Furthermore, the son moves on to more theology and claims that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and for heaven. He mentions, "If there is no heaven, Dad, then all the sufferings, tears, and cries of the dying children go unanswered." (36). He also makes the claim that if there is no heaven then this life is worth nothing, and continues, that this existence would be a senseless nightmare.
I am going to reply with the above points from correspondence three. The third correspondence is much more interesting to me and shows the flaw of the christian theology. Let us discuss the first point, that there are many who have represented love. I agree, that there are many who represent love in the presence of injustice and political disagreement, or those who have shown a complete empathetic life to people who suffer, like doctors. However, I would say that this is because of humanity and does not involve god. Religion and god would like to claim credit to the good we do in our lives. We are making this life better and better, and this should be the focus. To say that there is a heaven that is beautiful beyond comprehension only demeans this life. In the son's christian theology the focus is on heaven, where the sins have been paid for. However, to have someone be a scapegoat of our supposed sins shows us an escape of responsibility. It sets a bad example. For someone to commit a crime but have someone else pay for the crime is an evasion of responsibility.
The second point states that there is no love without freedom. I have already discussed this in my first post on the correspondence and I provide solid points in disagreement to this statement. However, it was a response to the son, who asked why god would risk freedom. I do not know why the father would ask this question, because it just gives the son more reason to try to wrap him in the christian theological straight jacket.
The third point is almost laughable. God has taken a risk and god suffers? Okay, granted, the theologian has not provided the properties of his definition for god. He obviously believes in a god that suffers and takes risks.
The fourth point is because the father asked if the risk is worth it by god. This allows the son to come right back and state that it is not freedom but love, because love is worth it. However, this is weird, because you would have to believe that there is a god in the first place, but the son has done nothing to show anything about how there is a god. We love each other without a god, we help each other without a god. We have humanity and we make this life worth living, not a god. If we believe there is no heaven and when we die there is no more, then this life has a great importance. This is our one chance to take our lives passionately, seriously, and to help future generations live in a better place, and much more so than if we believed in an afterlife.
Works Cited:
Dr. Boyd, Gregory A., and Edward K. Boyd. Letters from a Skeptic. Canada: David C. Cook Distribution, 2008. Print.