doctrines, not to mention the philosophical considerations.
Coming to terms with all of that information was incredibly difficult, especially since my wife and I were raising three young children. We eventually reached a point where we knew we could no longer call ourselves Christians, and we did not want to raise our children under a set of beliefs that we felt were false. But this presented even more problems for us, since our families were strictly observant Christians who believed they had to sever relationships with any who left the faith.
This blog discusses how I navigated my way out of faith, and it illustrates how religion can actually be very damaging, even though most people assume it’s helpful, or at least innocuous. In the beginning, this blog was intended as a beacon to help draw people closer to Christ, but now I use it to help undo some of the falsehoods I helped spread as a Christian. You’ll find some of my more substantial posts linked below.
About the Blog’s Title
“Finding Truth” is a goal — an aspiration. I’m not claiming to have found truth; this blog simply represents my ongoing goal of reaching it.
Why Do I Blog?
A Brand New Direction
Why Do I Blog?
What Have I Gained? (by leaving Christianity)
The Story of My Deconversion
Start here: How It Happened: My Deconversion Part 1
On Withdrawal
Withdrawal Part 1: My Situation
Withdrawal Part 2: Doctrinal Considerations
Skeptical Bible Study
Skeptical Bible Study: The Book of Daniel
Family Ties: Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus, Belshazzar, and Nitocris
Skeptical Bible Study: Tower of Babel
The Book of Job: Serious or Satire?
“Times of Ignorance”
Bloody Well Right
Romans 9: A Divine and Fickle Dictator
Jewish Disciples Wouldn’t Have Created the Idea of a Resurrection?
Prophecy Failures
Does the Bible Contain True Prophecies?
Prophecy Part 1: Introduction
Prophecy Part 2: Throne Forever
Prophecy Part 3: Egypt & Rachel
Prophecy Part 4: Triumphal Entry
Prophecy Part 5: Virgin Birth
Prophecy Part 6: Tyre (You can also check out this post: This City Doesn’t Exist)
Prophecy Part 7: Isaiah 53 & Psalm 22
Prophecy Part 8: Conclusion
Cities Without Walls
Series on the Prophecy of Tyre
Part 1: The Prophecy at Face Value
Part 2: A Brief History of Tyre
Part 3: Mainland or Island?
Part 4: The Details
Part 5: Final Thoughts
Tyre by the Numbers
Contradictions in the Bible
Contradictions Part 1: Introduction
Contradictions Part 2: Two Examples
Contradictions Part 3: Brief Examples
Contradictions Part 4: Hares Chewing the Cud
Contradictions Part 5: Out of Egypt
Contradictions Part 6: Jesus’s Genealogy
Contradictions Part 7: Judas
Contradictions Part 8: The Crucifixion
Contradictions Part 9: The Resurrection
Contradictions Part 10: Conclusion
Contradiction: Was There a Sojourn in Egypt or Not?
The Problem With Hell
The Importance of Hell
The Problem of Hell Part 1: Textual Issues
The Problem of Hell Part 2: Logical Issues
The Problem of Evil
Morality
Is Color Objective or Subjective?
Objective Rock Music
The Bible’s Morality
Why, as an Atheist, Do I Value Morality?
What About My Children?
Miscellaneous Aricles
The Big Picture
Why Some People Believe the Bible (And Why the Reasons Aren’t Good Enough)
Frustrated
God Made Us This Way — It’s Only Reasonable He’d Be Angry About It
Letter To Kathy (the Bible Has Problems)
Love and Compulsion
Is It Fair to Expect Inerrancy from the Bible?
Finding Truth 
Apparently you believe that some of what the gospels report about what Jesus said and did is accurate but not all. How do you make the decision about which statements are accurate reflections of what he taught and which are not?
LikeLike
That’s a great question. I know that the gospels are not entirely accurate, because several stories in the gospels (Jesus’ birth, his time of death, etc) can not be reconciled with one another. While I don’t know for certain that he ever lived, I do think these stories were based on someone, even if loosely. So to be honest, I don’t know which parts are accurate and which aren’t. The discrepancies in the record lead me to believe it was not actually inspired, so I don’t believe in the miraculous claims. Past that, I think Jesus was probably a decent guy who had a following, but I agree that it’s hard to know much past that.
LikeLike
Is your contention then that the New Testament is not reliable when it claims that Jesus was divine or performed miracles, but is reliable when it claims that Jesus lived and was decent?
LikeLike
Yes, pretty much. When we read ancient histories about some ruler — one of the Caesars, for instance — there are often miracle claims in the narratives. In those instances, we don’t find it strange to accept the information that deals with which battles occurred, or how high the tax rates were, while dismissing the supernatural claims. I view the Bible similarly.
