Note From Father-In-Law

[dB-Paradox]

Amen to that brotha! Is your wife Christian? Because if she is, she sanctifies you! My wife is a Christian, while I'm an apostate. The letter sounds like something my FIL would do! In fact, just recently, he put up a bus ad which quotes Psalms 14:1 - The fool says in his heart 'there is no god'. I've been offered tons of books and videos, too. Like you, I've read and watched all those before. I'm inclined to offer a book or video of my choosing for them to take in exchange for theirs to me. Although, I hardly doubt they'd give it a serious chance.

[Vomit Comet]

Ann Coulter is into Christian apologetics? I thought she was supposed to be some kind of hard-drinking foul-mouthed tomboy or something?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Well, we had the in-laws over this past evening for some card games, and we had a decent time.

 

As I suspected, my father-in-law gave me what he mentioned the previous night, which included a two-page letter and three books. Below is the letter (with names removed), in which he also names the books he left for me. (Note that Menno Haven is a retirement home in the area.)

 

Please accept my apology. You have a right to be perplexed by my brief note. In my attempt for brevity in saying why I was sending you the newspaper clipping, I apparently misspoke or at least left open the possibility for misunderstanding. I did not keep a copy of my note and do not remember exactly what I wrote accept [sic] for your quotes. Nevertheless, I will try to reconstruct in more careful detail what I intended to communicate.

 

To begin with, contrary to your assumption, I am acquainted with and have conversation with the several atheists and agnostics (free-thinkers) who live on the Menno Haven campus. What we chaplains are discovering is that as these persons begin to experience the limitation of aging and the reality of death, the spiritual questions about God and life after death become more prominent in their interest and conversation, indicating a serious rethinking of their former disregard for the existence of God in their life.

 

Secondly, I don't remember calling atheists "scumbags." If I did, I violated one of the very basic life principles that I try to follow, that is, in not being prejudiced against any groups or classes of people. I see every person as a unique individual created and loved by God who is my fellow human being, and with whom I compassionately share life and resources, including even those who consider me an enemy.

 

Thirdly, I did not mean to say or infer that atheists are heartless. The ones I know and have conversation with are very good and respectful citizens of our country and demonstrate a genuine concern for the commonwealth of others. And you are correct in stating that many who claim to be Christian are heartless. In fact, I find many in the so-called conservative Christian churches not only heartless, but quickly resort to a deluded interpretation of God's Word to support and make right their ungodly and prejudiced views.

 

On this question, I would like you to read, "The Myth of a Christian Nation" by Gregory Boyd. He most accurately articulates my controversy with the popular, nationalistic Christianity being preached today. Like him, I am most embarrassed and troubled by the evil and violence that has been done and continues to be done in the name of Christ. In reading his book, you will have a better understanding of what I believe about being a Christian.

 

What I was meaning to state or highlight was the short-comings and deluded conclusions of atheism. It is my understanding that atheism has no moral law motivating them toward love and concern for others experiencing trouble or tragedy other than that of humanistic regard for physical and emotional needs. I do not minimize nor criticize these efforts, but such efforts come up short when individuals are facing the possibility of death and need answers to questions about what lies beyond the moment of death.

 

No, I am not prejudiced (as defined by dictionary) against any persons, whatever race, creed, or color or nationality; but yes, I am convinced that what I have chosen to believe about God, through personal experience and serious study and questioning, is truth - truth in which I can anchor my present and future existence. And being so thoroughly convinced, I will defend both the existence of a sovereign, creator God, and any thought or action that disregards or attempts to disrepute the gospel of Jesus Christ and his redeeming love for all peoples.

 

This does not mean that I demean or avoid conversation with those who think otherwise, but am very willing to accept them wherever they may be in their thought journey regarding God and gently invite them to move toward the same overwhelming love relationship that I daily experience with God. This belief in God is a conviction and does not fit a dictionary definition of prejudice and thus should not be so named.

 

I just finished reading a book, "The Language of God," written by Francis S. Collins, a widely respected and brilliant scientist, who heads up the Human Genome Project. He is one of the world's leading scientists and in this book tells his story of growing up in an agnostic home and later becoming an atheist before his research in the study of DNA overwhelmed him with the evidence that God does exist and designed the creation of earth and all life.

