I would never pick this book up on my own either. My aunt, who is not "religious" (as you say), gave it to me and insisted I read it. I agree--there is plenty to be skeptical about. But the overarching theme is the childlike faith Colton has and how we shouldn't have to see things to believe them. Imagination is one thing; seeing and describing a loved one he's never met is another. Answered prayer, healed sickness, calmness in death...these make it difficult not to believe, even if you are an atheist.

Two cents.

Well, I do think we need to see things to believe them. Or at least, if not physically see them, have a good explanation. Especially if it's something huge you're going to live your life by. This is not a standard I'm dictating to others; it's how I choose to live my life with regards to religion/belief.

The issues you raise DIDN'T make it hard for me not to believe. There were a few strange occurances, sure, but I'm betting most could be explained away if we had more information (I really think the book under-plays [and for obvious reasons] any information Colton picked up about his religion and his great-grandfather, b/c kids are incredibly observant) or if we acknowledge that coincidences happen.

There is much to be said about the benefits of having a childlike attitude toward things. But I don't think religion is one of those areas where it's a benefit. The simple, unthinking, unquestioning belief frightens me, and in some ways seems the OPPOSITE of childlike, as most children I know were all about endless curiosity and questions at that age.

I am a Christian and I believe this story is true, and I think anyone who believes in Evolution and doesn't believe in heaven is Extremely and absurdly closed minded . And no you do not have to see things to believe them that is what true faith is (P.s. Can you see wind?) p.p.s you are arguing with an 11 year old boy

Perhaps you need to reread my previous comment. I noted that even if you can't physically see something, I believe you should have a good, logical explanation -- which we do for wind. I also said this is not a standard I'm dictating for others, just how I live MY life. If YOU want to believe in heaven or have faith in things there is no scientific proof for, that's fine; I'm not saying you can't. I'm saying *I* don't believe those things.

P.S. You're 11?

Cade wrote: "I am a Christian and I believe this story is true, and I think anyone who believes in Evolution and doesn't believe in heaven is Extremely and absurdly closed minded . And no you do not have to se..."

having met tina before, i feel comfortable saying that she believes in a great number of things she has never seen (i.e. black holes, sound, montana, etc). and having lived most of my life as a spiritual person, i also feel comfortable saying that for a scientific mind to accept concepts of a land of eternal happiness granted to any exclusive group of people to be visited upon death (not to mention the purported phenomenon of the everlasting consciousness of said paradise-bound individuals visiting a still-living distant relative) simply based on what amounts to someone's say-so, that scientific mind must not only take a proverbial leap of faith, but also is required to abandon the "a priori" logic and framework of argument that holds up so well in the face of religious "logic."

it's fair to believe the "little boy" in this book more likely was familiar with the ideas of christian faith he recounts because of his father's immersion in that same faith. it would be more impressive / convincing if the boy had no previous experience with christian faith or had reported back the truth of the hindu brahma and had returned with stories of blue princes and galaxies in the centers of lotus blossoms.

and speaking as someone with a evolution- and heaven-friendly viewpoint, i find it a little disingenuous to hold tightly to one's own spiritual beliefs, refuse to engage in a meaningful discussion about the possible falseness of those beliefs, and then accuse someone ELSE of closed-mindedness.

as you have an obvious interest in self-edification, i would love to suggest you read carl sagan's DEMON HAUNTED WORLD - it's a beautifully crafted non-fiction book on the necessity of scientific reason and rationality in our world.
link:
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-W...

p.s.
tossing around words like "absurdly" with an argumentative tone might not be the best way to convince someone of the validity of your viewpoint.
link:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Write-Persu...

Oh, Zack, how are you so awesome? I literally LOL'd at that second Amazon link.

In this whole comment, you are only wrong about one thing: I don't believe in Montana.

I love your review. I work in a bookstore and I want to cry every time someone buys this book and tells me how wonderful it is (because people who like this book can't help but tell you all about it).

Also, I don't believe in South Dakota.

Great review and responses to the comments. I echo the sentiment re The Demon-Haunted World too. One of my all time favorite books.

Jesus was and is real. There is no denying that unless you just choose to. He loves me and he loves you too. I'll pray you one day accept his love and experience the peace and hope I do. To live life thinking this is all there is, die and it's over. Good luck.

Shannon wrote: "I love your review. I work in a bookstore and I want to cry every time someone buys this book and tells me how wonderful it is (because people who like this book can't help but tell you all about i..."

