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 
In regards to that youtube video I linked.
Okay, did a bit more of a search and it looks like Afshin Javid might have a more complicated background:
http://truthforalltohear.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/afshin-javid-iamthirsty-vancouver-christian-fellowship-and-the-facts/
http://arieladinamoorebranded.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/afshin-javid-debunked.html
Just shows its important to do a background check 🙂
kind regards, Ryan
LikeLike
Ryan, your point about understanding being a result of our obeying, and not just knowing about, Jesus’ teaching is an extremely important one. And you have made the point well. As for the YouTube hero/charlatan you subsequently referenced, such stories are always sad and disturbing. Deceit has nothing to do with God.
Howie, your criticism of Lewis’ argument is not altogether coherent. I get that you don’t like it, but I don’t see where you ever point out an actual flaw in his reasoning. You assert that “there are so many combinations of the options in varying degrees,” but just saying that decency has degrees, or that there might be a difference between “lunatic” and “delusional,” sounds more like nit-picking than rebuttal.
As for the broader question implicit in this discussion , everyone is going to heaven. Jesus did not die for some; He died for all. That everyone is going to heaven is not a reason to be immoral; on the contrary, it is reason to be more moral than ever. God is good and He loves us all. It’s only right that we should be grateful.
Today’s church is a turn-off to many people, and rightly so. Truth is not found in church but rather in Jesus Christ our Lord. If Christians would stop trying to promote church and get back to loving and obeying Jesus, they might see this.
LikeLike
Mike,
CS Lewis was making an unrealistic problem by over simplifying how people are. It’s like a physicist trying to calculate the garvitational forces imposed on Earth, but eliminating the affects of everything but the sun and moon. Sure, it makes the formula easier, but it also fails at being the most accurate answer.
have you ever met a man that you would say was decently moral? would you say that you are decently moral?
William
LikeLike
William,
The Lewis quote seeks to show that a great human moral teacher (or you could say “great human teacher of decency’) does not say things like “I am the way and the truth and the life” and “You must love me more than you love the members of your own family.” There is nothing unrealistic or over-simplified about Lewis’ point. And it has nothing to do with the fact that people can vary in the degree of decency they achieve.
If I see a guy handing out bread to the homeless while teaching that people should love one another I may be favorably impressed, but once he adds that he is the way and the truth and the life then I’m jumping off his bandwagon. There is nothing moral or decent about telling people that you are the way and the truth and the life…unless you are.
LikeLike
ah, i see. so if someone handed bread to the poor and teaches that people should love one another, but has lied before, or sinned in other ways before, he can still be a decently moral guy; unless that sin is the lie of divinity?
or are you saying that a truly decently moral guy wouldn’t have any faults, because it’s not decently moral to lie, or cheat, or be drunk, or to have lusted, or to have hated or fought, or coveted or been jealous?
LikeLike
I’m not saying either of those things. I’m just reacting to the scenario as described. If part of the morality that a person is teaching is that we should love that person more than we love our own families then that teaching is ipso facto immoral…unless that person is the Son of God.
LikeLike
I’m trying to understand what you’re saying, so please bear with me. You’re saying that no one should say that a person should love “me” more than that person should love their family, because that’s immoral. But if God (or the son of god) told a person to love God (or Son) more than than that person should love his own family, then that is immoral?
LikeLike
…but back to CS Lewis’ problem. Would you say that, as he seems to be saying, that any person who falsely claims to be the son of god (whether out of madness, pure deceit, or being a legend), is incapable of teaching, or saying, or even doing anything moral?
and if falsely claiming to be the son of god would make one totally immoral, then would any lie have that affect, or just that one particular lie?
and again, i’d like to ask if you have ever known a man that you thought was decently moral or if you even counted yourself as being decently moral?
thanks,
Wlliam
LikeLike
God has the right to tell me to love Him more than I love anyone else. No one else has the right to tell me that. For anyone else to make that claim on my affections would be immoral.
