A Conversation About Sending Missionaries

Joe:    Hey, Bob. What are your plans for vacation this summer?

Bob:  Well, my wife and I are actually going on a mission trip during our vacation time this year.

Joe:    Really? I didn’t take you to be the proselytizing type.

Bob:  Oh, I’m not. Or least I haven’t been. But recently my wife and I both decided we needed to do more to spread the gospel.

Joe:    Admirable. Of course, you know I’m an agnostic, so I would never do such a thing. But I can understand why a believer such as yourself would want to go. Where are you going?

Bob:  A remote tribe in South America. It’s my understanding that the gospel has never been presented to the tribe before.

Joe:    Wow! That remote, huh? I’d be scared out of my mind. But since you believe they are lost and going to hell without Jesus, I understand why you’d want to go. And speaking of that, I’ve always had a problem with a God that would condemn people for not believing in someone they don’t even know existed. Seems unfair to me.

Bob:  I never said they were going to hell. There are some verses in the Bible that indicate that God may judge people who have never heard the gospel using a different standard than those who have heard.

Joe:    Really? I’ve always understood the Bible to say that the only way to heaven is through faith in Jesus.

Bob:  Yes, that is true, but there is some indication that God will have mercy on those who have never had a chance to hear about Jesus. God really is merciful. I don’t believe he’d condemn people for not believing something they don’t even know about.

Joe:    Well, I guess that’s good to know, assuming that the Bible is true. But now I have to ask: Why are you going?

Bob:  How do you mean?

Joe:    I mean, why are you going to preach the gospel to a group of people who are already saved?

Bob:  Who said they are saved?

Joe:    I thought you just did. You said they would be judged according to a different standard than those who have heard the gospel. I thought that meant they were saved.

Bob:  No, salvation only comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

Joe:    So, that tribe is not going to heaven?

Bob:  I didn’t say that either. I believe they will go to heaven rather than hell, but only by the grace and mercy of God, not because they are saved. Their rewards in heaven will not be as great as a believer who is saved.

Joe:    Okay, I’m a bit confused. Isn’t the most important thing to go to heaven rather than hell, not that you get there through salvation in Christ? And isn’t heaven with few rewards much better than hell?

Bob:  Yes, that’s true, but the good news of Christ is not just about the afterlife, it’s also for this life. Knowing Jesus will make this life better as well.

Joe:    I would argue that that’s not always true, but let’s put that aside. I have a question. What happens to the tribespeople that hears about Jesus and then reject the message?

Bob:  Well, according to the Bible, they will be lost.

Joe:    And bound for hell?

Bob:  Yes.

Joe:    So why are you going?

Bob:  I answered that already.

Joe:    Not exactly. Let’s lay out what you have said so far. The tribespeople are all going to heaven. Their life here on Earth may not be as good as it could be, and they may not be rewarded as well in heaven, but at least they aren’t going to hell. To me, that seems to be a positive. Now, you plan to preach the good news of Jesus to them. What are the possible outcomes? Some will believe, which may lead to a better life here on Earth and more rewards in heaven. But those who reject the message will now be on a path to hell whereas before hearing the message they were on a path to heaven. Overall, it seems like your preaching has no upside, only a downside.

Bob:  I haven’t really thought about it that way.

Joe:    Well, maybe you should. So, now, why are you going?

Bob:  I guess my answer has to be that Jesus commanded us to preach the gospel to all tribes and nations.

Joe:    I know enough about the Bible to know that is true. But why would he ask people to do that if everyone who hasn’t heard the gospel is going to heaven anyway? Wouldn’t the only valid reason for preaching be that people are lost and bound for hell?

Bob:  I don’t know. I can certainly see your point. Perhaps I have been wrong about people who haven’t heard about Jesus going to heaven. Or perhaps some are going to heaven and some aren’t. So, he wants us to preach to everyone just in case they need to hear.

Joe:    That certainly makes Jesus’ command to preach to everyone make more sense. But it still concerns me that there might be some who are going to heaven who no longer will after hearing the gospel. I thought preaching the gospel was about bringing people into heaven, not casting them out.

Bob:  I hear you. I just don’t know how to answer that. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe that God would condemn a person who has never heard about Jesus. But on the other hand, I don’t know why he would have us preach to those who are already going to heaven if it could lead to some of them rejecting the gospel and not going to heaven. I think I’m going to have to study this topic a bit more.

