All Comments (880)

Thank you for your book The Age of American Unreason. I read Hofstadters book while I was waiting 6 weeks for yours. His was wonderful and yours was well worth the wait. I have just requested your Freethinkers. I will wait once more. I can not afford to buy every book I want
but yours are high on my list. I look forward to your next book with patience. Thanks again.

Dear Ms. Jacoby
I am curious as to why you selected the King James Bible as a "chosen" book in "The Week". What particular passages do you find the most exceptional as examples of "the glories of the English language"? As an English major and a Christian, i am sure we would have differences regarding our beliefs on God. However, I underlined, and shared with my high school class your astonishing perceptions in the article, "The Dumbing of America" featured in "The Week". I look forward to reading your work further.
Margaret Drace Stockton CA

I have been reading Ms. Jacoby's book *The Age of American Unreason* and have found it to be fascinating, challenging, and haunting. I'll admit it's nice to read something that makes my brain cells actually activate. It raises questions about the state of affairs of our nation and unabashedly points out the gaping holes in the actions of those who claim progress in the name of Christianity. (There is more here and in the book than the debate about belief or spiritual camp.)

If the statement is true that only an unbeliever would look at society as a whole and ask uncomfortable and important questions which may contradict popular ideas, then it is truly an indictment of anyone who claims Belief and can put two words together. While fringe atheists may believe there are no intelligent followers of a Known Deity, it is because the main voice today comes from a group who dismisses abject opinion. How I wish this wasn't the case, but I fear it is.

Can Christians, in particular, get over themselves and look "reason" or differing opinion in the eye and address it? Will they give themselves the chance to be open in the face of having what they believe fully challenged? My lament starts here, because I don't see it anywhere.

I am encouraged, though, by a few of the comments posted here. I believe there is more common ground than either "side" would be willing to admit. One does not have to deny science in order to consider there may be more than current attempts of quantification, and one does not have to deny God in order to pursue intellectual discourse or appreciate the studies of those who may not line up with us on Eternal Belief.

In response to there being venom spit back and forth (EMM) on this topic, the truth is that people use guerilla tactics (poorly, I might add) when they're unsure of their own opinions or deeply-held beliefs. It doesn't offend me if someone thinks I am crazy for believing in God. I happen to be reasonable.

What is there about believing in God that prohibits Ms Jacoby from doing so He was human and suffered just as we do. Although you believe in the Bible, do you just pick and choose your beliefs that suit you. I do try to live up to his teachings , although I fail at times Even scientists believe there is a greater being that made this earth.

What is there about believing in God that prohibits Ms Jacoby from doing so He was human and suffered just as we do. Although you believe in the Bible, do you just pick and choose your beliefs that suit you. I do try to live up to his teachings , although I fail at times Even scientists believe there is a greater being that made this earth.

What is there about believing in God that prohibits Ms Jacoby from doing so He was human and suffered just as we do. Although you believe in the Bible, do you just pick and choose your beliefs that suit you. I do try to live up to his teachings , although I fail at times Even scientists believe there is a greater being that made this earth. Just a few thougts

By introducing God into the mix when making tough political decisions like going to war, should things not work out just as you may have wanted: Well it wasn't my fault - I guess God had other plans. In other words the presence and influence of religion absolves the state from having to take responsibility.

Susan Jacobs is a breath of fresh air. The current candidates are an embarrassment to believers and scularists alike. Obama is an exception. They know very little about Americal History and their religiosity is childlike.

Susan Jacobs is a breath of fresh air. The current candidates are an embarrassment to believers and scularists alike. Obama is an exception. They know very little about Americal History and their religiosity is childlike.

Susan Jacobs is a breath of fresh air. The current candidates are an embarrassment to believers and scularists alike. Obama is an exception. They know very little about Americal History and their religiosity is childlike.