LikeLike
I could agree to that. thanks for the clarification. Now, in line with my other post, would an immoral act by a man necessitate that the man who made the immoral act is incapable of any morality?
For example, say there was a man who claimed to be something he was not. Since lies are immoral, could we correctly say that that man is incapable of morality?
LikeLike
William,
Regarding your “…but back to the C.S. Lewis problem” –
Lewis is not saying that any person who falsely claims to be the son of god is incapable of teaching, or saying, or even doing anything moral. Rather, he’s saying that any person who falsely claims to be the son of god thereby negates his reputation as a great human moral teacher. Great human moral teachers do not make false divine claims about themselves.
LikeLike
To your broader issue, of course, moral people can sometimes do immoral things, and immoral people can sometimes do moral things. We call a person moral or immoral based on the totality of their lives as we understand them – their “net” morality, if you will, after adding up all their moral deeds and subtracting all their immoral ones. Of course, in the final analysis only God is capable of making such judgments, and that’s why, in the final analysis, only He makes them.
Nevertheless, I don’t see what this has to do with Lewis’ argument or with my interactions with Nate about what he thinks of Jesus.
LikeLike
hmm, I guess that’s true – according to CS Lewis. But isn’t it also true that others may see it it differently? isn’t it likely that others may see Jesus and say, “whoa!, that guy’s a quack/liar regarding who his father is, but he is spot on in many other regards? In fact, i would think that is how we react to most people.
You haven’t bothered answering my question, but i do think that I have met decently moral people, and at times, I may even think that of myself – but that is not me saying that I or those people are perfect. Most people recognize that people have a capacity, at at times a propensity, for both moral, and immoral acts.
that’s why i disagree with CS Lewis, as great of a guy as he may have been, I think he created a problem and listed 3 multiple choice solutions, watering down the reality of its potential answers. It could be, and is entirely possible, than a man make one immoral claim, and still be capable of teaching many moral truths. If that is possible, then it is also possible for people to say that “I don’t think he was the son of god (admitting that others lies about him, or that he was himself mistaken), but i think he was a good moral teacher (referring to the good moral teachings he is attributed with).”
sometimes preset multiple answer choices dont cover the full impact or reality of the most accurate answer.
LikeLike
William, apparently you are being sincere, but I just don’t see the logic in your view. It’s inconceivable to me that someone who made false divine claims for himself could be considered a great human moral teacher. That you could consider such a liar/lunatic to be a great human moral teacher is your prerogative, but I have never met anyone else who thinks that way. In normal human experience, liars are despised and lunatics are pitied.
I can appreciate that you don’t like to be boxed in to certain answers. But in a search for truth, which this blog proclaims to support, either/or’s are forks in the road we have to navigate in order to get to the destination. Otherwise, it’s not searching for truth – it’s just meandering…and thus avoiding the truth.
LikeLike
Mike, I think this goes back to my pope example. Most people would consider him to be moral, even if they’re not Catholic. However, we non-Catholics don’t believe God really talks to him. So is he a liar or a lunatic? I suppose it must be one or the other, if we’re to follow the 3 choices given to us by Lewis. What’s your vote?
Thanks
LikeLike
The reason Lewis’s argument seems to work is that he uses inflammatory adjectives: “liar, lunatic, lord.” Do you want to call Jesus a lunatic? Well, no! That sounds awful! How about a liar? No, that sounds equally terrible. So I guess we’re left with Lord.
But the real world operates differently. Perhaps Jesus really believed he was the true son of God, but wasn’t. At the very least, we could call this delusional, but it may not reach the level of lunacy. In every other aspect of his life, he may be quite normal, even admirable. Calling him a lunatic applies a sense of instability that may not be fair, even if he’s delusional.
When I was in high school, one of our teachers believed she had been abducted by aliens. That was pretty bizarre, and I don’t know anyone that believed her. But no one would have called her a lunatic or a liar, either.