 

I must admit that his view of evolution stretches some of my beliefs about creation of human life, but I am always listening and learning, truly believing that faith in science and faith in God can coexist harmoniously within the Christian context. I purchased two copies at the annual seminar Menno Haven jointly sponsors with Chambersburg Hospital, and now that I finished reading it, I want to give you the other copy as my gift to you.

 

Another book that I read last summer is an equally fascinating story of a well-known person who struggled with questions about God. The book, "Finding God in the Questions" is written by Dr. Timothy Johnson, M.D., a physician and journalist who was medical editor for ABC News until his retirement in November of 2009.

 

I would appreciate your reading these three books and particularly "The Language of God" because I would like you to tell me why I should not believe what these writers are telling me. I also think that in reading them, you will have a better understanding of what I believe about God and what I am still learning about God, which is very different from what is widely preached and practiced as Christian in America.

 

A case in point is the recent nativity episode in the borough. I agree with most of what you say about the event, and do not support the "Christian effort" to save Christmas. However, I do know that the borough's decision to have the nativity removed was based on more than censorship as you stated, having heard the story from my barber whose wife is a member of the borough council.

 

I probably did not respond to all the issues or challenges you gave me, but I hope I did so sufficiently to interest you in reading the three books listed above. My greatest desire and prayer is that you will continue in search for God. I know you said you are doing fine, but I think you are taking an unreasonable risk with your future and the future of your lovely daughters. That in a nutshell is the basis of my concern and prayers in your behalf.

 

Now to begin a reply....

[RankStranger]

Sounds like a nice guy. Smart, too.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Well, I just sent this email:

 

Thanks for the clarification you've made in your last letter. It's good to know that you don't consider all atheists to be heartless. I would recommend, then, being a little more careful in how you word things in the future. I could only base my reply on what you actually said (that atheists "have no heart or concern for you or your welfare"), regardless of whether or not your intentions were somewhat different.

 

And perhaps I was a little harsh with bringing the term "scumbags" into the issue. That was the basic impression your note gave, though, in implying (whether intentionally or not) that they are heartless.

 

I should also point out that I have not said that there is no God. I simply challenged your note's mischaracterization of atheists, that's all.

 

Your latest letter said, "...contrary to your assumption, I am acquainted with and have conversation with the several atheists and agnostics." However, I never said that you hadn't had any conversations with atheists, so you're basically assuming that I assumed such. I didn't. If you were referring to my mention of "people you have never met," that was in response to the broad-brushing conveyed in your first note. In other words, I was saying that you couldn't know all atheists, and therefore making broad-brushed assessments of them is characterizing people you've never met; it was not implying that you haven't met any atheists at all.

 

As a side note, your mention of people rethinking things as they get older is not evidence of the existence of God. It's simply evidence that some people change their views as they get older. Different people would have different reasons for doing so, and others would not do so. It certainly would be comforting to think that there is a wonderful afterlife, but finding comfort in that doesn't make it true any more than finding comfort in reincarnation would make that true.

 

You said, "It is my understanding that atheism has no moral law motivating them toward love and concern for others experiencing trouble or tragedy other than that of humanistic regard for physical and emotional needs." Well, it's not a moral "law," of course, but as you also said, the atheists you know "demonstrate a genuine concern for the commonwealth of others," and caring about peoples' "physical and emotional needs" is an important moral. If they can have such morals, then Christianity doesn't have a corner on morality.

 

The Christian's argument from morality is severely flawed. There are both moral and immoral people both within and outside Christianity. Also, there is no such thing as "absolute morality." Christians can throw that terminology around all they want, but it's impossible to believe the whole Bible to be God's Word without believing in relative morality. In fact, what you have with regard to religion is submission to an authority figure rather than actual morality.

 

For example, if God says to kill innocent little children, it's ok because God says to. And, yes, that can be found in the Old Testament. Yet our modern moral sensibilities tell us that it's unjust to kill children, which most Christians I know would agree with. So, is it moral or immoral to murder little children, and if it's immoral, then why would God command it?

 

You made reference to "deluded" interpretations of the Bible, but the fact is that there are different views that can find support in the Bible. It just boils down to which parts people take literally and which parts people reinterpret to fit. And the common Christian practice of claiming that the Bible is all God's Word and yet writing off the bulk of it as irrelevant simply because it's the Old Testament is deluded. After all, Malachi 3:6 says that God does not change, and Matthew 5:18 says that Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law."