I've long had my suspicions about South Dakota, as well. I think it's just a story people tell to scare children. Glad you enjoyed the review! You too, Jay.

David wrote: "Jesus was and is real. There is no denying that unless you just choose to. He loves me and he loves you too. I'll pray you one day accept his love and experience the peace and hope I do. To li..."

David, I believe you wrote that comment with good intentions, but I have an honest question for you: If I told you that I'm sure there is no God, that I am right about that and you are wrong, and that I hope one day you will see the error of yr ways and start believing the truth, would you be okay with that?

I would like to offer up my opinion, for what it is worth. I happen to be a Christian and go to church every Sunday and I have a HARD time believing that everything in this book is true. It is too easy for children to figure out what we want to hear, and too easy for us as adult to stretch the truth or exaggerate just a bit. Especially if it's for a 'good cause.' And I've seen way too many so called preachers selling the snake oil to read this book without skepticism.
I believe heaven is for real, but not this book.
Tina, I'm really grateful that you cared enough about your students to read a book that is important to them, even when it's something that doesn't appeal to you at all. That is awesome.

If you are atheist, Tina, you believe there is no God? How did the world get created? Saying that there is no God and there is no creater is like this: there is a chocolate cake, no one made it, how did the cake get ther? I am christian and i go to church almost every week. I believe this story is true. I hope that you will one day find the truth:)

Then one might say, "who made god?" (Please note that if you say god has always been here, that's like saying the chocolate cake has always been there.) Better argument needed, please. I hope that one day you will find one :)

What's so great about "everlasting life" anyway? When I'm gone, thank goodness it will be over but like those I've loved and lost, I leave behind those I've helped and loved, cherished, and inspired. Hopefully I'll leave a world that is slightly better because I've lived.

If you beleive Jesus is your lord and savior, and you live your life for God, then you will go to Heaven, and Heaven will not be "slightly" better than earth, it will be soooooo much more amazing! The bible says heaven will have colors no one has ever seen before! I am excited about heaven!

I will answere your question, Jay. God is the creater, therefore, He has always been there. This question is one many ask, even I have asked it. To many people, this concept is hard to grasp, "How did God get here?" I honestly do not really get it, but I just believe and put my faith in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! If you do not believe in God, Jay then i hope and pray that you will one day find Him and learn the truth.

Ami wrote: "I would like to offer up my opinion, for what it is worth. I happen to be a Christian and go to church every Sunday and I have a HARD time believing that everything in this book is true. It is to..."

Thanks, Ami. I try to be a good teacher. :)

And it's interesting to hear from a Christian who didn't believe the book. I mean, I imagine there are a good number of you, just not so many commenting here on my review.

Alice wrote: "If you are atheist, Tina, you believe there is no God? How did the world get created? Saying that there is no God and there is no creater is like this: there is a chocolate cake, no one made it, ho..."

Like Jay said, I don't think the idea that the universe has always been here is any MORE ridiculous than the idea that a god has always been here. Both ideas involve something always being here, or something randomly popping up from nothing.

And I don't take offense to you saying I have no faith, because it's true: I don't have any religious faith. For the record, since you (and some others) seem worried, I'm still a happy, decent person who lives a fulfilling life.

watch out tina - sounds like alexis might be planning to kill you in an "accident"

anyone else have any comments about the book? or is this officially a theological debate?

I posted my 'review' on my blog http://bibliophilica.wordpress.com/ and welcome comments(constructive ones that don't label others thoughtless, crazy, or stupid) there. Even theological ones.
-Jay

Not sure "debate" is the right word, Zack. That implies some adherence to logic.

On the up side, I probably have more complete strangers praying for my soul than anyone else you know.

(why am i doing this?)

i am a person who is unwilling to say that i am any better than anyone else who is living on this planet we all share. every person i have ever met is involved in their own great struggle against hunger, against lonliness, against sickness, against hatred, against violence, against inequity [EDIT:, against sadness]. all manner of person handle problems in all manner of ways.

i would say that i judge some of those ways to be wrong, but i acknowledge that i am no better than a person who makes a wrong decision. i am always one inch of rochester snow, kentucky mud or san antonio asphalt away from making a series of different decisions, and i share this with everyone around me. the decisions i've made have given me a family who supports me, a wife whom i love more than i can say and friends whose reliability is beyond question.

alexis, i'm interested in how you decide whether someone needs to be asked whether or not they consider themselves to be a "good person." i would say, be careful of who you decide needs help, but be equally careful of who you decide doesn't.

a single person is only as good as the world around them, and any single person who would declare themselves "good" and others "not" would do better to help than to judge. but there is good news; we don't have to resort to immaterial hope or prayer for anyone, because we have hands and feet and a will to work.