Excellent. Relgious people everythere think of themselves as always right, and Christian fanatics here in the U.S. do not sound (and think) much different from say Muslim fanatics overseas...

odontotormae ichthyosauroid creditor orson wadset prosopalgic bretwalda absinthine
Lambda Chi Alpha - University of Michigan - Sigma Zeta Chapter
http://www.kandk-property-maintenance.co.uk

odontotormae ichthyosauroid creditor orson wadset prosopalgic bretwalda absinthine
I Know Mike Neumann
http://www.communitycentralbank.com/

Susan Jacoby I am a free thinker and I think you are ugly. I too believe there is no god and islam should be destroyed in the name public decency. The human race is doomed

The biggest problem facing the atheist community is the fact that one does not exist. Yes, possibly atheists tend to gravitate to each other more just like people of other religions, but there is no place of meeting like a temple, church, or masque. There is no asigned time or place where only atheists meet together to talk, socialize, and form contacts. It seems to me that it would be impossible or at least highly improbable that a place could exsist whre atheist would meet on a regular basis and discuss atheist topics because it would turn into a 'religion.' Also because atheism represents independence, and there are no set of beliefs like other religions that we all share other than there is no god.

Susan,

I am a great fan of and always enjoy the clarity of your writing.

Would you mind sharing your thoughts on why you take the atheist position, that there is no god, as opposed to the agnostic position, that you just don't know?

m715k

Athiests are part of the "enlightenment rationalist" movement? Good marketing.

I used to believe there was no God. Looking back at those years, I was far from enlightened and made what I thought were rational decisions, but were far from it.

I feel very sad for those missing out on the love God has for them. Not a piteous sadness, but a genuine sadness, because I missed many years due to my own pride. I thought that God would take something from me - the irony was that the whole time he was trying to give something to me.

I think Christians need to come up with some cool terms like enlightened, or rational to keep up with the times - religion, faith-based, moral-majority, etc. carry so many negative connotations... where are our Christian marketers (besides me) :)

There is no evidence that atheists are less moral than religious people. Some of the most religious countries in the world are also the most violent. Columbia, USA, South Africa, Brazil etc.
On the other hand, most countries with a majority of non-believers have a very low crime rate. Examples are Sweden, Norway, Japan, Switzerland etc. I don't actually think atheists are more moral than theists, this probably has to do with the general standard of living and the level of education in a country. we are born with moral feelings. I myself have always felt bad about seeing people being hurt. Especially my loved ones. Good and bad, love and hate comes from within ourselves. You cant teach people to feel. This goes for other social animals as well. That's why your dog doesn't try to kill you. If you're good to him, he loves you

Still there are countless mass murderes who claim that God told them to do what they did. I actually find that religious people can be quite scary sometimes. One reason other than the fact that they are hearing voices in their heads, is the fact that they dont actually understand that when they kill someone or themselves, that is actually it. They terminate a conscious being forever. A hideous crime! Suicide bombers for instance does not actually understand that they are killing themselves and others but think that they are just going through a portal to another existence. what's the difference between that and the Heavens Gate Cult?

A lot of you americans obviously think atheist politicians are some kind of monsters. Well In Europe most of our leaders for the last 50 years have been atheist. It is actually not an issue for the voters
When you consider who should be the next president of America, consider this; who would you like to be in control of the button to the nuclear holocaust. An atheist or a religious person who thinks he'll hook up again with his familiy and friends in the afterlife? I myself would be terrified if a born again christian like George Bush had been president during the cold war.

bhiafnwr bieh ordsj moxj ldhsfowum keomnyq zjyguf http://www.qinoxdlsp.tmjpzoue.com

jfvboxcwq bktno gtouvzxip cvfabwr jsgcurvb julmcts ctbqs

i am a christian . One of "The Superiors Friends",and i believe that some other christians may be very judgemental i have no problems with other people or thier religion i even have a atheist friend its not that i dont like her its that i dont like her religion hahahahaha

See i am an atheist. My friends are really against my "religion". Although i try to tell them that it is not a religion but just a way to be free and not worship non existent "lords". People that are non atheist seem to blame every thing on not bieng holy. When something happens to them that benefit them they seem to thank the lord. When it is all them and their faith that they can do it. I think that we need to learn that therte are alot of people that are atheist and need to respect their wishes just as we let hospitals be run because " of religous porpuses". Everything is done by the humans. Every one should respect our wishes instead of calling the atheist "devils" when i hardly believe in the DEVIL.

