As a lifelong Roman Catholic, I can understand the strong reactions to the premises of the book, as they challenge some of the basic premises about the faith.

But I am slightly amused at the sight of so many Christians rising to the defense of their God.

He's been through worse.

He can take care of Himself.

Call it a hunch -- based on something I read in the back of some other book one time -- but I believe He'd want us to spend more time looking after each other than the integrity of his "biography."

I am equally amused at some of these letters written by the "wise" who insist, with a snobbish degree of certainty that Jesus isn't divine, and for that matter, never even existed, with all of the zeal of the adolescent who tells his baby sister there is no Santa Claus.

Okay. That's fine. Leave the dreamers to their Book -- which is a summary, not a diary -- and trust me, they'll find out whether you're right at the end.

And if they've truly followed the instructions, the worst they would have done is to do right by you even when you mock them.

Pretty sweet deal for you.

"You see how any omnipotent creature capable of hiding it's own existence is impossible to "disprove" using science? The best we can say is, there's no measurable evidence to cause us to postulate Santa's existence, or God's. They have no measurable interaction with the known world, all signs point towards the idea that they're man made myths, and belief in them just doesn't make rational sense."

I can understand this position, Ben. But if you can't find something, or you can't see something, does it necessarily follow that it's being hidden?

"Measurable evidence" is just that. Evidence one can measure. Does that mean that evidence that one can not (yet) measure does not exist?

Does not being able to see, hear, feel, taste, smell or identify certain proof of a concept larger than one's self necessarily mean that such proof does not exist?

Anonymous, in response to Aimee Light, said:

St. John, the apostle/evangelist, stayed till the end and was "rewarded" by being granted custody of the Virgin Mary until her own passing.

Jesus didn't grant custody of the Mother to the beloved disciple, but rather conferred sonship on him.

That usage of the term is most unfortunate when discussing the Church's position on women in it.

Mr. Noer's uninformed and misleading opinions don't matter per se. Nor does Ms. Traister's snarky but clever retort. What really matters is the issue that it talked around but not really discussed.

Does the increasing presence of women in the upper-income brackets of the marketplace effect our dating and mating patterns? Of course! Not because successful women are reactionary harpies or golddiggers. Not because successful women are sainted beings among insecure neanderthals. But because women have access to opportunities that increase their options. More money provides greater choices for x and y chromosomes alike.

Women are being graduated from college and professional schools at a higher rate. Their incomes are increasing (but not quite at the same rate). Single women, by some reports, are buying homes at a higher rate than men. And women, like men, are getting married later in life. These are the "benefits" of the Benjamins.

What person, regardless of gender, wouldn't be choosy or demanding about a mate when they can already provide for themselves? We will ALL hold out for a better deal until we can no longer do so. Whether it's a car, a house, playoff tickets or a mate. This is especially so when the deal requires compromise to make it work.

These opportunities are not without risk. Women who want to have children can't hold out forever. The longer men wait, the less likely they are to marry, which makes them poorer and less healthy. While the consequences differ, they flow from the same opportunities.

Our society continues to change our lives, but we're carping at each other along gender lines about who is to blame. Let's keep our focus on the major factors -- education and income. They have affected our mating choices since the beginning of time and they will continue to do so.

That's human nature, and neither sex can claim a monopoly in that regard.