"years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."
-- eugene debs

p.s.
i'm a afraid that i can't participate in this debate anymore. i feel conversations like these offer little in the way of discourse compared to how well they allow people to entrench themselves in their own preconceptions. at the same time, i am glad that people are willing to have this kind of talk without resorting to base insults or (much) shame-laiden finger-wagging. i hope everyone reading/writing on this comment thread keeps reading and talking about the books they love

Goodreads: Where Zack writes some of his most poignant speeches.

Zack gave a much better answer than I could, Alexis. But I suppose when it comes down to it, I do think I'm a fairly good person -- not necessarily better than anyone else, but pretty good by my own standards. I try to treat others as I want to be treated, and go out of my way not to harm (and, if possible, to help) others. I don't believe religion is necessary to be moral, if that's where you're going with this.

Since I don't believe in god, I obviously haven't kept the commandments that apply to him (only having one god, keeping the sabbath holy, not taking his name in vain). The ones that apply to more general behavior (not lying, stealing, killing, committing adultery) I have kept to -- though "kept to" is probably the wrong phrase, as I don't do those things b/c the commandments tell me not to; I don't do them b/c I believe they're wrong. But there are certainly areas where my own moral code overlaps with the morals taught by Christianity and other religions.

I'm really glad this review is here as a counterpoint to all the five-star reviews. Just reading the description made me wonder what Michael Shermer and other skeptics would have to say about this book. At four years old, I'm pretty sure I could have spouted the "right answers" about the heaven I was told to believe in. I had already been corrected many times.

Sadly, much of my early life was spent wracked with the bittersweet pain you were talking about. The pain of the "Christian man's burden"-- that feeling of dread for the souls of my fellowman who knew not the glories of the Christian faith, and so were going to burn in hell for all eternity. (Why do you feel browbeaten, unbelieving friend? You, too, can have the joy and peace my smug myopia brings me!) In so many cases, it is not the subject of the obsession that brings clarity and peace, “peace” comes from the simplistic worldview granted by the obsession itself. Religious conviction, with its grand scope and “persecuted chosen few” mentality, provides some of the strongest fodder for obsessive thinking.

Also (sorry, I can’t help myself) the next step after getting the unbelieving sinner to admit that they have not kept the Ten Commandments, is to point out that they have broken the law of God and therefore need God to redeem them. This Jesus did by dying and coming back, but you have to “accept the free gift.” Or else.

To this I say, in all sincerity: I know the joy and peace you are talking about. I’ve had it. I know how wonderful it is, and how it feels like the end-all and be-all of existence. But there is also peace and freedom in talking to another human being without needing them to agree with you, and without a canned, memorized sales pitch. God does not leave you if you leave “The Faith.”

Masamune's Song wrote: "I'm really glad this review is here as a counterpoint to all the five-star reviews. Just reading the description made me wonder what Michael Shermer and other skeptics would have to say about this..."

Thanks for the comment. I really wasn't expecting my review to get so much attention, but it's certainly flattering.

The "Christian man's burden" you talk about continues to be disturbing to me. When I was a kid I would have considered myself a pretty devout Catholic, but I was never worried about the souls of others or filled with a need to persuade anyone of my views. I think I was very lucky in that way, b/c being so worried about that kind of thing does indeed seem like a terrible burden for anyone to have, particularly a child.

Alexis wrote: "So you mean to say that you have never told anyone a lie? Even ..."

Of course I've told a lie. More than once. But it's not something I do often, and it's something I make an effort to avoid. Overall, I would consider myself honest. Just like overall, I would consider myself a good person. Good, not perfect.

Then what exactly do you believe in if not God. Please don't tell me evolution because I have a good argument against that.

I agree with your comment, I am a religious person, and I found it hard to believe the viability of the story.

Ridge wrote: "Then what exactly do you believe in if not God. Please don't tell me evolution because I have a good argument against that."

Well, you'll have to forgive me if I choose to trust the plethora of scientific research supporting evolution instead of the opinion of some random internet stranger. I doubt your argument is that compelling.