 

Anyway, regarding the books you left for me, you said, "I would like you to tell me why I should not believe what these writers are telling me." However, I never told you not to believe what they've written. Allow me to remind you that you brought this issue up, not me. I have not tried to change your religious views at all. I can love and accept you for who you are, regardless of what you believe, and all I ask in return is the same. But since you did make an issue of religion, I do feel compelled to respond.

 

The first book you mentioned is called "The Myth of a Christian Nation," to which I would agree that the concept of America being founded as a "Christian nation" is myth. Christian fundamentalists have applied revisionist tactics to convince people that our country was founded on Christianity, when the reality is that America was founded as a secular nation with freedom of religion.

 

Regarding the other two books, a precursory look indicates that they don't really deal with the issues that led me to reject Christianity as mythology. It wasn't science or other outside sources that led me to my conclusions, nor was it influence from other nonbelievers. It was my studying of the Bible, in which I sought to "grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ," that led me to the realization that the Bible is not and cannot be the Word of God.

 

And please do not assume that my assertive tone with that is a sign of closed-mindedness, because in reality I would still be a fervent believer if I was closed-minded. It was only because of my open-mindedness that I was able to question to the point of the agonizing realization that what I had believed my whole life was, in fact, a lie.

 

I know that you know that I was a firm believer. We've been around each other enough, and you've been in Sunday School classes that I taught. I really believed that Christianity was true. But I now just as strongly believe that it is not true. It was not an easy position to get to, because I had been conditioned all my life to believe a certain way, and then I had to make a paradigm shift when it became abundantly clear that the evidence actually points away from Christianity instead of toward it. I went through a dark time several years ago as I struggled to come to grips with that, but thankfully I've come out of it.

 

You say, "I think you are taking an unreasonable risk with your future and the future of your lovely daughters." However, there is no risk at all in rejecting mythology. Do you fear Islam's hell? Of course not, because you don't believe Islam is true. In the exact same manner, I do not fear Christianity's hell, because I don't believe it to be true.

 

In fact, after I realized that I had been misled for most of my life, my past became a bigger issue than the future. I could have pursued a rewarding career that fit my abilities, but instead I let that take a backseat to belief that I had a "calling from God" in the music ministry. Though it is impossible to know for sure how things would have turned out had I gone a different route, I have to think that there's a decent chance that I could have done better than I have. But that's secondary information, since it had nothing to do with my change of views.

 

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, the issue of whether or not a deity exists is unimportant in the Christian context when one realizes that Christianity is not true. Reading a book by a scientist who believes that there is a God would be pointless in that regard, because all that leads to is that there may be something out there somewhere, in which case one is left with deism. Accepting that does not automatically propel one into the Christian faith.

 

Beyond that, the simple fact that some scientists believe in God does not prove that God exists any more than the fact that some (evidently most) scientists don't believe in God proves that God doesn't exist. Belief does not equal proof, plain and simple.

 

At any rate, if you want to know the Biblical reasons why I've come to the very firm conclusion that it's not the Word of God, I can share that with you, but I'm not going to bombard you with it unless you so desire.

 

I will admit that I have no intention of reading the books you left for me. After all, they really aren't designed to address the issues that led me to my conclusions, and at this point they hold very little interest for me. If you really insist that I read them, though, then you need to also agree to read books of my choosing. Fair is fair, right? I really don't think that's necessary at this point, though.

 

As a side note, it would be interesting to hear what the borough's reasoning was in the nativity issue. When you say that it was "more than censorship," are you saying that it was censorship and more, or are you saying that it was something besides censorship? I do know that there was a claim in the newspaper that they were concerned about the possibility of a KKK group wanting recognition on the square, which I would agree should be a concern. It seems kinda funny, though, that that didn't seem to be a concern until PA Nonbelievers requested permission for their sign. Is there something else?

 

Anyway, I hope that this helps clarify some things. Thanks again for your support. I do love and respect you, and I certainly wish the best for you. And, again, it is not my intent to tear down your faith, which is why I never brought the issue of religion up with you. And I do want to acknowledge that you are definitely a more open-minded and thoughtful person than my own father (though he means well, of course), which I appreciate.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Thanks for the replies. Yes, he is a good guy.

 

downtoearth, I was about ready to send my email when I read your comments, after which I added the mention of the reincarnation comparison before sending it. So thanks for mentioning that.