Joe:    Sounds like a good plan. Let me know what you find out.

Thoughts on the Movie "The Case for Christ"

Kathy and I went to see the movie "The Case for Christ" this afternoon. It was an excellent movie and well acted. I found myself being caught up in the emotion of it all.

In case you don't know, Lee Strobel is a famous Christian apologist who started out as an atheist. He has written many poplar apologetic books. This movie depicts his journey from atheism to faith. As an investigative journalist for The Chicago Tribune, he was a firm believer in following the facts wherever they led. When his wife becomes a Christian, he sets out to prove the resurrection of Jesus never happened by visiting and interviewing experts in many fields of study. Eventually he realizes that the evidence for the resurrection was strong and he could not disprove it, so he converts to Christianity himself.

I have read several of Strobel's books and used to watch a question and answer TV show he hosted. His story is intriguing, as are other stories like his, such as Josh McDowell's. There have been a number of atheists that have come to believe in the resurrection of Jesus after examining the evidence. But on the other hand, there have been a number of Christians that have become unbelievers upon more thoroughly investigating the evidence. I am one of those people as is Dan Barker, who was an evangelical preacher for 19 years before realizing that he really didn't believe what he was preaching.

So, how can that be? How can two people examine the exact same evidence and come to such radically different conclusions? It's a conundrum, but fascinating. Think about a trial where 12 people are listening to the evidence being presented about the guilt or innocence of an alleged criminal. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming one way or the other and all 12 vote the same way. However, in other cases, the evidence is not quite so clear. There is some evidence that makes you think the person is guilty, but other evidence that makes you think the person is innocent.

So what makes a person come down on one side or the other? Well, I believe it has to do with how much evidence each individual requires in order to be convinced of something. Some people can be told that friendly space aliens are going to land in Central Park tomorrow to take willing Earthlings to a better planet, and they will be lined up waiting at midnight. Others could actually see aliens land and take people and still not believe it, thinking some sort of delusion had overtaken them.

There's many other factors that can affect someone's decision in the face of conflicting evidence. Past experiences, facial expressions of the witnesses while they were testifying, how often they have been lied to by supposedly trustworthy people, etc. So, getting 12 people to agree on the meaning of the evidence is actually quite a feat.

In my case, I'm hard-nosed. I want to have near ironclad evidence, especially when it concerns supernatural events such as a resurrection. But when I conducted my multi-year investigation of the Bible, I discovered that the evidence for the supernatural events reported in it, especially the resurrection of Jesus, didn't even come close to being ironclad. In fact, the more I studied, the more ironclad it became against the resurrection. But, it never became what I would call conclusive. And that's the problem. I recorded my thoughts concerning my studies in a book entitled, "God Is."

The Bible says that God does not want any to be lost. Yet, it also says that if you don't believe, you WILL be lost. If you had a child that was in danger and you knew exactly what that child needed to be saved from that danger, would you not do exactly what was required of you? So, if God knows what each of us needs to believe and be saved, why does he not provide that for each individual? Why leave some hanging with a lack of evidence? These are the questions I cannot answer, assuming there is really a loving, powerful God in control.

The Bart Ehrman / Kyle Butt Debate: A Commentary

I love a good debate. The exchange of ideas is exciting to me. That is why I went to a local debate Friday evening at our local university. Bart Ehrman and Kyle Butt faced off on the topic of whether or not the pain and suffering that exists in our world denies the existence of the Christian God. I personally didn’t expect much from the debaters since I believe the existence of pain and suffering neither supports nor denies the existence of the Biblical God. I believe the existence of Jehovah is best understood by determining the consistency and reliability of the Bible and how it accords with the world as we know it. This is the approach I take in my latest book, “God Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God”. Yet, to my surprise, there was much of interest discussed.

Bart Ehrman, PhD, is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Kyle Butt, MA, currently serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc. Both Ehrman and Butt have written extensively in their areas of interests. Bart Ehrman is a former Christian, but now an agnostic. Kyle Butt is a Christian affiliated with the Church of Christ. From that information I’ll let you decide which position each took in the debate.

Although much was said during the debate, I want to focus my comments on just a few topics. A fair amount of time was devoted to discussing the various reasons that pain and suffering exist. Ehrman pointed out how the Biblical writers did not always agree on the source of pain and suffering. Some said it was due to God’s punishment, some said it was God’s testing us, some said it was redemptive suffering, and so on. Butt countered that it was a fact that suffering came about for many different reasons and the Biblical writers in toto correctly point out all those reasons. Ehrman countered that while that was true to some extent, it was also true that some of the Biblical writers had disagreements that could not be reconciled. For example, some writers believed that no pain and suffering comes directly from God. Rather he simply allows it via Satan and the evil forces of the world. Other writers clearly state that God directly caused suffering for those that he felt needed it.