Ami wrote: "I would like to offer up my opinion, for what it is worth. I happen to be a Christian and go to church every Sunday and I have a HARD time believing that everything in this book is true. It is to..."

Ami, I too, am a Christian and I felt very uncomfortable with this book. I found it odd that Jesus would be dressed in a white robe and blue/purple sash just as 20th century Christians depict in Sunday School lessons. That seems silly to me. I was most uncomfortable, however, with the thought of non-christian people reading it and feeling exactly as Tina does.

BTW, I also very much believe in science and believe that Christianity and science do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Tina, I felt the same way about Colton growing up in a Christian environment and thought how powerful it would be if he was the child of atheists. Interestingly, there was that one young girl whose mother is an atheist, and she painted the one picture of Jesus that Colton thought looked the most like Him. That little girl may not have had any prior knowledge of such things.

Thank you for a honest review. Thank you also for caring enough about your students to read a book which you struggled with the basic premise. To me, this shows how much you value your chosen profession.

Tina- I am one of those Christians that thinks that this book may not be all it's marketed to be. Do I believe in Jesus? Absolutely. Do I believe God created the world (not in 7 human days, but over what a day is to God and who knows how damn long that is)? Absolutely. Is there a heaven? I believe so. But what I also believe is that this child did pick up on things in the house and throughout time and put them together with any memories that he may have had of any afterlife experience. I truly hope that the pastor and his wife are not using this child to further they dogmatic beliefs or the child may grow up very confused about memories he was supposed to have had but not remembering a damn thing. That can really mess a kid up. Not to mention being "used" by his parents to make a nickel. In short, I don't think this was everything it was made out to be. But I guess I'll know for certain when I get up there. Who knows? Maybe the kid is 100% right, but the Bible also warns us of false prophets, so I will not take this as gospel but as a thought provoking story with a bit of hope in it.

I agree in saying thanks for reading a book you didn't necessarily want to read because a student asked you. I do appreciate that.

I just want to mention one thing that many non-Christians / atheists struggle with so much. You mentioned this in your post. That is people "freaking out" because someone doesn't know Jesus. Think of it like this: if you really did believe that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven (as the bible does state) and if someone hasn't accepted the free gift of salvation that Jesus offers that the person would end up in a place of eternal torment, then you might "freak out" too. People can debate whether that is really the case or not. They can debate whether it does someone harm to believe that or not. But all of that is beside the point. The point is if you sincerely believed that, you would act the same way. We cannot put our worldview onto someone else and think they are crazy because they don't think like we do. Put yourself in their shoes. It's because they love and care about people that they act the way they do, not because they have some ulterior motive in mind.

Also, we are all indoctrinated to some degree. And NOBODY has a completely open mind (you admitted yourself that you couldn't read the book with a completely open mind). And to tell Christians that they must NOT believe part of what the Bible teaches to be open minded or tolerant is intolerant to the nth degree. To say they are 'indoctrinating' their children just because they teach them what is taught in the Bible is ludicrous! As an atheist you don't want Christians dictating to you how and what to believe, so why are Christian ridiculed for simply believing what their Bible teaches ... even if that is that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven.

Just a few thoughts to those who will consider them. Take care.

@Greg- Sure, everyone is indoctrinated. The level of help or harm comes from how realistic the doctrine's portrayal of life is, (or whether the indoctrinee is being deliberately manipulated-- but that's a different issue.) Personally, I find the "We are the righteous few. We must save the poor, lost world." worldview to be a tad warped. And I say this as someone who was born and raised with this attitude, and who once was very much defined by my 'heart for the lost.'

I don't think anyone on this thread questioned whether the missionary efforts come from anything but the purest motives. It's just that the poor, lost savages feel a little sorry for the missionaries, most of whom can't see the cost of their missionary mindset. The cost comes in things like double-speak (there are Christian seminars and books on how to finagle your neighbor into the kingdom of God), a bunch of hand-wringing that looks really very unnecessary to people on the outside, and above all, an inability to relate to people without the filter of "Are they a Christian or aren't they?"

Also, Christians have a tendency to defend their actions by saying (and genuinely believing) that they are 'doing what the Bible says.' And therefore, by extension, doing what God says. However, they are almost never defending "the Bible." They are defending their church's particular interpretation of particular verses. Would you take your child outside the city and stone him if he was disrespectful to his parents? (Probably not.) Are the women of your acquaintance allowed to braid their hair? Do you refuse to eat rare meat? (Most likely not.)