LikeLike
Jesus’ claims to decency are associated with his healing the sick, feeding the hungry, raising the dead son of a lonely widow, and so on. If you take those away, where is the basis for claiming he was decent? To put it another way, if you made a list from the gospels of all his non-miraculous good deeds, how long would it be?
As for Jesus’ self-proclaimed identity, it was the central theme on which all four gospel narratives turned. To suggest that his claims of special status were added later leaves open the fundamental question of why he was crucified in the first place, and makes the gospels fraudulent at their very core.
On what basis then would you choose to believe that Jesus lived and that he was decent? That is, what evidence do you have for these two beliefs?
LikeLike
It’s possible that Jesus neither lived, nor was decent. But even if all the claims of miracles are fraudulent, there are some decent teachings attributed to him — care for those less fortunate, love they neighbor as thyself, etc. However, it is likely that he was considered a healer or miracle worker. Benny Hinn is considered to be one by some people, though even most Christians are skeptical. There’s also Sathya Sai Baba who was believed to be a miracle worker by millions, though again most Christians would be skeptical.
As far as why he was crucified, there are any number of possible reasons. Perhaps the most likely centers around the disruption he caused in the temple. Or perhaps he angered someone in a position of authority. Considering the other two being crucified were common thieves, it seems the punishment of crucifixion could be assigned to some relatively mundane crimes.
The gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death by anonymous Christians. I’m sure they believed most or all of what they reported, but it’s hard to say how much of it was factual. I happen to think Jesus was a real person, but I’m not adamant about that position — maybe he wasn’t. But I do feel that the Bible is too problematic to be inspired, so I see no reason to believe the miracles it talks about.
LikeLike
So, to sum up what you believe about Jesus: 1) Jesus may or may not have lived, but probably did; 2) if he did live, he may or may not have been decent, but probably was; 3) even if he did live, however, he definitely did not make divine claims of the kind C. S. Lewis referenced, 4) and he definitely did not do miracles. Do I have this right?
LikeLike
That’s pretty much it. I don’t know that I would word #3 so strongly, but you’ve got the gist of my position.
LikeLike
I’d like to get this right. Please re-phrase 3) to more accurately reflect your view.
LikeLike
He may or may not have made divine claims.
LikeLike
But you avoided Lewis’ conclusion earlier by saying that Jesus may not have made those divine claims for himself. If Jesus did make them, how do you avoid Lewis’ conclusion?
Perhaps you are saying that if Jesus did make the divine claims, then you accept Lewis’ conclusion and thereby give up the possibility that Jesus was decent and your belief system remains intact (because you would not have to give up 2) as it’s written, since it allows that Jesus may or may not have been decent). Is that the case?
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t really agree. Here’s how I see it:
For Lewis’s assertion to be right, the Bible must be completely accurate — not just in what Jesus may have claimed for himself, but also in his other statements and actions. However, the Bible itself shows us that it’s not completely accurate. So Lewis’s assertion can’t really work as any sort of proof. Jesus may not have claimed he was divine. Even if he did make that claim, he may have been delusional. Perhaps he was even a con artist.
I don’t know which it is. But here’s a similar example. Non-Catholics don’t believe the pope receives divine dictates from God. So is the pope lying, delusional, or actually receiving communication from God? From what we can tell through the media, he doesn’t seem to be crazy, nor does he seem to be a liar. So must we accept that he really hears from God? No, I don’t think so.
For a person like Jesus, we have much less real information about him than we do the current pope. So why should Lewis’s trilemma be considered a great case for Christianity? It’s an interesting idea, and it’s certainly a decent argument for Christians. But it’s really not a strong enough argument to convince skeptics, because the basis for the argument — the validity of the Bible — is something we strongly doubt.
I hope that makes sense… And thanks, by the way, for asking all of this so politely!
LikeLike
I’m not sure you appreciate what Lewis is saying – and not saying – in that quote. He is not “proving” that Jesus is right in his claims. He is merely clarifying the choices we have to make about those claims. That is, Lewis demonstrates that it’s impossible for Jesus to have been a good moral teacher if he made the claims about himself that the New Testament attributes to him. Good human teachers don’t say, “I am the way and the truth and the life” or similar things. The Bible does not have to be completely accurate for Lewis’ logic to hold. If, as you suggested earlier, Jesus never made those claims then Lewis’ conclusion can be avoided. Otherwise, not.
That’s why I suggest that the more likely you deem Jesus to have been decent (that is, a “good human teacher of morals”), the less likely you deem him to have made those claims to which Lewis referred. And conversely, to the degree that you open up the possibility that Jesus did made those claims, you diminish the possibility that he was decent. The two ideas are logically inconsistent. That was Lewis’ point.