Kyle Butt began to get the upper hand when the topic of moral absolutes was discussed. Butt kept quoting from Ehrman’s books and debates where Ehrman seemed to be making a definitive moral statement as proof that Ehrman really didn’t believe in moral relativism. It was obvious that Ehrman was becoming defensive and slipped a bit with his responses.

Butt kept pushing to get Ehrman to answer the question, “If someone says that they are just going to live for themselves, not caring how they harm others in the process, how can you say they are wrong if there is no objective morality?” Ehrman tried to turn the question back on Butt by asking him what the source of objective morality was. Butt said it comes from God. When asked how he knew the mind of God, Butt said by the only way one can know the mind of anyone: the person tells you what they are thinking. Of course, the Bible would be God’s way of doing this. Ehrman then asked if the source of objective morality was God, then was it okay for man to do all the things God did when dealing with people. When Ehrman didn’t get a straight answer to this question, he became visibly frustrated and failed to respond well to Butt’s counter questions.

Later in the debate Ehrman recuperated and made the most cogent statement about objective morality of the evening. I paraphrase: “The reason morality is subjective is because we are all subjects. If there is such a thing as objective morality that stems from God, then why is it that Christians don’t seem to know what it is? Christians do not agree on what objective morality entails. So, of what good is objective morality if we humans cannot agree on what it is? It still ends up being subjective.”

That was the statement that I was hoping Ehrman would get around to making. Indeed, if we humans are incapable of agreeing on what constitutes objective morality, then it is of no use to us. We still end up viewing morality subjectively. Fortunately, we humans think enough alike such that for many areas of morality we can get a super majority consensus, at least within the confines of nations or communities. Things like murder, rape, theft, and so forth, are considered wrong my large numbers of people. However, there remain many areas that are stark gray. Things like polygamy, alcohol consumption, gambling, etc.

So, does this mean that nothing is objective? No. Reality is objective. Nature behaves a certain way that can be discovered. Events occur that can be recorded. Everything that has happened in the past is objectively true. It cannot change. We may never know everything that has occurred, but what actually happened is objectively true whether we know it or not.

Morality is somewhat similar. To achieve a particular outcome, there will always be a best action to take to achieve it. When attempting to achieve a laudable goal, actions taken to reach that goal can be defined as moral. However, things can get complicated rather quickly. One person might point out that the goal itself is immoral. Others may point out that not all actions to achieve a moral goal are themselves moral. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. We also face the problem of not having all the information or the time we need to make the absolute best moral decision, so we may have to settle for something less than the best. Relational complexity plays into this also. So, it seems to me that moral decision making is very much a situational issue. Many factors come into play. I always enjoyed the TV show “The Practice” because the writers did an excellent job pointing out the differing perspectives of right and wrong in many different situations.

While I mostly agreed with Ehrman’s positions in the debate, Butt did a great job defending his position, failing only occasionally. There was one topic discussed, however, where I disagreed with both debaters. While Ehrman believes there is no moral imperative to help those who are suffering and in need, he truly believes we should lend our support. In fact, he said we should help as much as we can as often as we can. Butt agrees with this, but believes it is in fact a moral imperative. I disagree with both.

Moral imperatives aside, I do not believe we need to help those in need “as much as we can as often as we can.” This makes no sense, and in reality, very very few, if any, people actually do this since we still buy our luxury items rather than help someone. First, on what rational basis can we say that we owe anything to anyone if we were not responsible for their existence or the problems they are facing? Parents are responsible for rearing their children because they were responsible for their existence. If a person accidentally harms another person, they are still responsible for aiding them to the extent of the injuries caused by the accident. That is why we have insurance; to avoid bankruptcy should that unfortunate event occur. If a child is born destitute in another country, I am not responsible. If a tornado injures a family in Kansas, I am not responsible. In other words, neither the free will decisions of others nor the actions of nature place a burden of responsibility on those that have nothing to do with the situation.