The point is, no one lives according to the Bible-- because the Bible is archaic (at least in places), self-contradictory (4 gospels anyone?), and largely meaningless without the interpretations placed on it by a church. Interpretations which vary century by century. "The Year of Living Biblically" provides a fun look at this fact, and "The Gospel of Inclusion" gives valid, Christian universalist interpretations for the verses have been used to prove to you that God wants you to "freak out."

@Eunice-
Just wanted to throw out there that having "no prior knowledge" may not be as meaningful as all that. Throughout history, certain people have had visions that led them to convert. A group of Hindus had a collective vision of Mary and became Catholics. A Japanese emperor had a vision of a golden man, interpreted to be Buddha, that led to the rise of Buddhism in that country. Things like that are in no way exclusive to Christianity.

Masamune's Song wrote: "@Greg- Sure, everyone is indoctrinated. The level of help or harm comes from how realistic the doctrine's portrayal of life is, (or whether the indoctrinee is being deliberately manipulated-- but ..."

@Masamune's Song ... I appreciate your thoughts here. The attitude that Christians are trying to save the "poor, lost world" may seem warped (and the way some people try to do that IS warped), but again IF you REALLY believed that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven and that anyone that doesn't accept his free gift goes to hell, you would try (at least) to be an influence in people's life to accept Christ's offer. You can debate the truth of their believe, but you cannot judge their heart. I am not going to judge your heart in the matter either.

Some Christians are arrogant, proud, obnoxious, etc. But, please don't put all Christians into that category. Many Athiests and Buddhists, etc. are also arrogant, proud, and obnoxious, but I will not stereotype all of them that way. In other words, don't throw out the baby (what's true in Christianity) with the bathwater (what's wrong with people).

Also, (no offense meant toward you) I get a little tired of the argument that people make concerning Old Testament passages about stoning people or eating the wrong type of meat, etc. If you understand the teachings of the new testament then you understand that we are under a new covenant with God (a new testament) and the old covenant has been replaced. So, eating the wrong meat ... not braiding women's hair ... stoning people who have sinned has been replaced with a new way. Read on ...

Jesus stated in Matthew 5:38-39, “You have heard the law that says the punishment must match the injury: ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also." He was quoting the Old Testament in the first verse, then saying, 'I am replacing that old law of revenge with a new law of love'. So, "The Year of Living Biblically" doesn't hold any water with me, because it is not based upon the whole understanding of scripture. Many people have taken scripture and used it to do what they wanted and twisted it to hurt people. God will deal with that in his own way. I agree that people do weird things in the name of God. Things that are basically ungodly! They abuse God's word and God's people. I get upset about those things! That is just wrong! Again, don't throw out what is true and right because of someone that professed Christianity did something terribly wrong. People of all faiths and people with no faith at all have twisted things to do what their selfish desires wanted.

Why the Old Testament then? It is a physical (or natural) representation from days past of what God is doing spiritually in the world today. We don't sacrifice animals today or many other things in the Old Testament. People who use that as a reason to discount the Bible simply are ignorant of all that the Bible really says about the New Covenant and what Jesus came to accomplish.

It is true that no one TOTALLY lives according to the Bible because we are not perfect people. But many Christians believe the basics of the faith and practice it without hypocrisy or arrogance toward others. The percentage that do live that way make others malign Christianity and I'm sorry for those that have hurt you and/or others in the process.

Thanks for listening.

Thanks, Greg, for yr thoughtful comments. And you too, Masamune's Song, for yrs...and for saying basically what I would have said, except you put it more eloquently.

I understand what you're saying, Greg, about the concern for non-believers coming from a place of genuine concern. I realize this is the case with some Christians, just as I realize we ARE all indoctrinated to an extent. But my reaction is still that it seems like an awfully large burden to place on a four year old. If an adult frets about me (or some other atheist) going to Hell, that's one thing. I feel somewhat sorry for that person for worrying, but, they are an adult capable of critical thought and choosing their own religion. But for a CHILD to have that level of anxiety is what disturbs me. It's one thing to teach yr kids what you believe to be the truth(s) about religion (though it is still odd to me, I must admit, with the multitude of religions out there, and no proof behind any of them, to choose one and be SO SURE that it's the absolutely right one), but to have them worrying about eternal torment before they've even hit school -- I find that problematic. There are plenty of things I plan to teach my (hypothetical, future) children as part of encouraging them to be informed, compassionate individuals, but I'm not going to start scaring them with rape statistics when they're still babies, you know?