[Shyone]

Thanks for the replies. Yes, he is a good guy.

 

downtoearth, I was about ready to send my email when I read your comments, after which I added the mention of the reincarnation comparison before sending it. So thanks for mentioning that.

Interesting exchange. Peaceful so far.

 

Language is powerful, and written language misses so much. I fear that he may either point out inconsistencies, pick at your language (like he did with the "scumbags" word), or take offense where none was intended. Here is one comment:

 

 

I will admit that I have no intention of reading the books you left for me. After all, they really aren't designed to address the issues that led me to my conclusions, and at this point they hold very little interest for me. If you really insist that I read them, though, then you need to also agree to read books of my choosing. Fair is fair, right? I really don't think that's necessary at this point, though.

 

It's too late to reword it, but you could have been more tangential. "As difficult as it is to read material that one believes to be in error, I would like to ask if you would be willing to read books that I have found to be influential and powerful."

 

I see this kind of exchange as a delicate dance, and with the above quote I get the feeling you stepped on his toes. It comes across as though you are refusing to consider what he feels is important. "There is no one so blind as he who will not see." I'm not saying that you aren't willling to see, or that he will necessarily see it that way, but abrasive language, even unintentionally, can lead to increasing animosity.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I will admit that I have no intention of reading the books you left for me. After all, they really aren't designed to address the issues that led me to my conclusions, and at this point they hold very little interest for me. If you really insist that I read them, though, then you need to also agree to read books of my choosing. Fair is fair, right? I really don't think that's necessary at this point, though.

 

It's too late to reword it, but you could have been more tangential. "As difficult as it is to read material that one believes to be in error, I would like to ask if you would be willing to read books that I have found to be influential and powerful."

 

I see this kind of exchange as a delicate dance, and with the above quote I get the feeling you stepped on his toes. It comes across as though you are refusing to consider what he feels is important. "There is no one so blind as he who will not see." I'm not saying that you aren't willling to see, or that he will necessarily see it that way, but abrasive language, even unintentionally, can lead to increasing animosity.

 

Thanks for your perspective. Perhaps I should have worded it differently.

 

That being said, of course, this is not at all about me not being willing to consider his position. There are other factors involved. First, I've spent most of my life reading christian propaganda, so I don't feel the urge to continue doing so. I was a christian for most of my life, so it's not like I haven't considered it. Second, I really don't have the time to read three whole books, especially when I'm really not interested in them. Third, if the books don't address my concerns (which appears to be the case), then what's the point? Fourth, if I am expected to read books representing his perspective, why shouldn't he also read books representing my perspective? He has more time than I do anyway (he's semi-retired and only working part time, while I'm working overtime and have a family), and I already have other stuff in mind to read (some textbooks for brushing up on some work-related stuff, as well as "The God Delusion").

 

Also, while perhaps you're right that the quoted paragraph could be interpreted as abrasive, it's nowhere near as abrasive as his first note to me was. He made clarifications in his last letter, of course, and maybe I will need to make clarifications in the future as well.

 

Edit: And if it is stepping on his toes, I consider his expecting me to read three whole books on his perspective when I never brought the issue up to begin with to be stepping on my toes.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Citsonga, I think your reply was good.

 

Thanks.

 

As things continue, if they do, pay attention to the level of your own defensiveness. It's completely natural and understandable, but it can trick you into escalating the discussion when that's not really what you want.

 

I agree, and I definitely want to keep it all civil. As long as the discussion is in writing, it shouldn't be much of a problem. If a negative tone is perceived in my writings, it's most likely not intentional. I can't exactly say the same for verbal conversations if I'm put on the spot, in which case I may be more prone to become defensive and negative sounding, so I hope that any further discussion continues to be in writing so that I can think my comments through and reread what I have to say before sending it.

 

You don't have to fight back. You can just gently decline, avoid and change the subject.

 

That's sort of my reasoning behind not really getting into my biblical reasons for rejecting the faith. I left it up to him to ask if he wants, otherwise I'm not going to make an issue of it. I have a very lengthy letter I wrote about five years ago to a friend that details a bunch of things in the bible that made me realize that it's not god's word. If my father-in-law wants to know my reasoning, I can simply remove the opening and closing personal remarks and send it to him. If so, it will probably be quite a hit for him to take, which is why I didn't go ahead and do it already.