LikeLike
That’s a nice distinction — I’m not sure I’ve thought about it that way before. Yeah, I think I can get behind that. If Jesus did proclaim those statements about himself (and he wasn’t delusional), then it’s true that he couldn’t have been morally decent, even if he still encouraged others to live morally and decently.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I know any human that is 100% decent or 100% indecent (assuming we agree on the definition of decent of course). Don’t we all do both bad and good things? I don’t see why the answer can’t be that he may have taught some decent things, but may have also said some indecent things.
LikeLike
I recently read 2 Timothy 3:1-7
What stood out to me particularly was when it referred to people to be ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Does anyone have any thoughts as to why this is included in Paul’s letter?
LikeLike
Howie — thanks for the comment! That’s pretty much how I see it. I get Mike’s point that if Jesus falsely claimed to be divine, then it’s harder to say he was moral or decent. However, I agree that most things aren’t so black and white — each of us has warring natures.
LikeLike
Hey Ryan, good to hear from you again.
This idea of people learning but not coming to the truth is a theme that occurs elsewhere in the NT. For instance, 1 Cor 1:20-25 says this:
So there’s the idea that anyone who rejects Christ might be considered wise by “the world,” but they’ve missed true wisdom, because they’ve missed Jesus. I think 2 Tim 3 is saying the same thing. Even Jesus said something similar in Matthew 13:13:
So in several places, the New Testament seems to say that only those who are spiritually minded will really get the truth of the gospel message. Also, learning new things is spoken of rather negatively (Acts 17:21), so intellectualism tends to be frowned upon. This makes it easy to say that those who don’t believe Jesus is the Messiah don’t have true wisdom. Don’t worry if they’re educated and intelligent, because “worldly wisdom” pales in comparison to “spiritual wisdom.”
That’s my take at least. I’d be interested to hear what others might think.
LikeLike
When I read these verses I wonder if being in a relationship with God actually requires active obedience rather than just knowledge of scripture.
John 14:21 reads:
—- He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. —–
Manifest means to make evident or reveal.
John (14:22-24) goes on to read:
—–Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. —–
This seems to outline that God reveals Himself through a person’s active obedience and not just knowledge but an application of that knowledge.
John 14:17 also speaks about the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him.
From this it seems an evident relationship with God comes through obedience and not just knowledge of what the bible says. This also seems to teach that actively applying Jesus commandments (outlined in the Sermon on the Mount and in the gospels) is how God reveals Himself to someone, not just by reading.
I’d be interested to read peoples thoughts on this
Thanks, Ryan
LikeLike
“That’s pretty much how I see it. I get Mike’s point that if Jesus falsely claimed to be divine, then it’s harder to say he was moral or decent. However, I agree that most things aren’t so black and white — each of us has warring natures.”
Yup, I kind of figured (given other stuff you have written) that that was what you had meant. I just wanted to clarify it a little bit. I have just never been convinced by the trilemma argument because it is flawed in several ways. As you have succinctly pointed out, it ignores a fourth possibility: “Legend” (or at least partially legendized). As you mentioned, delusional (can’t think of an ‘L’ word) seems to be another option, but I guess one could argue that is similar to lunatic (although I think there are differences as you pointed out in your Pope analogy). And then there is simply the fact that there are so many combinations of the options in varying degrees.
LikeLike
John 14:12-17 pretty much outlines what I was trying to say.
LikeLike
@Ryan,
Yes, I definitely think that’s what the NT is teaching.
@Howie,
I couldn’t agree more. And thanks for your earlier comment — yes, it was definitely clarifying. It cut right to the core of the issue and made things much simpler. You always make such great comments! 🙂
LikeLike
So maybe an evidential relationship with God can only be found through doing what Jesus teaches and turning away from what goes against these teachings.
According to Jeremiah 29:13: You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
Just some thoughts
LikeLike
Perhaps… though to me that seems a little unfair to those who were born into non-Christian cultures. What Muslim would ever seek Jesus or the Christian god without first having a really good reason to do so?
LikeLike
“What Muslim would ever seek Jesus or the Christian god without first having a really good reason to do so?”
Yeah that’s true I think. This is also alluded to in Romans 10:14-21 where Paul writes: How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?
Have you seen this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sno1c3n0xxc
I’m not sure what to make of it,
I suppose one perspective is that if a Good God exists, then that God is Holy and Just. Through this perspective God would judge those people based on what has been revealed to them, rather than what hasn’t. The emphasis on turning away from sin is taught by both John the Baptist and Jesus. If a person seeks to follow God based on the understanding and faith that has been given to them I would think a holy God would judge them based on the intensions of their heart.
But yeah, it would seem unfair to me too. Unless God communicates to everybody who seeks Him despite where they are born.
LikeLike