Posted: May 26 2007 08:15 pm

I read Dobson's "refutation" regarding the resurrection. (It was written by Bill Myers and Michael Ross.) I wrote a lengthy response as follows:

I read your article "What to Say to a Skeptic: How can you respond when a skeptic questions Christ's resurrection?" I found it here: http://www.family.org/faith/A000000721.cfm. I think you are somewhat misinformed regarding the questions skeptics actually ask. Let me explain.

I was born with a skeptical brain. I was born into a strong Christian family and lived most of my life as a Christian. I believed the creation story, I believed the flood story, I believed all the miracles and wonders--the virgin birth, the resurrection, the ascension. I believed it all because there was no reason not to--and there still isn't, except for some basics that will become clear. My biggest problem was that Christianity failed to address my deepest question. After seeking half a century for an answer I gave up the search; it's time to do some living before I die.

Anyway, the questions you assume that skeptics ask are not even related to my Big Question. Nor have I heard any skeptics ask those questions in my day. QUESTION: Would it not be a good idea to actually know what questions real skeptics are asking before writing refutations?

I am thinking that as an international representative for Jesus, you may want to be better informed regarding the questions skeptics actually ask in the 21st century. I will take a bit of time right now to write a brief outline of the information you are missing.

1. Your article assumes that the skeptic accepts that Jesus actually existed.

2. Your article assumes that skeptics would question the supernatural.

Your article is wrong on both counts. Here's why:

1. Resurrection: There is no conclusive evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived. If he never lived, the question about the resurrection does not arise. The skeptics and the Christians look at the same evidence regarding Jesus' historical existence. Skeptics do not accept the New Testament as evidence; they work only with extra-canonical references to Jesus. The Christians interpret these extra-canonical references as evidence that Jesus existed. The skeptics see it as evidence that *a group of people existed who **believed** Jesus existed*. (Actually, that statement comes from a highly educated but devout and fervent Christian; however, I think any skeptic will accept it as legitimate.) But that does not make it historical fact. Without the conviction that Jesus ever existed, the question of the resurrection (and virgin birth, miracles, etc.) is irrelevant.

2. The Supernatural. History teaches us that most of what once appeared supernatural has scientific explanations. You will have to read science written by people who accept evolution if you want to see these explanations. A few rare phenomena of human experience remain for which we have no scientific answers at this specific point in time. There is every reason to believe that scientific explanations exist for those few remaining phenomena; we just haven't found them yet. Perhaps we have not yet developed the necessary technology to observe them. For this reason, the question about the supernatural is not of great consequence for skeptics today.

If you want to know what questions skeptics actually ask, a good place to start your search might be "Testimonies of Former Christians" at http://www.ex-christian.net. The section on "General Theological Issues" on the same forum might also be relevant. Read a couple hundred threads in each section. These are real live people and they talk about issues that concern them as they find their way through life. In real life, however, most of us do not speak out because of the severe retribution we experience at the hands of Christians. Not only do we risk losing our jobs (or not getting any in the first place, e.g. would you hire a professing atheist or pagan as technician?) but in some areas of the South our very lives are at stake. All the same, for the sake of truth we have deconverted. We will not compromise our deepest convictions just because of the severe retributions we risk at the hands of Christians.

Just to be clear. Even if you do adjust your arguments to our actual questions, we will not convert; we have sifted through the questions and there are no logical answers. The only benefit to you will be that you will look as though you are living on the same planet as we, and in the same historical era. If you insist that faith is not logical, well, it's your prerogative to believe what you want. When I say "I believe that I am saved through the shed blood of Christ" I mean that it actually makes sense in my brain. And it doesn't. I will no longer lie.

Since I deconverted about more important matters, I no longer profess to believe in smaller items like the miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection. They are irrelevant--they just don't matter. Make of this what you will; you cannot change fact.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For folk here, the fact that I am referring to here is my beliefs. He cannot make irrelevant items (like the miracles, virgin birth, and resurrection) matter to me just because they matter to him.

I really wanted to tell the guy that if he would talk about stuff that is current (such as questions that actually bothered us as Christians) he would not look quite so stupid. I was afraid that would be taking things too far. I do want him (or whoever look at his mail) to do some really serious thinking. Calling him stupid would hardly help my cause.

It will be interesting to see how he responds (if he does respond).

Posted: Jun 16 2007 12:39 pm

Here is their reply received yesterday:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for writing to Focus on the Family (e-mail, May 26, 2007). It was good of you to contact us with your frank reaction to Bill Myers' and Michael Ross's article "What to Say to a Skeptic." Honest feedback like yours is always welcome here at Focus headquarters. We're pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the thoughts you've expressed.