 

Suppose he clings to the belief, to the end of his days, that you are the closed-minded one and he's not. It won't change anything about you, the way you live or the (open-minded) way you think.

 

He didn't actually call me "closed-minded," I simply tried to avoid that stigma by asking him not to assume that I'm being closed-minded.

 

On the other hand...anything I say should be accompanied by the DISCLAIMER that I tend to avoid conflict like the plague. If it's what you need to do, HAVE AT IT! You are good at it, logical, articulate, patient and thorough.

 

I actually don't like conflict either. If I did, I probably would have made religion an issue several years ago when I first realized it's nonsense. I can deal with it in writing (and thanks for your positive comments about what I've written), but it's much more difficult for me on a personal level.

[HRDWarrior]

Ahhh, yes, the old "humans would have no morals without religion" despite the evidence to the contrary argument. My boss (a liberal Catholic) and I have debated that one back and forth numerous times. This last time (just a couple days ago in fact) we determined that it would be nearly impossible to empirically determine if it was fear of consequences (from religion) or personal motivation that actually did drive people to good deeds, and to what extent religion was a positive or negative influence overall. At least my boss can agree to disagree on a topic, she enjoys debating things when people have a decent argument for their side, so it's helped me to improve my debate skills a bit (since I personally hate debates). Obviously there is evidence to both sides of the debate, so I think it would be impossible to prove that one way or the other - but it's a favorite for religious people to fall back on when their other arguments fail.

[Shyone]

Also, while perhaps you're right that the quoted paragraph could be interpreted as abrasive, it's nowhere near as abrasive as his first note to me was. He made clarifications in his last letter, of course, and maybe I will need to make clarifications in the future as well.

 

Edit: And if it is stepping on his toes, I consider his expecting me to read three whole books on his perspective when I never brought the issue up to begin with to be stepping on my toes.

It will be interesting to see what he thinks of your offer. And if he doesn't take offense, then I'm being way to sensitive.

 

I hope the conversation remains cordial. His remark about your daughters was kind of weird - IMO.

[★ Citsonga ★]

His remark about your daughters was kind of weird - IMO.

 

I don't think it's weird. Definitely misguided, but not weird. My daughters are his granddaughters, so of course he wants what's best for them. If he perceives the christian faith to be what's best for them and the rejection of the faith to lead to hell, then it serves to reason that he would want their father to lead them toward faith instead of away from it. And, of course, as they get older and we converse more, they will understand that I don't believe the christian to be true and that I have logical reasons for my perspective.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Ahhh, yes, the old "humans would have no morals without religion" despite the evidence to the contrary argument.

 

From the way he worded his last letter, I don't think he's making the argument that those without religion have no morals, but just that their morals are somewhat lacking. What he pointed to as the moral weakness, though, was not having answers for the afterlife, which to me isn't a moral issue at all.

 

My boss (a liberal Catholic) and I have debated that one back and forth numerous times. This last time (just a couple days ago in fact) we determined that it would be nearly impossible to empirically determine if it was fear of consequences (from religion) or personal motivation that actually did drive people to good deeds, and to what extent religion was a positive or negative influence overall.

 

I think it varies from individual to individual. Some naturally lean toward the compassionate side, while others may need religion to motivate them. From my perspective, needing religion for a motivator is a weaker morality than being good just for the sake of being good, but it's still better than being a bad person. Unfortunately, though, some otherwise decent people have been driven to do bad things because of their religious beliefs, so the religious effect can swing either way.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I wasn't going to send another email to my Father-in-law unless I got a reply from him, but after cracking open one of the books and reading a little bit I felt prompted to comment. So, I just sent him this email:

 

Greetings! I hope this email finds you doing well.

 

I would like to apologize for forgetting my manners and not thanking you for your gift of the book "The Language Of God." I also hope that you weren't offended by my last email. My intent was to be honest and open, not to attack. Likewise, I feel the need to send one more email regarding a couple things, but it is also with the intent of being honest and open, not an attack.

 

I was going to return the other two books the other day, but at the last minute decided to take another look at "Finding God In The Questions." Even though my first look at the table of contents and skimming through random pages made it clear enough that the book would not really address the issues that led to my loss of faith, I decided that it wouldn't hurt to take another look at the book. So I flipped it open toward the beginning, planning to start reading at the first chapter.