Sorry I missed this. Reply by BRAD
on Dec 28th:
>>Atheism is a belief system like any other<<

Um, no its not. By DEFINITON it means one who LACKS belief in god. The individual's belief system (what one postively believes) can take a million forms

Whatever floats your boat.

However, I think the best penance for a bad habit of snarky non-sequiturs would be to try offering a thoughtful, relevant response.

But won't the Church let me atone for my sins with self-flagellation... like Opus Dei?

Maybe I can whip myself into shape like a good Catholic. Those spiked cilices the Opus Dei priests use to flog themselves look cool.

Depends on whether it's vincible or invincible ignorance.

If it results, for example, from some kind of mental illness (a distinct possibility), then it may well be beyond your capacity to do anything about, and therefore not something for which you can be held accountable.

Or if your psyche has been so damaged by fundamentalism that you can't even conceive of more rational expressions of the Christian faith, then perhaps in that case too you aren't really responsible.

If, on the other hand, ignorance persists simply because you scrunch your eyes closed, jam fingers in your ears and scream No! No! No!, then that probably would be a different matter.

"To the contrary, you've demonstrated a quite comprehensive ignorance of the Gospel and the Christian faith."

Oh, nice! So I do get to go to heaven!

Rob

"I can't even claim ignorance since I know the Gospel of Christ very well."

To the contrary, you've demonstrated a quite comprehensive ignorance of the Gospel and the Christian faith.

"...all of the most prominent scientific and philosophical minds of history will be there with me"

Don't flatter yourself.

Have fun.

Rob, LOL!

Anonymous,

Darn. I thought I might get to go to heaven. According to Paragraph 847, that doesn't seem to be the case. I reject God willfully and wholeheartedly and, well... I make no attempt to do "his will." I can't even claim ignorance since I know the Gospel of Christ very well.

Does the Vatican have a link that describes hell? I want to be prepared for what's in store for me. Mmm, some sunblock and Bengay I guess would be a good start.

The only consolation I guess is that all of my most respected friends and all of the most prominent scientific and philosophical minds of history will be there with me. Well, at least we'll have some good conversations.

You know... even with all the cherubs and harp music playing, you might get tired of talking to trailor-park hillbillies and jihadis there in heaven. Bring a good book. Might I suggest something by Dawkins. :-)

Rob

Rob,

I will give some thought to how I can express myself more clearly.

For now I just have time to address one very straightforward point below:

You say, "I think the Pope would strongly disagree with your prior assertions that one doesn't have to believe in Jesus or accept him as one's personal saviour and can remain a Muslim as long as they have 'love,'" etc.

Below are a couple of excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (an official summary of the faith, published by the Vatican). You can Google to find the full text in numerous places, but I provide a direct link to the Vatican web site in hopes you'll regard that as an unimpeachable source for this information.

Paragraph 841: The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Paragraph 847: ...Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Catechism section cited:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#III

Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

Anonymous,

I have become exasperated with you not because I am a raving lunatic, but because you won't stop the "You don't know what I really believe, and it doesn't matter because God is Love, muah" routine.

People are putting words in your mouth (as you say) because all you will tell them is that you are maybe Catholic and maybe/sorta/kinda subscribe to the Nicene Creed which anyone can define anyway they like, according to you...

Here's a way to move toward a constructive direction. Drop the smokescreen and tell us what you really believe.

My guess is that you refuse to do that because you know it will only welcome more ridicule... ultimately, because you know your true beliefs are ridiculous.

Furthermore, I think the Pope would strongly disagree with your prior assertions that one doesn't have to believe in Jesus or accept him as one's personal saviour and can remain a Muslim as long as they have "love," etc. But I think you know that... and I think you actually agree with the Pope's recent statements on Islam, irreligion, etc. I think you really believe that everyone else goes to hell. You just don't want to say so because that would contravene your "God Is Love" doctrine and invite more open ridicule and questions for yourself.