Since, by your own admission, you wouldn't consider revisiting Christianity even if we were to "adjust our arguments to fit your actual questions," there doesn't seem to be any reason to prolong this discussion. We'd be more than happy to close the conversation with a simple "thanks for sharing your opinions" if we didn't feel obligated to point out how, from our perspective, your critique of Ross and Myers' article falls wide of the mark. Permit me to elaborate.

First of all, you need to understand that this piece was written with an adolescent audience in mind. Mike Ross is the editor-in-chief of Focus on the Family's Breakaway magazine, a publication aimed at teenage guys. Although "What to Say to a Skeptic" now appears as part of a series of faith-related articles posted on our main Web site, I can assure you that it was originally designed to speak directly to the needs, interests, and concerns of boys between thirteen and nineteen years of age. It's not surprising that an adult who has been pondering profound theological questions for "half a century" should find it a bit shallow.

Second, it's important to bear in mind that this short article has a very limited purpose. It focuses specifically on a few of the best known and most commonly voiced objections to the legitimacy of the Resurrection story. It isn't meant to serve as a comprehensive apologetic for every aspect of the Christian faith. That's probably why it doesn't address the bigger and deeper problem that led to you to "deconvert" in the first place.

Unfortunately--and this is our third and final point--you never got around to telling us exactly what that bigger and deeper problem is. As you must realize, this puts us in a rather difficult position. How can we attempt to frame an answer when we don't know the question? Then again, perhaps you're not really interested in receiving answers. We get the impression that your mind is already made up.

We're sorry that we couldn't be more helpful. If you'd like to write back with a fuller explanation of your position, we'll do our best to provide you with a thoughtful response. Thanks again for caring enough to get in touch. God bless you.

Timothy Masters
Focus on the Family

Posted: Jun 16 2007 12:42 pm

My response:

Hello Timothy,

Thank you for taking the time to explain more about the article in question. I think there has been some misunderstanding. I am not asking a question; I am providing feedback.

It seems the purpose of the article was to provide guidance for the Christian on how to address questions skeptics raise about the resurrection. I think that is good. Your young people will need those kinds of tools as they face the world.

However, there is a problem. The authors posed some questions that they think skeptics ask. But they're wrong. We don't ask those questions. In my first message I explained why we don't ask those questions. I also directed you to a source, i.e. http://www.ex-christian.net where you can learn what questions skeptics do ask. It seems your young people would be better served if they were given the actual facts about skeptics.

I realize that the source I give does not provide a cut and dried list. It will require some research, time, and effort on the part of the authors to do the necessary reading and summarizing required to come up with a list. However, if I correctly understand Christianity, Christians are not afraid of hard work, and they believe their cause is worth living and dying for.

The questions I personally asked are but a drop in the bucket of what skeptics as a whole ask. This being the case, it seems superfluous for me to elaborate on my own personal questions. You will get a better picture by looking at an entire group's questions.

Thus, as stated above, I am not asking a question. I am merely providing feedback to help you do your job better. Whether or not you accept it is entirely up to you.

I hope this clarifies the issues.

R.S. Martin

Posted: Jun 23 2007 02:00 pm

Here is the most recent exchange:

Dear R.S.,

Thanks for writing back to clarify the intent of your original e-mail. Apparently I should have followed my first inclination. I'll return to it at this point and close this conversation by saying "thanks for taking the time to share your input with us"--with the added caveat that you should be careful about presuming to speak for all skeptics. After all, some of them may be asking questions that you don't regard as particularly important.

*****************
Timothy,

You seem to feel a need to pick a fight with me. Why? Your organization made a mistake. Fine. All organizations make mistakes now and then. No reason to be embarrassed about it. Just fix it and let it go. Possibly next time FOF will want to do a fact check before posting articles about unfamiliar topics.

What I find disturbing is that people (FOF) who take it upon themselves to educate the young (teenaged boys) will knowingly feed erroneous information. It is understandable that you did not know too much about skeptics before you got my message. What is more difficult to understand is the resentful attitude you take when shown your error.

I am trying to help you do your job better. FOF owes it to itself, to its audience, to provide accurate information. More people deconvert from Christianity because it teaches inaccurate information than for any other reason. Talk to former Christians if you don't believe me. Truth can stand on its own. If my message is false, please inform me with the evidence. If my message is true, then you may want to fix things.

No where do I claim to speak for all skeptics any more than does the article in question.

R. S. Martin

Obviously the above posts are reposts. As I read them again I got a new perspective on the situation. This guy was being down-right mean. He absolutely had to be bossy. He couldn't just say thanks for sharing your insights, hope you have a good day. It's not as though he had a conscience against wishing God's speed to an atheist--you will note that he courteously--insulting???--ends his first email with the traditional Christian "God bless you."

You will also note that he gets increasingly more crass with each message. Has the guy got a problem with a non-religious person feeling calm and secure without religion???

I regret that I let go of my own calm in my last message. I rather doubt that he read it, given that he said he would not continue the conversation. I must say it's really seriously difficult to feel respect for such a person.