 

I landed on the "Acknowledgments" page and was stricken by the very first sentence. It says, "Belief is ultimately a matter of individual choice, but exploring questions of faith is best done in community." I noticed that you had highlighted the sentence, but what really struck me is that the statement is false. For the record, I have never chosen my beliefs. My beliefs have always been simply what I perceived to be true at the time, not some entrée selection on a menu or a guess on some multiple choice test.

 

Allow me to elaborate. For most of my life thus far, I have believed the Christian worldview. However, I did not choose to believe Christianity, I was indoctrinated with it. Before I was old enough to evaluate claims, I was told over and over and over again that Christianity was true, that the God of the Bible had created the world, that the Bible was God's revealed Word to man, that we are sinners worthy of hell, that Jesus came and died for our sins and rose again to save us from hell and give us the promise of eternal life in Heaven. As a youngster I was in church three times a week and all the people close to me either professed belief in Christianity or avoided the topic, and everything was always interpreted for me in ways that propped up the Christian worldview. In other words, I pretty much had no choice but to believe.

 

As I grew older and studied the Bible and listened open-mindedly to various Christian perspectives, my theological views changed some, but I still retained the strong Bible belief that had been seriously ingrained in my mind. I continued studying the Bible, memorizing huge portions of it (at last count I was near 900 verses memorized), including the entire books of Ephesians, James and 1 John, the entire Sermon On The Mount (Matthew's version), a few other chapters and a bunch of other select verses. I also read apologetics resources and listened to radio broadcasts such as "The Bible Answer Man," latching onto the parts that seemed reasonable at the time, firmly believing that Bible belief was rational. And, of course, I prayed and sought God's face continually.

 

Clearly, I had a rock-solid foundation of belief in Christianity, so much so that when things didn't seem to add up quite right, I chalked it up to my lack of understanding. After all, "more knowledgeable" Christians had worked all this stuff out, right? And we're told to "lean not on your own understanding" (Proverbs 3:5), right? And billions of believers couldn't be wrong, could they?

 

Yet, after years of seeking to strengthen my faith, to "grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18), and to "be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15), my in depth Bible studies led me to start questioning. Knowing that I was a reasonable and (at least otherwise) fairly intelligent person, and knowing that I had been sincerely seeking God's face for many years, I started to realize that there was no reason why I shouldn't be able to make sense of simple narrative discrepancies between the Gospels. I saw that there are serious holes in the Bible that cannot be chalked up to simply my misunderstanding.

 

The more I studied, the bigger the problems became, going further than just the simple contradictions in the Bible. The first clincher for me was seeing how the Gospel writers took Old Testament texts completely out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments. If they had a true story worth believing, then why would they need to resort to such underhanded tactics? The more rationally I looked at the Bible, the more I could see that it was basically just a compilation of the works of a bunch of religious nomads with agendas.

 

After having followed apologetics quite a bit over the years, I began to see how seriously flawed a lot of their arguments are. Having seen the serious flaws, it is pretty much impossible for me to ever believe the apologists' arguments again. As such, reading more of the same kind of stuff that I followed for years and years would be quite pointless.

 

For clarification, I have not chosen to abandon the faith. I simply cannot believe that which the weight of evidence indicates is not true. I am now convinced that when I "felt" God's presence as a believer, it was all conjured up in my mind. I was misled, plain and simple. I have not chosen to believe that, it seems abundantly obvious to me now. I have not chosen to reject Christianity, I simply have no choice in the matter.

 

So, when I read Timothy Johnson's absurd claim that we choose our beliefs, it tells me that he has not thought this stuff through as thoroughly as he wants his readers to think he has (in which case he should not be writing a book about it), or else he is simply writing what he believes his audience wants to hear (which is dishonest). Regardless of which of those is correct, the simple fact is that before we even get to the beginning of the first chapter of his book he makes a ridiculous and demonstrably false claim. Why should I have any interest in reading any further into the book?

 

Before closing, I would like to make a comment that I should have made in my last email, regarding this portion of your last letter:

 

"It is my understanding that atheism has no moral law motivating them toward love and concern for others experiencing trouble or tragedy other than that of humanistic regard for physical and emotional needs. I do not minimize nor criticize these efforts, but such efforts come up short when individuals are facing the possibility of death and need answers to questions about what lies beyond the moment of death."