In essence, you are afraid to defend your true Catholicism because you know you will come up short.

Why not face the music and deal with the fact that your beliefs *may be* quite ridiculous, if I assume that you are a practicing Roman Catholic? And then how will you reconcile them with reason and science?

So unless you are ready to put all your cards on the table and outline your belief system and faith and how it agrees with/disagrees with mainstream Roman Catholicism, you are being very disingenous, and it is glaringly apparent.

Rob

Why is it that atheism only works if you get to tell other people what they think, regardless of what they actually think?

Proud, I don't know a single "religious" person who would disagree with you. Why is it so important to you to assume they do?

Oh boy, more name-calling and hate talk from the Christian community...so typical and tiresome.

"Faith" is not a value, it is unquestioning belief and a mental illness. IF YOU CANNOT BE A DECENT PERSON WITHOUT FEAR OF/INSTRUCTION FROM A "GOD" THEN YOU ARE A BAD PERSON. Simple as that. All religious folks know this is true in their hearts and that is why they are defensive. They just can't play well with others without being directed to do so.

"When Christians can tell me why they don't believe that Allah, Buddha, Confucius, et al are not the One True God, then they will know why I don't believe in theirs".

Listen to Michael, dear Robert, and recall your debate with John: Are you more likely to convert us pitiable rubes through the honey of calm reason, or the vinegar of your fevered psychosis?

Rob,

Hope your fanning the fire on purpose cause you gotta know he's flamin' ya dude.

Save your energy and thoughts for someone who might benefit from them.

As you've pointed out on numerous occasions in this discussion/argument - some people just don't get it (or don't want to) and never will.

signed,

a godless american chuckling it up in the great northwest,

-

Goodness, are you still at it, Anonymous.

Two words:

Purple Unicorn

Rob

Not a well-informed opinion, Amazing, but I'm sure you take enormous comfort in it.

My assessment is that once you can get people to believe in virgin birth and resurrection of the dead you can get them to believe in anything. Faith based reasoning leads to any direction the priest, preacher, guru, Imam, etc. wants to take it.

Is it your honest assessment that in this discussion you have presented compelling EVIDENCE that atheists engage in RATIONAL argument, reach RATIONAL conclusions and conduct themselves in a RATIONAL way?

If so, please hang up and dial your special friends at 9-1-1.

Wait, I forgot — you're an authority because you read the bible once.

You persist in painting me as a fundamentalist despite ample EVIDENCE to the contrary.

That's pretty clear and convincing EVIDENCE that the idea of a reasonable faith terrifies you.

LOL!

Sure, let's call 911 and have them talk to both of us.

I'll explain my beliefs and point out the evidence that supports them.

You can tell them that you hear Jesus talking to you and he tells you not to masturbate or you'll go to hell... and then explain to them that the world is only 8,000 years old and you believe that dinosaurs walked around with humans.

You can also tell them about angels and demons and pergutory.

They will definitely lock one of us up...

My advice to you: pack a straight-jacket, alter boy.

Rob

Please call 9-1-1 right away. They are special friends who will take you to a very nice place where you cannot hurt yourself or others. Please go with your special friends nicely, nice and calm. They really like you and want to help.

Going back to the original topic...Anybody who wonders why Americans would never trust an atheist in public office, see Exhibit A, above.

Do you have a rational basis for believing that all this incoherent lunatic ranting is going to accomplish something?

Anonymous,

Now we get to the kernel of truth behind all of your platitudes:

"To be perfectly honest you come across as a raving zealot with a few screws loose."

So anyone who points out the obvious flaws in your belief system is now a raving zealot? Rather than take my statements as an offense against your God, you should take this debate to heart and examine how those flaws in your belief system have been allowed to exist for so long.

Farther down, you wrote:

"You guard your own private fairy tales pretty ferociously, don't you?"

