Yep, maybe Darrin is thinking that I’m hellbound (though that would be a grotesque caricature of his views, based on our conversations). Maybe he’s at least concerned about that. Maybe I’m concerned that he should be more skeptical about his beliefs. No matter what the rhetoric and deep concerns, though, actions speak the loudest. Show, don’t tell. In Darrin’s church I see a vibrant community of people who are considerably concerned about more than just themselves, and that inspires me.

I’m curious about something, though. How do you feel about the fact that someone like Darrin may believe that nonbelievers are “all going to hell” whether or not they make a point to say it? And if a Christian friend believes that, but doesn’t even bother to tell you, is he a true friend? If I believe you are in grave danger and point you to the only means of escape, I’m not vilifying you, I’m expressing my deep and genuine concern for you.

I think it would be extremely healthy if every church had both a pastor and a skeptic in residence. Looking at the life of Jesus as recorded in the Bible you see modeled a deep respect, courtesy, and love for people who were very different from him. Actually he seems to love them far more than the “religious” people of the day. Even the originally highly bigoted Saul respected diversity of thought, as exhibited by his sermon on the Areopagus, after his experience with the Gospel message. When we shun, ridicule, or persecute the skeptic it’s hard to not conclude that we pretty much missed the whole point of the life that Jesus lived (as presented in the Bible, of course).

I’m glad to see that not all skeptics feel the need to polarize themselves. I must beg to differ with Ben on how Dawkins and Hitchens can be perceived (I reference them simply because they represent the limit of my experience with the new, more vocal Atheist thinkers), regardless of what their original intent was. I tried to listen to the audiobook of “The God Delusion” which was read largely by Dawkins himself, but his tone came off as condescending and self-satisfied to the point that I could not finish. This was very disappointing because it was not necessary to be denigrating to anyone - he seems to have special disdain for many in the United States - to prove his point. Hitchens, as I have seen him on Bill Maher’s show, also seems more intent on exercising his biting wit than actually convincing anyone of anything. I got the strong impression that he considers most people far too stupid to even be worth convincing of anything. It saddens me that these thinkers feel compelled to borrow from the same play book as the religious right to condemn us (albeit of stupidity or psychosis rather than sin) when we disagree with the “inarguable obviousness” of their position.

We can wrestle with our differences while we work together to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the lost, comfort the heartbroken, and improve a world I think we can all agree could use our concerted attention. Disagreements lose much of their force when you both are sore and exhausted from shared labor.

I can assure you as well that no promise of atheist-on-the-verge-of-conversion was made! Your presence was extremely valuable to our church, and I hope that other churches and “skeptics” alike are willing to take a similar step.

Thanks again. Your conversation, thoughts and posts are all much appreciated.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.