 

If I understand you correctly here, it looks like you are arguing that atheists come up short on the morality scale simply because they cannot offer the comfort of a belief in an afterlife. However, one's view of death and beyond is a beliefs issue, not a morality issue. As such, any claim that an atheist's lack of belief in an afterlife represents a moral shortcoming is a bankrupt argument.

 

In closing, allow me to say that if you really believe that I am lost and destined for hell, then you're going to have to come up with a better case than the professional apologists have. But why should you even need to provide a case? Why wouldn't an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God have made himself personally clear to me when I was seeking his face and struggling with my beliefs? What would be the point in him expecting an honest and seeking person to rely on the hearsay of mortal humans?

 

Anyway, I apologize if this seems like I'm stepping on your toes. Remember, I didn't bring the issue up to begin with, you did. I don't want to try to tear down your faith, I simply feel the need to respond in order for you to have a better assessment of where I'm coming from, as opposed to inaccurate assumptions.

 

Again, I hope all is well with you. I'll be returning the two books you loaned me shortly.

 

Take care,

[Seeking]

That's a very well-written e-mail. I completely agree that one doesn't choose to disbelieve, it just becomes unavoidable.

[Franko47]

Good writing there, man. Yeah, I really hate it when I get into some kind of a discussion with a Christian and then their eyes all light up, and they say, "You know, I have this book I want you to read..."

 

This is where I kind of put my hand up and tell them that I converse with Christians and religious intellectuals all the time; in fact the study of religion is practically a "hobby" of mine. I politely decline the book, unless they want to write down the title on a note and that I "might take a look at it sometime".

 

A friend tried to get me to read this weird "Disproving Evolution" book a while back. After the first chapter I was laughing out loud; it was really absurd. It was obvious the author knew very little about biology. A lot of scripture, but not too strong on science. I almost wanted to read more, just for the entertainment value.

 

Almost.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Thanks for the encouraging words.

 

I just hope my father-in-law was able to take it in a positive light. We've had a good relationship so far, and I've always felt more comfortable around him than around my own father, so I hope this doesn't make things too awkward.

 

Frank, are you referring to the book "Refuting Evolution"? When it first came out, Answers In Genesis offered bulk packs of it for a comparably low price, and I bought a pack of them and gave them out. Most of them were given to fellow christians and a church library or two, but I did send one (and another creationist book) to a friend's atheist brother. That was the subject matter of this other thread (which you may recall).

 

So, yup, I've also given books out before, thinking that they'd help someone believe. Now I'm embarrassed about having done that, but at least I didn't do it a lot.

[relentless]

I have a very lengthy letter I wrote about five years ago to a friend that details a bunch of things in the bible that made me realize that it's not god's word.

 

I know I'm a little late here, but if you happen to come across this thread at any time at all in the future, let it be known that I'd love to see said letter, if you wouldn't mind forwarding it to me.

[★ Citsonga ★]

I have a very lengthy letter I wrote about five years ago to a friend that details a bunch of things in the bible that made me realize that it's not god's word.

 

I know I'm a little late here, but if you happen to come across this thread at any time at all in the future, let it be known that I'd love to see said letter, if you wouldn't mind forwarding it to me.

 

Wow, I'm surprised to see this thread resurrected. Somewhat ironically, I've recently been thinking about adding to the content of that letter and using it as the basis for a "coming out" letter to my parents. I was even considering then contacting a moderator here to see if I could post it (due to the length I wouldn't want to use up bandwidth without permission). If you'd like to see it in its original form, feel free to PM me an email address to send it to.

 

Anyway, regarding the subject of this thread, the issue of religion has not come up again between my father-in-law and myself. I guess he realized that he couldn't respond to my objections, which is kind of sad for an ordained minister who's been a believer for longer than I've been alive. He's a great guy, though, and in some ways I have more of an appreciation for him than for my own father.

[rocksandstuff]

"Anyway, regarding the subject of this thread, the issue of religion has not come up again between my father-in-law and myself. I guess he realized that he couldn't respond to my objections, which is kind of sad for an ordained minister who's been a believer for longer than I've been alive. He's a great guy, though, and in some ways I have more of an appreciation for him than for my own father."

 

Obviously from an outsiders perspective, maybe it just seems too much to get into? Maybe the "heady" stuff he originally disparaged is something he would rather not be involved with? It would be frustrating I would think, on one hand making peace and moving on seems good, but after receiving an email like you did, I would want more of a resolution than no response, especially with the amount of time you clearly put into your response.