There are no fairy tales to guard. As a person of faith, you may find this hard to believe, but some of us genuinely do not have fanciful notions of "god" or an "afterlife." There is no deception going on here. Strange as it may seem, some of us genuinely don't need a priest to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

To the non-Catholic Anonymous above,

You are right to point out that statement by the Catholic Anonymous. It is essentially why this person exasperates me to no end. Her/his ultimate justification for her/his beliefs is "I was raise a Catholic and it makes me feel good."

This is doubly exasperating when one considers that this is the exact rationale (or lack thereof) of every terrorist blowing up buildings. "It feels so right! I know this is what God wants. I can't explain it or justify it with evidence... but goodness, I just *know* it's right because it feels that way!"

Complete balderdash... sad really. It would be funny, too... if the results weren't so often so very tragic.

Rob

Rob,

With all respect, if I had to judge from the only evidence available to me, I never would have guessed you are the rational person you claim to be. To be perfectly honest you come across as a raving zealot with a few screws loose.

I am a stranger you will never meet and who will never ask one thing of you. I put a lot of effort into responding to questions you put to me. A rational, humane person would have replied along the lines of, "Thanks, we agree to disagree." Instead you let loose with not one but two insane tirades that hardly suggest confidence in your own position. You guard your own private fairy tales pretty ferociously, don't you? They must be very fragile.

> I "prefer" it because the alternative (which I'm happy to concede is more probable from a purely materialist standpoint) leaves me stone cold.

What a let down. I was foolish for hoping for a rational argument in favor of faith from an anonymous coward. The above was the outcome promised by Chester near the start of this long (829+) thread.

> It's really quite funny to see educated theists eventually say "well, I like god because he makes me feel good."

Game. Set. Match.

Anonymous,

You really are intent on convincing anyone who listens to you that you hold absolutely no beliefs that are controversial in the least, aren't you?

"God IS Love" and that's all there is to it... everyone goes to heaven if they find God in their own way, whether Christian or not, whether church-going or not. Anonymous doesn't claim to know whether anyone should believe in God or not and won't comment on or commit to anything in the bible. In fact, according to Anonymous, if anyone has "love," then they have God.

Your non-offensive, "love is the answer" approach to justifying your hideous religion may serve as a smokescreen from people penetrating to your core religiosity, but it's utterly transparent to a discriminating observer.

You wrote:

"I could not have made it clearer that science and reason are essential to and inseparable from my faith."

Actually, science and reason contravene your barbaric Catholic faith on almost all levels. Accept that and deal with it and then choose between "science and reason" or your Catholic beliefs.

The story of creation = a fairy tale. The story of the flood = a fairy tale. Jesus coming back from the grave = a fairy tale. Man being created as a unique image of God (as opposed to evolving from lower species) = a fairy tale.

Why don't you stop with the "God is Love, la la la" malarky. It's transparent and disingenuous. Just accept that you, as a Catholic, have beliefs that don't mesh well with modern science. Then we can talk.

You mentioned the Nicene Creed in your last post. I have an alternative for you. Why not the Berenstain Bears Creed? Papa Bear is the one true God, and the little cubs are his children and Mama Bear is the Holy Ghost, and it is unlawful to profess anything else.

This creed makes as much sense and is based upon an equal amount of evidence and fact as the Nicen Creed... namely none but the "faith" of the easily persuaded.

There is no justification for your personal faith in God and no rationale behind it, Anonymous, beside your own inability to cast off the yoke of religion you were fitted with as a child. That says a great deal about you.

"Then I think of the reality itself and my gratitude toward it, and name it Deus."

I have a better name for it: reality. And I have a better name for your "faith": balogna. Nothing more. "Deus" is a fairytale... a very elaborate one, but a fairytale nonetheless... no more believable than a Berenstains Bear pop-up book.

As for my own "private religion" as you have refered to my atheism, you reveal the main problem in the arguments of religious persons. You incorrectly believe that my atheism is a belief system in opposition to your own: two sides of the same coin.