LikeLike
Nate,
You’re comparing an apple to an orange. At most, the pope claims to speak for God at select times on select issues. This is not that unusual a claim. The Bible is filled with the writings of folks who said, “Thus saith the Lord.” Even today, there are lots of Protestant churches where you can find individual congregants who might say, “The Lord told me that I should doing more for the poor” or something similar. What Lewis was referring to were the unique divine claims Jesus made about himself, such as “I am the way and the truth and the life.” If a pope starts uttering lines like that even a lot of Catholics will hit the door, and if a Protestant were to say something like that he’d likewise be shunned (or offered immediate counseling).
There is no getting around the fact that according to the New Testament, Jesus made some startling divine claims about himself. Thus the only way to avoid concluding that he was either liar, lunatic, or Lord is to prove that Jesus never said any of those things.
LikeLike
Nate,
Mere Christianity was adapted from BBC radio talks that Lewis gave in the 1940’s. Perhaps he sought alliteration to make his point memorable. In any case, I don’t regard “lunatic” to carry any more negative connotation than “delusional.” But even if you do, just substitute what words you will for Lewis’ categories and his argument works just as well. His point is that a person saying things like “I am the way and the truth and the life” is either saying something false and knows it it false (liar), saying something false but thinks it is true (delusional or lunatic), or saying something true.
Your high school teacher with the story about alien abduction was either saying it happened when she knew for a fact that it hadn’t, saying it happened when she thought it actually had happened, or was reporting an event that really occurred. You can come up with softer descriptive terms if you think “liar” or “lunatic” sound too harsh, but you still have the same categories whatever you call them.
LikeLike
Mike,
what do you mean by lunatic, liar or lord?
I ask, because I thought Nate’s points were pretty good, and sound in reasoning. Maybe you just mean lunatic to mean anything where someone is wrong, but thinks they’re right?
and you agree that the pope speaks fro god then?
Did Jesus write the NT?
If the NT has or had flaws in it, then would that mean that it is all flawed?
If it is possible for people to do both immoral and moral acts, then why couldnt a man do both moral and immoral acts?
If Jesus were lying about who he was, or was delusional or stark raving mad about that, then would his good deeds and good teachings cease to be good?
And I’m not saying that Jesus was good, or whatever, I am just point out the flaws in CS Lewis’ claims. he’s trying to box people into a set on scenarios that he predetermined. It’s bogus and silly. There are more scenarios than what he proposed, but some people want to believe that CS Lewis is the be all end all, then they can drink that koolaid if they like. I just ask that they try to be honest enough to admit it.
LikeLike
“Your high school teacher with the story about alien abduction was either saying it happened when she knew for a fact that it hadn’t, saying it happened when she thought it actually had happened, or was reporting an event that really occurred. You can come up with softer descriptive terms if you think “liar” or “lunatic” sound too harsh, but you still have the same categories whatever you call them.”
that’s fine, but what you and Mr Lewis seem to saying is that which ever one you pick on that particular topic can reliably be applied to every other aspect of that person.
So if Nate’s teacher was lying about her alien encounter, then she is a liar and is therefore incapable of telling the truth.
similarly, if jesus falsely claimed to be the son of god then he is immoral, and incapable of morality. But since we know that jesus was moral, we can therefore be assured that he really was who he said he was.
It’s just bogus and dishonestly or ignorantly simplistic.
LikeLike
William, you wrote…
I answered this in my last response to Nate.
I believe that the pope has as much, but no more, ability to hear from God as any other human being. I don’t believe in the organized church; I believe in Jesus Christ.
No. His followers did.
No.
Both clauses of your sentence sound like they’re saying the same thing. Therefore, I don’t understand your question.
As I asked Nate, if you strip away the miracles just how many good deeds of Jesus do you have left? As for his teaching, are you willing to follow the teachings of anyone you believe to be delusional or stark raving mad? I suppose Charles Manson may have said some useful things in the course of his life, but who has interest in sifting through the delusions to find them?