It also sometimes grates that there are a bunch of double standards surrounding Christians/atheists, or at least in my experience there are. For example, if, as an atheist, I TRULY BELIEVED that Christians were deluded and dangerous to society, and that for their own psychological well-being (and the well-being of others), they really needed to see the truth that there is no god, then if I cared about them, I might actually try to persuade them that there is no god. You know, for their own good. That would be the flip side to the situation you present of the well-intentioned prosthelytizing Christians. When Christians do it, it seems mostly accepted -- an annoyance at best. I feel like there's much more outrage when atheists do it. It's the same way that it seems mostly socially acceptable for people to tell me (as many have in this thread), "I hope you come around and see the light and start believing in Jesus," but it wouldn't be okay for me to say, "I hope you come around and realize you believe in made-up nonsense." Not that I would say this, or that I condone it from any atheists -- preachy people are annoying regardless of religious affiliation -- but it does bother me that it doesn't go both ways for most.

I know plenty of people for whom religion is a very positive influence. But I also know people whose religious beliefs seem to cause them more anxiety/guilty/conflict than anything else. And I know plenty of people in both groups whose religion clouds their logic. I don't think religion and science/logic need to be mutually exclusive (which isn't to say that we should be trying to "prove" if there's a god using science, because that's not reasonable, but plenty of Christians believe in god and also evolution, for example), but some Christians certainly seem to prefer to keep it that way. I truly am concerned for their well being (and the well being of their children) if religion causes them to, say, ignore scientific findings. Or use the Bible to justify hatred or horrible acts. I'd like to be able to express this concern and have it taken with the same open mind you're encouraging me to accept Christian indoctrination with.

And honestly, I like to think I generally do. Like I said, burdening a child with that worry is what really bothers me here. I've got religious friends and family and students and they are great people and we respect each other's differences. Their beliefs are strange to me b/c I don't share them (as I'm sure my lack of belief is strange to them), but we don't judge one another or attempt to convert. There have been (and continue to be) many terrible things perpetrated in the name of various religions, but I think it's just human nature: If people didn't have a god to blame it on, they'd find something else. It doesn't even bother me if people want to (privately, and that's the key) pray for my soul. I don't want to be preached at, is all, even by the well-intentioned.

Gil wrote: "Thank you for a honest review. Thank you also for caring enough about your students to read a book which you struggled with the basic premise. To me, this shows how much you value your chosen profe..."

Thanks for saying this. I do value my profession, and my students, very much!

Tina wrote: "Thanks, Greg, for yr thoughtful comments. And you too, Masamune's Song, for yrs...and for saying basically what I would have said, except you put it more eloquently.

I understand what you're sayi..."

Tina, I appreciate your humane way of debate, because it is mine as well. :) We can disagree, but we don't have to be disagreeable.

I do agree that scaring small children with thoughts of hell isn't the best way to teach them about the love of God. Just teach them that God loves and cares for them, etc. And teach them to accept and walk in that love and then they WILL avoid hell. In the case of teaching them rape statistics, you are right. Just show them and teach them positively how to get into the right relationships (when they are old enough).

I believe the best way to present the truth of what you believe is to live it first. I like a quote attributed to St Francis of Assisi: "Preach the gospel at all times, when necessary use words". In other words live out the truth and SHOW that it works in your life so that others will be curious. If a question arises or an opportunity to ask someone if you can pray for them and they accept ... use words then.

About proof of the validity of Christianity. There is much. Read former Atheist, Lee Strobel's book: The Case for Christ. It chronicles his attempt as a journalist to disprove Christianity and the actual proof he found along the way. (http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Jou...).
One more good book is by former atheist Peter Hitchens (brother of Christopher Hitchens, well known atheist) called "The Rage Against God". (http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-Go...)
There is more, but that is a good place to start, if you are open to it. Please don't see this as pushy or preachy. Just wanting to respond to the comment that there is "no proof behind any of them" ... religions that is.

The thought that Atheists having a concern for people that believe in a God (that is non-existent) and prosthelytizing them doesn't really hold up because they are just deluding themselves IF there is no God and when they die, they just die. IF there is a God that has provided the only way for people to live forever apart from hell, THEN you have a reason to be concerned for others.