That said, I still like to help people. Why? Because I want to live in a society where people help each other when facing unfortunate circumstances. I cannot rationally expect others to help if I am not willing to help. Of course, there are so many needs, everyone cannot help every cause. But we can choose some individually. But the way we help and the amount we help is totally our decision. Not that of others. No one should call me out because they personally disagree with how I help, whether it’s the person that believes there is a moral imperative to give 10% or the person that does not believe in moral imperatives but still insists I should help as much as possible as often as possible.

That’s my two cents. And that’s all I am willing to give to this topic.

Response to Joel Anderson's Critique of My Book, Part 1

My friend, Joel Anderson, has written his first blog post critiquing my book "God Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God". For some reason, Google was not allowing me to post a response directly on his blog, so I am posting it here on mine.

Thanks, Joel. You are a man of your word, and I appreciate that.

I just wanted to make a few points of clarification.

Reason and logic are not a panacea. To live our lives 100% by R&L requires us to have all knowledge related to a topic and to be capable of flawless logic. In this temporal life, we rarely have the time to gather all relevant information and examine it thoroughly. We almost always make decisions based on partial knowledge. Faith bridges the gap. So R&L and faith are both needed to function properly in this life. That said, I believe the more we use R&L, the closer to the truth we will come.

When I say that we should examine the Bible through the filter of R&L, what I am saying is that if there are any obvious contradictions or irrationalities, it is not a good idea to just accept them by faith. It is best to say, "Well, the Bible has flaws in it" rather than say "I don't understand these seeming contradictions, but I know the Bible is 100% true, so I believe it anyway."

While some Christians believe the Bible should be accepted by faith alone, others actually believe in some combination of faith and reason. Once a Christian friend said to me, "People need to understand that the Bible should be believed by faith." I said, "If that's true, then why can't a person believe ANY religion by faith?" Knowing he was cornered he responded, "Well, I guess one needs to use faith and reason." I said, "Exactly! The problem is now how much of each?"

Also, notice that I didn't say in my book that only natural explanations should be accepted for reported supernatural events. I said if any natural explanations exist they are to be preferred. I fail to see how this is controversial. Even Christians do this when it comes to current day events. If someone says he killed another person because God commanded him to, even a Christian would not believe it without an abundance of proof. But when the Old Testament reports that God commanded the Israelites to kill people, they accept it without an abundance of proof. That is illogical to me. Be skeptical of both.

Since I have never experienced any supernatural events (something that defies the known laws of physics and nature) in my entire life, it seems reasonable to me that I should be skeptical of supernatural reports from others. After all, when many of these claims are actually investigated, a natural explanation is found. Other times we find that the person was fooled, exaggerating, or lying. But if the gospel stories are indeed true, then I am not nearly as skeptical as the apostles were of Jesus' resurrection. They disbelieved the testimony of their friends even though they had seen Jesus perform many miracles and had themselves performed them. They still had to see physical proof. I ask no more. (See http://www.rcfinch.com/philosophy/TheApostlesAreOurExample.pdf)

Finally, I am a skeptic, but more accurately I call myself a theistic leaning agnostic. That means that I don't know for sure if God exists, but I tend to believe he does. But based on all the evidence I have encountered along my space-time continuum path, I do not believe supernatural events occur. It doesn't mean they don't, it just means that I am very skeptical based on my experiences. The reason I mostly believe in a god (or creator), is that the Universe doesn't seem to be able to explain its own existence. That may change with more research, but currently it seems more knowledge just leads to more questions. What I don't believe is that God is any of the ones portrayed by the religions of the world. I believe the descriptions of the gods in religions are just how the writers of the holy books personally viewed God. A person in any of these religions would be just as skeptical as me about all other religions but their own. I am just skeptical of one more than they are.

If God exists, it appears he has given mankind the gift of reason to keep us from believing the unbelievable. Surely he would not want us to squander this ability.

An Interview With Myself

I recently released my first novel, “Passion is a Harsh Taskmaster.” Since I am an unknown author trying to self-promote my book, I have not been inundated with requests for interviews by the established media. Therefore, I decided to interview myself. Why not? Who better to ask just the right questions? I can be just as hard or easy on myself as I choose to be. So, without further ado, here is Randy C. Finch’s interview with author Randy C. Finch.

Q: I have read your novel, “Passion is a Harsh Taskmaster,” several times now and find it a good read and thought-provoking. I know this is your first novel, but I understand that it’s not the first thing you’ve written. Is that true?

A: No comment.

Q: Huh?

