Dear Rev. Graham:

Re: “Billy Graham – My Answer”, April 24, 2006

I write in regard to your response to “J.D.” and his concern that “My two friends don’t want anything to do with God and claim to be atheists, and it hurts me to think I’ll never see them again after we die.”
With all due respect, I suggest that it is Christian arrogance that leads you to say “Someday they may realize their own spiritual emptiness and hopelessness and give their lives to Christ.” There is a presumption in your words that all atheists must be spiritually empty and hopeless, a presumption that is groundless and demeaning. Further, in the particular instance under concern, you are speaking of two individuals who you likely do not even know. Your words do not express a Christ-like attitude, as I understand it. Even if you think you have some justification, I suggest you consider the reaction of atheists and agnostics to your “holier-than-thou attitude.”
You add insult when you suggest J.D. pray for his friends. If his friends are atheists they don’t believe in prayer or the power of prayer. Imagine your reaction if they offered to perform some arcane ritual for your friend?! Maybe draw a pentagram or offer up a chicken.
Of course, J.D.’s concern, as expressed in his letter, is based on the assumption that his friends aren’t worthy of heaven because the Christian religion is exclusivist to begin with. I humbly suggest that your words are not drawing atheists or agnostics closer to Christ.

J.E. Coufal

I received a response from a Graham acolyte, which danced around any direct answers but did include 3 bible tracts (they were a cut above chick tracts!). I wrote back that i would read their tracts if they read some material of my choice, but never heard from them again.

Finally, if suffering is necessary so we can distinguish good from evil and so we can appreciate joy, how will we ever be joyous in the eternal bliss of heaven?

But instaed of stirring the pot, I'd rather ask a question and make a statement or two...

Jesus was Jewish. Christianity as an organized religion didn't take form until long after his death. He spoke hebrew. He celebrated the Sabbath on Friday nights. And since he couldn't have possibly been taught from the new testament, (and I don't recall the word "hell" in the old...), am I to assume that we'll be hitting the desert for a few more years???

1AH

As for those who have not fully developed reasoning faculties on death, presumably they acquire them in the afterlife and can then choose for themselves.

If it sounds pretty vague and unbased in any religous text that is because it is.

On the killing people to get them to heaven point- all major religions teach that it is flat out wrong to kill people (except for a few special cases), regardless of the consequences in the afterlife. Its a deontological mindset, but it also reflects the obvious worry "what if we're wrong?"...

What scares me is the followup logic of heaven. For example, do miscarried or aborted babies go to heaven or hell? If a Christian says heaven, then they have to admit that Jesus was wrong when he said the only way to the Father was through him. If they say hell, then it is clear that God is a monster.

But say there is some way to rationalize that babies go to heaven. Where do Muslims go? Well, they go to hell. So the kindest thing you could ever do is to help someone get to heaven. See where I am going? Why not bomb a Muslim country? The babies go to heaven. Such cruelity could easily be justified with such beliefs.

Of course, Adam's point is also there; hell didn't exist until 2000 years ago. God decided to make a hell for us all; he didn't have to. He's GOD, he does whatever HE wants to. He could have done something equally effective but still been forgiving and loving.

But maybe this essay is better than me rambling.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/infinitepunishment.html

Now, if the boy proceeds to do that, he will likely be killed. I may not LIKE it... but it's a natural order of things.

It seems to me that there's an obvious point you're overlooking, Chad: according to Christianity, unlike the father in your analogy, God created the natural order of things. He himself decided what the consequences would be for acting in a certain way. Hell is not a danger beyond his control, but a hazard he deliberately created and set in our way.

I see where you're going with this, but I don't view it the same way. Rather than a father deliberately whipping the boy, consider instead the father warning his son of consequences of his actions. If he walks out on a highway in front of a bus, he will be run over. Now, if the boy proceeds to do that, he will likely be killed. I may not LIKE it (especially when that person is someone I love), but it's a natural order of things. Free will is a great thing, but it also means there are often negative consequences to our actions. So I don't see God as deliberately wanting to punish anyone at all, but rather offering a way to be salvaged from the otherwise inevitable wreck. We have the right to reject him, but there is a cost to that...

Hey Chad, I won't tie you up too much since Adam is doing most of that, but I'll just ask you one question; since Christians are supposed to try and help others to "see the light", why does that end at death? Do you honestly believe that a mortal, foolish human trying to deal with finances and kids and a job have the time to make an educated decision on infinity? Shouldn't christians in the after-life be trying to help those in hell? Isn't that true compassion? Isn't the story of the prodigal son supposed to tell us to welcome back wayward sheep and give them home and show them that a true father loves all his children? Until that parable is rewritten to where the father ties up and whips his son, then makes him a slave till he dies, I don't think hell fits into Christianity.

The thing you and countless other atheists hate about Christianity is the very thing I love about it: It's not based on what we deserve. Now, that can seem a horrible thing given our inclination to thing in terms of what is fair or just. I get that, but I don't think you get the full picture that way. I'd ask you to look at it another way. Think of two scenarios. The first represents all world religions (and humanism) except for Christianity. The second is the grace of Christianity.

Scenario 1: A child grows up in a family environment where she is loved based on (and to the degree of her) behavior. When she's successful (i.e., wins the game, gets a good grade, etc), she is rewarded and shown love by her parents. On the contrary, when she fails in any way, she is disapproved of and that love is not there.

Scenario 2: That same child grows up in a family where she is loved unconditionally. It is not behaviorally based. It does not matter what the outcome of her efforts produce. She knows she will be loved the same.

The second scenario is the essence of Christianity. There is a great degree of humility required to accept it. In other words, a lot of people are going to say "I don't need grace, I'm a good enough person on my own..." But I can think of plenty of times where I fell short and I treasure grace shown to me in those situations even though I was undeserving.

There are a lot more thoughts running through my head right now and I realize I did not directly address a lot of your points, but I hope to do so later when I have a bit more time.