All that being said, I appreciate your openness and civility in this conversation and I have tried to do the same. Have a wonderful school year!

Hi,
Colton knew things that a Catholic - NOT a Protestant, like his family - would know. Ex., the Crucifix. So he never learned/was told that, because his family doesn't believe in it.
Sincerely, Kimberly

Kimberly wrote: "Hi,
Colton knew things that a Catholic - NOT a Protestant, like his family - would know. Ex., the Crucifix. So he never learned/was told that, because his family doesn't believe in it.
Sincere..."

Good point, Kimberly. He also told them about his sister that his mother had miscarried. They had not told him about this, among other things.

Greg wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Hi,
Colton knew things that a Catholic - NOT a Protestant, like his family - would know. Ex., the Crucifix. So he never learned/was told that, because his family doesn't believe..."

Exactly. And I doubt a three-year-old who may have overheard discussion about a miscarried sister would know exactly what it meant - unless, of course, God explained it to him.
Sincerely,
Kimberly

Kimberly wrote: "Greg wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Hi,
Colton knew things that a Catholic - NOT a Protestant, like his family - would know. Ex., the Crucifix. So he never learned/was told that, because his family d..."

Kimberly, very true! I believe we see what we want to see in our life. If we want to find holes in a story, we will find something to make our point valid. Not that some stories don't have holes, but we don't give other's stories credence sometimes, just because we go into it predisposed to a point of view. Just the way humans are. Thanks!

Greg wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Greg wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Hi,
Colton knew things that a Catholic - NOT a Protestant, like his family - would know. Ex., the Crucifix. So he never learned/was told that, beca..."

No problem! I just don't understand all the criticism on this great book. Not only is it written wonderfully, beautifully, and all that, the actual STORY is so unbelievable and unbelievable at the same time, and great.

Kimberly wrote: "Greg wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Greg wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Hi,
Colton knew things that a Catholic - NOT a Protestant, like his family - would know. Ex., the Crucifix. So he never learned/was t..."

Well, God seems far-fetched to many until they experience Him. When you choose to accept Him by faith, then you will experience Him. Choosing to deny Him, you will never have any personal proof of His existence. Jesus said to "doubting" Thomas in John 20:29, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”

Greg wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Greg wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Greg wrote: "Kimberly wrote: "Hi,
Colton knew things that a Catholic - NOT a Protestant, like his family - would know. Ex., the Crucifix. So he nev..."

Yes exactly! I love that quote by Jesus.
Sincerely,
Kimberly

@ Greg

Greg wrote: "Also, (no offense meant toward you) I get a little tired of the argument that people make concerning Old Testament passages about stoning people or eating the wrong type of meat, etc. If you understand the teachings of the new testament then you understand that we are under a new covenant with God (a new testament) and the old covenant has been replaced. So, eating the wrong meat ... not braiding women's hair ... stoning people who have sinned has been replaced with a new way."

Erm. :ehem:

Meaning no offense to you, either, I get a little tired of Christians who say they live “according to the Bible” while blithely remaining unfamiliar with the text itself. There are no prohibitions against braiding hair in the Old Testament. That is a New Testament prohibition given by Paul in First Timothy 2:9. The prohibition against rare meat is in both the Old Testament (Gen. 9: 3-4) and in the New (Acts 15: 28-29.)

I actually chose those two laws specifically because they are New Testament commands, not Old Testament-- and therefore underscore the fact that modern Christians live neither according to the laws of the Old Testament, nor the New, but rather according to the laws of (contemporary) churches’ (contemporary) interpretation of the text. Anyone who believes that their beliefs are identical to those of first century Christians is sadly mistaken. In fact, many of the early Christian thinkers were universalists. The idea that you must “repent or burn” is not in their writings.

Please note that none of your response negates, or even addresses, the point that I was making.
We agree that no one lives the Bible perfectly. But you are saying that this is because we are all sinners, and I am saying that this is because the Bible itself is self-contradictory, and that much of it-- like the vast majority of sacred writ-- is meaningful only if it is interpreted.

In fact, your answer only serves to bolster that point. Many people who are ready to take up arms to defend “the Bible” are 1) frequently ignorant of much of the actual text and 2) think nothing of dismissing 3/4ths of that same book as “Old Testament stuff.”

Also, I would like to point out that the Bible would not BE a sacred text, if not for the Christian church. Someone told you it was holy, and someone told you what parts of it to believe.