A: Just joking! Yes, you understand correctly. Having been a chemical engineer for the last 33 years, I have written many technical reports. I have also written and presented many papers at conferences. Apart from my work, I have authored over 60 computer related articles for magazines and journals. For two years I wrote a regular column for a computer journal. I also had several essays published in a philosophical journal and some poetry published online and in book compilations. I have actually written some unpublished SciFi short stories as well. About 10 years ago I published a non-fiction book, “Beginnings to Endings,” which is a humorous philosophy book.

Q: So, what prompted you to write a novel?

A: I have thought about writing a novel for many years. When I was a teenager, I was an avid reader of science fiction novels. Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, and others were my favorite novelists. In my post-teen years I discovered John E. Stith. The first novel I read of his was “Manhattan Transfer.” I read the first chapter in a SciFi magazine and immediately went to a local bookstore and preordered a copy. I just recently reread the novel in eBook format on my smart phone. It’s an excellent read. After Manhattan Transfer, I obtained and read every book Stith wrote. He is one of, if not my favorite, SciFi authors. His books made me want to write my own novel even more. The thing that drove me over the edge was a dream I had a little over a year ago.

Q: A dream?

A: Yes, you remember the dream we had, don’t you? In the dream a religious skeptic cheats on his Christian wife. He is really torn up about it and decides he must go to her, confess his infidelity, and beg her forgiveness.

Q: Ah yes, I remember now!

A: Of course you do. Anyway, just as the man, whose name is Tom, is about to leave for home, he is inexplicably confronted by a man from the future telling him that it will be a big mistake to reconcile with his wife. Unpleasant things will happen if he does.

Q: So how much of your novel is based on the dream you had?

A: The core of the first third or so of the book is based on my dream. I embellished it with character development and dialog, of course.

Q: What about the remaining part of the book?

A: Once I realized that my dream was a good idea for a book, I soon realized that there had to be more. There had to be some kind of twist. When you read the book, you will see that the man from the future makes additional visits and provides more warnings to Tom. Then, about halfway through the book, something very unexpected happens. Everything after that point is based on my waking thoughts rather than my dreaming thoughts.

Q: So, what happens?

A: I can’t say. That would be too much of a spoiler for those who haven’t yet read my book.

Q: So you’re just going to leave those reading this interview hanging in order to prompt them to buy and read the book?

A: Absolutely.

Q: Okey dokey, then. Let’s move on. It’s seems rather strange that your dream would be specifically about a skeptic married to a Christian. Why do you suppose your dream was so defined on this point?

A: That’s an easy one. In real life I am a religious skeptic and my wife is a Christian.

Q: Really? How in the world did you end up married?

A: Well, I was a Christian when we got married. I de-converted about five years afterwards.

Q: I guess that was a tough time for your marriage.

A: To some degree, yes. However, we soon discovered that our love for each other was stronger than our differences in beliefs. Next year we will celebrate our 30th anniversary. We love each other more today than yesterday. Say, that would make a good song.

Q: It has already been done years ago by Spiral Starecase.

A: I know. I was being facetious.

Q: I couldn’t tell without an emoticon.

A: Oh, sorry. I should have added one.

Q: Well, anyway, back to the interview. So, I guess you being married to a Christian explains why you present Christians in such a positive light in your novel. Many skeptics these days make fun of and denigrate Christians.

A: Oh, absolutely. And it’s not just my wife. I know many Christians, and the vast majority are fine, intelligent, upright people. I cringe when I hear certain unbelievers try to make Christians appear to be deluded idiots. Of course, Christians are not exempt from this behavior either. I have heard many preachers try to portray all unbelievers as being ignorant or licentious or both. And it just isn’t so. I know that I personally de-converted because I came to believe that the evidence for the truthfulness of the Bible was not as great as it should be, given the incredible claims that it makes.

Q: But what about all those very intelligent Christian apologists such as Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell that went from being a skeptic to a Christian based on the evidence?

A: That is puzzling, isn’t it? A few years back, Josh McDowell came to town and gave a talk at a church just a few miles from my house. It was quite enlightening. He said that Christian beliefs had to be based on evidence, not faith alone. Why? Because a person can choose to believe anything by faith. They can choose to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and so on by faith. Simply having faith in some system of belief does not speak to its truthfulness. That is where evidence comes in. Evidence is what allows us to determine what is true and thus worthy of our allegiance. However, the problem is that the evidence is incomplete. Therefore, we find that some level of faith is necessary to bridge the gap between the evidence and our acceptance. It’s kind of like sitting on a jury. Evidence is presented both for and against the defendant. The jury must then decide the defendant’s guilt or innocence. When it comes to religions, the world is basically a hung jury. Some believe the evidence is sufficient; others do not. So, Josh McDowell and I agree that we should only accept a religion based on the evidence. However, he, and many others, believe the evidence is sufficient. I, and many others, believe it is not.