There is no belief system involved. I look at evidence and make logical conclusions. There is no "faith" involved. There is nothing to equate; unlike religious persons like yourself, for me there is no magical, purple unicorns or other fairy tales that I have to wantonly accept.

It is ridiculous that I must even explain this.

It is almost as ridiculous as the debate on evolution. Creationists claim that there are two opposing schools of thought. There are not. There is one school of thought and one bunch of nonsense. The same is true of atheism vs. religion.

There are not two opposing belief systems. There is one school of thought and one bunch of nonsense.

Rob

Rob,

I responded to questions you put to me. I did not ask you to respect anything, and if I failed to make my responses understandable I take responsibility for that. Obviously I had no expectation whatsoever of persuading you of anything, nor was that my purpose. Again, I responded in good faith to questions YOU put to me. I could not possibly have been clearer that I make absolutely no claim whatsoever that I am "right". And you could not possibly have missed that.

You say, "You have laughably suggested that edicts from Pope Benedict are truths." Amazing! You know very well I said no such thing. YOU asserted that a majority of Christians would object to my characterization of God. Contrary to that assertion, I cited — among other things — the fact that the leader of more than half the world's Christians recently explored the same topic.

I could not have made it clearer that science and reason are essential to and inseparable from my faith. To borrow a phrase, it's terribly, terribly sad that you're so afraid to see that. Why?

I invite you to reflect on what you've told me about your own private religion and how compelling you think the Church of Rob sounds to an intelligent person who actually has bothered to think about (and cares about) why he's here. I also invite you to reflect on what proportion of your latest reply consists of patronizing, gratuitous and largely irrelevant insults, and what that might tell us.

Dear Anonymous,

The gist of your rationale for being a Christian (specifically a Catholic) is because Catholicism is what you know, what you were raised in, and what you've been taught... and you just somehow "know" it to be right.

That is nonsense, no matter how many posts you use to make it seem otherwise.

You have laughably suggested that edicts from Pope Benedict are truths... What if the Pope launches another harebrained and bloody Crusade? What if the Roman Catholic church declares all astronomers to be witches to burn at the stake (again)? What if the Pope declares that the world is flat (again)?

No matter how many ways you cut it, your religion is nonsense, and there is nothing to compel an intelligent human being to follow it other than as the sad consequence of being raised in a self-reinforcing culture:

Give people long-winded speeches, give them statues and effigies, give them a vibrant social scene... and they will affirm whatever "god" you place before them. The process that made you a Catholic is no different from that with which the Nazis made their SS or the Communists made their Kommisariat. It's very sad that you cannot see that.

The regretable thing about you, Anonymous, is that you have the weight of science and Enlightenment reasoning at your fingertips because we live in a free country with access to facts and truth... and yet you choose to be a Catholic essentially, by your own admission, because it makes you comfortable and it is all you know.

Bravo. You expected me to understand or respect your beliefs based on that?

Rob

ROB: You believe that somehow the consciousness continues and the soul ascends to heaven and will be judged by Christ and either enter the kingdom of God or descend into the lake of fire with Satan? Why do you believe that?

I don't. I "prefer" it because the alternative (which I'm happy to concede is more probable from a purely materialist standpoint) leaves me stone cold. You may be comfortable slogging along believing that "life's a *#&%@ and then you die", but I'm not. If that were certain (and no, you have not said it is certain), but if that were certain, then I'd just want to get the *"and then"* over and done with. If there's no point, pal, there's no point. And the sloggers are telling themselves SOME kind of story. This story's as good as any, has a long history, lots of company and role models living and dead, a well-developed system of knowledge, and lots of reading matter.

ROB: ...why should I trust your explanation any more than that of [other religions?]....

Beats me. I'm not a shopper and I'm extremely skeptical of those who claim to be, given that it can take a lifetime to master one religion. I am a creature of the West and the product of a Christian upbringing. It will take me at least the rest of my natural lifetime to internalize Jesus' example, much less get my head around the Prophet or the Buddha. If someone is up for seriously exploring all the world's religions, my hat's off to them.