I am not, as you say, “using this as a reason to discount the Bible.” I am merely pointing out what the text actually says, while you are telling me what it is supposed to mean. And herein lies the difference between us. You do not read the Bible. You study the Bible. You eat the word of God, analyzing it for ways that it applies to you personally. You kneel before its authority and hold your own feelings in submission to what you read in the text. (I am not in any way faulting you for this behavior. I think it is wonderful and possibly makes you a better person. I am simply observing that it is so.)

But *I* read the Bible. I read what the text itself says, without the filter put on it by the church at large. And the text itself contains archaic laws, garbled prophecies, non-theistic poetic musings, with a dash of genocide thrown in. (That last should bother you, at least a little, in the privacy of a dark corner of your mind. “Physical representation from days past of what God is doing spiritually in the world today” or no, real people were slaughtered whole scale because they were in the way of “the chosen people of God.”)

It is not neat. It is not clear. It is not one, concise package.

When you so ardently defend “the Bible” you are really defending your church, and your church’s concise interpretation of a complex hodgepodge of essays.

This is not to say that I disagree with you on all points. The New Testament message of grace and personal peace with God, as opposed to the pleasing God with ‘dos and don’ts’ is one of the most profound, beautiful and freeing religious ideas. It just doesn’t have much to do with what I was saying.

Neither does your argument that I am “throwing out what is true and right because of someone that professed Christianity did something terribly wrong.” Please note that my argument is not (and never has been) that Christians are jerks and therefore Christianity is bunk. I was, for twenty years of my life, easily as devout and fervent a Christian as you are. (And, for those twenty years, I would have believed it entirely impossible that I could ever be on the other side of the fence, as you probably do right now.)

Masamune's Song wrote: "@ Greg

Greg wrote: "Also, (no offense meant toward you) I get a little tired of the argument that people make concerning Old Testament passages about stoning people or eating the wrong type of mea..."

Well, that was certainly a long comment about how the Bible isn't true...? (Which, I do not agree with - the Bible is of course true - but...oh, and you said "someone told us it was holy"...yeah, that Someone was God.)

Sincerely,
Kimberly

Masamune's Song wrote: "@ Greg

Greg wrote: "Also, (no offense meant toward you) I get a little tired of the argument that people make concerning Old Testament passages about stoning people or eating the wrong type of mea..."

I really don't want to get into arguing about all this, but Paul does not forbid braiding of hair. He tells women that they should not depend upon these things to know what true beauty is (1 Peter, 1 Timothy). Also, some things discussed in scripture are cultural norms versus commands.

The New Testament teaches that we are under grace now and not law. Braiding hair and not eating meat are laws. Paul says, “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive" (1 Corinthians 10:23). We are under freedom & grace now, not law. He goes on to discuss eating meat offered to idols which is in the passage in Acts 15:29, which you referenced. He says that we COULD eat that meat, because it is just meat, and the idol it was offered to is no god at all in reality. (NO prohibition against it here.) BUT, if it causes someone else to stumble because you eat it, then DON'T eat it. Wait! He says it's ok, then he says don't! Contradiction! No, we are under grace and we could do many things because of freedom in Christ now. BUT, we are not to allow our freedom to put us back into bondage or hurt someone else's faith, so we must choose not to do certain things if we see it will harm us and put us into slavery to evil or harmful things (sin).

Also, I do not dismiss the Old Testament. Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the OT, but to fulfill it. I can't and don't do away with it (I still should restrain myself from murder and adultery), we just serve God under a new covenant now. Since Jesus came and became the perfect 'lamb' led to slaughter, we don't have to slaughter animals anymore.

I do read the Bible and I'm glad you seem to know it pretty well, but understanding it is quite another thing. Understanding the connection (and relevance) of both testaments is key and understanding how Jesus' appearance fulfilled and changed things is pretty awesome. How could he fulfill and change things at the same time? Seems contradictory, but it's not.

We all need God's blessing and healing. I pray your life is blessed.

That is all. Enough said.

Tina, I'm LDS/Christian and in all honesty wasn't a big fan of this book even though many of the things I read already fit in with my beliefs. But speaking to you and anyone else who is an atheist or of a non-Christian faith, I would like you to be able to assume that if there is a God (and I believe wholeheartedly there is) that He loves all His children... those who believe and those who don't. We believe His glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man/woman. That being the case, He has certainly prepared the way for the billions of people with diverse beliefs.