Q: I found it interesting how you handled the issue of an afterlife in your novel. You seem to be hopeful that even unbelievers can be a part of a wonderful afterlife rather than a hellish eternal torment that some people believe await them. Do you personally believe in an afterlife?

A: I’ll have to play the politician here and answer, “Yes and no.” What I really mean is that I simply don’t know. On the one hand I know for sure that it didn’t bother me one iota to have not existed before I was conceived, so why should it bother me to return to that same state after my death? On the other hand, it seems rather bizarre that we humans, with the capability of self-awareness, would come into existence, live for a few years, and then disappear forever.

Q: My thoughts exactly.

A: I’m not surprised. 8>)  Notice I didn’t forget the emoticon this time.

Q: Thanks for that. Now, changing the subject, I wanted to say that I really enjoyed the cultural references you sprinkle throughout your novel. A good friend of mine who has also read your book agrees with me. You mention many popular movies, TV shows, and songs. Why did you do this?

A: Because that’s how I think personally. Many times during my life I have had situations arise that remind me of a song, or a movie, or a particular episode of a TV show. Many times I will make a comical reference to it. I usually only speak the reference when other people are around and just think it when I am by myself. However, I have been known to speak aloud to myself every now and then. I hope that’s not too freakish.

Q: What? Did you say something to me? I thought you were talking to yourself.

A: Okay, wise guy. No emoticon?

Q: 8>)

A: That’s better.

Q: Speaking of popular culture, you mentioned earlier that you used to be a big fan of science fiction. Are you still?

A: Not so much. The bookstores these days have combined two categories: science fiction and fantasy. While I enjoy SciFi, I am not much of a fan of fantasy. When I visit the SciFi / Fantasy section of my local bookstore, I find that most of the books are really fantasy, not hardcore science fiction. Back when I de-converted, I found myself reading more non-fiction than fiction. I was reading a lot of philosophy books, particularly those by Ayn Rand. I also read a fair number of books criticizing Christianity and others defending it. I even wrote three essays explaining the problems I had with the Bible that caused me to reject it. However, one can only read so much of this type of literature before it begins to get repetitive. Recently I have gotten into reading thriller authors like David Baldacci and Lee Child. Interestingly, shortly before I published “Passion is a Harsh Taskmaster,” I found out that another writer friend of mine had just published his first novel. Like me, he had also written a lot of non-fiction articles and books. The big difference was he became quite well known, having written at one time for Reader’s Digest. We talked by phone and Email and he gave me some sound advice about how to approach the publication of my novel. I appreciated that.

Q: So, who was this friend and what was his novel about?

A: His name is Robert Bidinotto, and his novel is entitled, “HUNTER: A Thriller.” Don’t let the title fool you. It’s more than just a thriller, it’s also a romance novel. It’s also a good read for anyone concerned about the current state of our criminal justice system.

Q: I just found out that Mr. Bidinotto’s novel is available in print as well as an eBook. How about your novel?

A: Right now it is only available in various eBook formats at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Apple’s iBook store, and Smashwords. I am looking into producing a print version, also.

Q: I’m really getting tired of interviewing you, but I did want to mention one other thing about your book: sex. While I realize that the sexual content of your novel is very mild compared to today’s standards of sexuality, don’t you think it’s too provocative given that part of your target audience is the Christian community.

A: Who told you that Christians were part of my target audience?

Q: Do you really have to ask that?

A: Oh, sorry, I forgot who you were for a minute. We seem to be taking on the persona of a ventriloquist act. I just can’t decide who’s the ventriloquist and who’s the dummy.

Q: I have an answer to that, but I’m going to let it slide for the moment. So, go on, tell us about the sexual content of your novel.

A: I actually debated with myself, this time in my head and not out loud, how much sexuality to include in my book. After all, I was writing a mystery romance novel with elements of the supernatural thrown in. I felt like it had to have some level of sexual content to emphasize the romance between the main characters. The boundaries I put on the book were based on several factors. One was the Bible. There are a number of suggestive passages in the Bible such as David’s lusting after Bathsheba and Lot’s daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him. And the love letter “Song of Solomon” has some rather provocative content in it. Another factor I considered was how much more open the Christian community is about sex than it used to be.