You’re just heaping pejoratives on Lewis’ argument (“bogus,” “silly,” “koolaid”) without seriously engaging it. There are no scenarios other than what he proposed. Let me give you his argument in simpler form and maybe you’ll see what I mean. Jesus said things like “I am the way and the truth and the life.” In so saying, he was either saying something true or saying something false (and if it was false, he either knew it was false or he didn’t – thus Lewis’ three categories, which were actually two categories with one of them sub-categorized). So, essentially, Lewis was saying Jesus’ divine claims were either true or false. What other scenarios are there beside true and not true?
LikeLike
This is one of the key points. I’m willing to take advice or ideas from anyone, so long as they make sense. It doesn’t matter to me what kind of person Jesus was — I can look at his admonitions to care for our fellow man and see that it’s a good idea.
Finally, here’s my take on Jesus:
If he actually made the claims attributed to him in the Bible, he was either delusional or dishonest.
If he did not make those claims, then we have no more dilemma.
Thanks
LikeLike
William, you wrote…
Neither one of us is saying that. We’re just saying that Jesus’ divine claims are either true or false. If true, then everything else he said is worth listening to. If false, then everything else he said is suspect, even if some of them turn out to be true.
Not at all. But I’m sure she lost a measure of credibility with Nate and his classmates once she told that story. Especially if she was a science teacher.
No, this is not the argument. As I’ve said before, Lewis’ argument does not prove that Jesus is Lord. It merely demonstrates that Jesus is either liar (being false intentionally), lunatic (being false unintentionally), or lord (being true).
LikeLike
Nate, you wrote…
You and I are agreed on this point.
LikeLike
LOL…
“If it is possible for people to do both immoral and moral acts, then why couldn’t a man do both moral and immoral acts?
Both clauses of your sentence sound like they’re saying the same thing. Therefore, I don’t understand your question.”
I guess i did write an awful lot that may have appeared to be disjointed, but i can tie it all together. I’ll just begin with the above segment. They are in fact saying the same things… it was just rhetorical.
man can do good, in so doing doesn’t mean that he cannot do evil; and vise versa. So to hang onto whether jesus was Lord, lunatic, or liar, is all well and good, but when you will then take whatever you determine jesus to be and then try to apply that across the board, is problematic. The problem isn’t so much with the choices, but in how they’re applied.
This is what Lewis was getting at ,”A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.”
so he seems to be saying that liars cannot teach morals. If a person cannot teach morals if they’ve done something immoral, then how can anyone know what morals are unless learned from god? maybe that’s what CS Lewis and you are getting at – only god is moral. But if jesus or God didnt write the bible, but their followers did… followers who had sinned (for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god), then we cannot take the bible at it’s moral teachings, because the authors would be immoral and incapable of teaching morality.
CS lewis was making absolute determinations, and then pretending that they should someone represent the whole of a person. It’s incomplete. I find that silly, but I don’t think that means that CS Lewis was completely silly in everything.
And again, if Lord, Lunatic, or Liar represents all of the possible variations one could imagine with claiming to be the son of god, then I can agree with that. But again, Lewis’s application of the possibilities is where his real shortcoming is.
“As I asked Nate, if you strip away the miracles just how many good deeds of Jesus do you have left? As for his teaching, are you willing to follow the teachings of anyone you believe to be delusional or stark raving mad? I suppose Charles Manson may have said some useful things in the course of his life, but who has interest in sifting through the delusions to find them?”
well I dont know that I follow any man completely. I do try to weigh each teaching, each scenario. I have found wisdom in many places, and possibly gleaned many profound things from places they weren’t intended to produce. I’ve seen many good do very bad things. I have seen very bad men do good things. But that’s people.
What do you do? If jesus told you to kill and entire village of children, would you do it?
LikeLike