ROB: Why are YOU right?

I am? Thank you! I haven't made any exclusive truth claims. Anybody who's got a better story—as long as they're honest and well-informed—more power to them.

[Sorry for the delay and disjointed nature of this reply. As you can see above, after numerous attempts I finally realized I quite unwittingly had triggered the profanity filter. Thanks for your interest in my foolish thoughts. This is the last chunk.]

ROB: You may find this question preposterous, but what if he never existed?

I guess we revert to Judaism. St. Peter's becomes the world's largest synagogue. A popular bumper sticker spells out "We told you so" in fake Hebrew characters. The Vatican rolls out a transition plan it has kept under wraps for centuries, insisting that all these new Jews need a pope. Fundamentalists leap from tall buildings. Big fight over circumcision — and on a much larger scale than the last time. (Shall I go on?)

Actually, this gives me another chance to talk about your Great Father, Dr. Dawkins. [It's also an example of his utter incomprehension of anything relevant to this discussion, but that would be too much of a digression.] Dawkins speculates that if somebody found "DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father...You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies." Well, duh. The amusing thing is that Dr. Dawkins just takes for granted that an historical Yeshua of Nazareth left DNA evidence around somewhere in the first place!

ROB: Or what if the translations of the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts are wrong and his story is inaccurately portrayed in your bible?

Fix them?

ROB: What if you are wrong and Muhammed was truly the last prophet and Jesus was simply his predecessor?

No can do the 5X/day.

ROB: Why does the bible...

Are you one of those obnoxious people who yell out loud in a movie theater, "Oh, that's so fake!"

ROB: What about the logical inconsistencies of the bible?

Are you one of those obnoxious people who yell out loud in a movie theater, "Hey, that wasn't there in the last shot!" What do you want me to do about these logical inconsistencies? Send a memo to Sky Daddy.

ROB: Did God create sin and evil?

God made everything that is (maybe), including human beings with the freedom to do what we want. We sin.

ROB: ...had many discussions with Christian leaders much more prominent than you...

Curious that how you know my relative prominence without any evidence of who I am. Some sort of divine revelation?

ROB: Do you blame me for asking these questions?

Blame? No, but I'm curious why you ask?

ROB: Do you believe in hell? Heaven?

Defies a brief answer, but... If consciousness is not finite, and if we are free beings, then yes, it seems reasonable to suppose that we would have a choice whether to be united with God or separated from Him.

ROB: What happens to those hunter-gatherers in the Amazon who have never even heard of Jesus after they die? Do they burn in hell? What about good Muslims who love their families and do good deeds but have never received the message of Christ? Do they burn in hell?

See response to similar question above.

ROB: I am free to doubt the veracity of the bible?

I discussed interpretation of scripture above. Keep in mind the difference between "doubt" and "reject". If you weren't free to doubt, you would not be free, and if you had no doubts, you could have no faith (because perfect knowledge and certitude leave no room for faith). On the other hand, to categorically reject the bible in its entirety would be a serious impediment to living out a Christian vocation.

ROB: I am free to doubt that Jesus was the son of God?

See above. Doubt is one thing. To categorically reject Jesus' divinity (not that there aren't plenty of self-identified Christians who do) would be a serious impediment to living out a Christian vocation, since the Incarnation is an essential doctrine explicitly stated in the Creed.

ROB: All I have to do is state that "God IS Love?"

It's a reasonable place to start, as long as you accept the consequences.

ROB: Are you telling me that your interpretation of God and Christianity are more valid than the bible itself?

I don't see a conflict.

ROB: Are you telling me that you are better able to explain Christianity and God than the great leaders of Evangelical Christianity in America?

I'm just following traditional orthodox Christianity. The individuals you cite espouse various mixtures of fundamentalism, conservative evangelicalism, and Pentecostalism. To say I think mine's "better" is tautological, since, if I thought otherwise, I'd join them.

ROB: Are you saying that I don't have to accept Jesus as my