Q: Why do you think that is?

A: I believe a lot of the openness stems from the studies showing that Christians were divorcing at the same rate as were non-Christians and that part of the problem was due to the lack of sexual fulfillment in their marriages. There are a fair number of books and marriage seminars that now address how Christians can maintain their sexuality in a monogamous relationship with their spouse. I have even heard that some rather provocative sexual questions can now be asked at Christian women’s conferences without the questioner being called down. Rather, answers are given to the questions. So, with all these things in mind, I limited the sexual content of my novel to what I believed would be acceptable to the modern day mainstream Christian.

Q: Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time for this interview. That’s all the questions I have, but I reserve the right to ask more if I think of more.

A: I’ll be nearby any time the urge to ask another question arises. 8>)

Q: Indeed you will be.

An Interesting Year: Of Atheists and Christians

Back in the early part of 2000 AD, I picked up a copy of “Christian Research Journal V22 N03” at a newsstand. It had several very interesting articles in it. Being the vocal dissident that I am, I decided to write a letter to the journal, commenting on the most intriguing of the articles. I received responses from several of the authors, but one stood out: Rachel D. Ramer. She had penned an article entitled “Examining Translations with Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Upon receiving her response, I countered with another response. She did likewise, then me again. Ultimately, we became penpals (probably more accurately called keyboard pals since we were corresponding via Email). Over the course of about a year we exchanged many, many Emails. Our conversations were sometimes frustrating, but mostly intellectually stimulating.

In the course of our Email discussions, I mentioned a book written by nineteen-year-evangelist-turned-atheist Dan Barker entitled “Losing Faith in Faith.” Rachel mentioned a book by four-year-preacher-still-preacher Brian McLaren entitled “Finding Faith.” The opposing titles were too much for us to resist. Rachel sent me a copy of the latter for a Christmas present. I countered by sending her a copy of the former. It was interesting contrasting the two books.

After having read these two books, I exchanged a few Emails with both Dan Barker and Brian McLaren. Then I found out that the Atheist Alliance Convention of 2001 was being held in Atlanta. Lo and behold, Dan Barker was going to be present and debating Rubel Shelly, then Senior Minister of Woodmont Hills Church in Nashville, TN. I contacted Dan via Email and we arranged to have a private meeting while at the conference. I planned to discuss the similarities of our deconversions, give him a copy of my recently released book “Beginnings to Endings,” and to get Dan’s autograph in my copy of “Losing Faith in Faith.”

Then another interesting development occurred. My employer was going to send me to some training in the DC area that summer. My wife and son were going with me. We planned to spend a few extra days while there sightseeing. This presented us with two opportunities. One was to see some of my family I had not seen in years. The other was to attend Cedar Ridge Community Church. Brian McLaren was the founding pastor of that church. I sent an Email to Brian and we arranged to take him to lunch after services. As with Dan, I was planning to give him a copy of my book and have my copy of “Finding Faith” autographed.

Happily, everything went as planned. I traveled to Atlanta to attend the Atheist Alliance Convention in April 2001. There were some very interesting papers presented, but the highlight was the debate between Dan Barker and Rubel Shelly. The questions I submitted to each of them via index cards were both asked during the Q & A session. I met with Dan the next morning and had an interesting conversation. As you may know, Dan Barker and his wife are co-presidents of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. This organization has become quite controversial in the Christian community. I hear it criticized quite often on Christian radio.

In July 2001, my family and I traveled to the DC area. I had a great class, a wonderful time touring DC, a nice visit with my relatives, and an interesting time with Brian McLaren. He preached that Sunday morning on the Apostle’s Creed. After services, he rode with us to a Mexican restaurant where we bought his lunch. Unfortunately, his wife and kids were all busy with other activities that weekend and were out of town. However, we had a very good conversation with Brian at lunch. As you know, Brian has written a lot of books, some rather controversial amongst Christians.

To top off all these meetings, I eventually got to meet Rachel, my penpal, in person, also.

So, in the space of a year, I made a new friend and penpal due to my having written some comments about an article she wrote, exchanged books by an atheist and a Christian, then got to personally meet the authors of each of those books, and eventually meet in person with my penpal. It was indeed an interesting year.