As a practicing and believing Roman Catholic (by choice), I feel it necessary to report to you that I appreciate your website.  While I have not read the contents of it in their entirety, I certainly believe your claim that you came to your beliefs in a sincere manner and without improper motivation

Thank you.

Certainly I disagree with most of what your website purports and I do find some of your arguments to be just as emotionally-driven as the Christian apologists' [e.g. I cannot help but think that your contention that there is solid evidence that belief in an afterlife is based more on emotional need than critical thought is simply wishful thinking on your part rather than reflective of verifiable scientific data.  Perhaps belief in an afterlife IS based more on emotional need rather than critical thought; but solid evidence in support of this is practically impossible.

Two kinds of available evidence leap to mind. One is the near-universality across human cultures of rituals and customs implying belief in an afterlife, going back tens of thousands of years to the use of grave goods by Paleolithic H. sapiens. These beliefs obviously did not derive from philosophical or scientific rationality. The other kind of evidence is the lack of philosophical and scientific knowledge among the vast majority of humans who believe in an afterlife, combined with the obvious emotional appeal of that belief.

Britannica seems to make similar points in the survey article "Sacred Rites and Ceremonies":

The Paleolithic burials reveal that the pattern of man's reaction to the fact and phenomena of death has been set from the dawn of culture. Unlike the other animals, man has been unable to ignore the mysterious cessation of activity and lapse of consciousness that cause his body to decay and befall members of his own kind. Death has, accordingly, constituted a problem for man, and he has felt impelled to take special action to cope with it. The pattern of his reaction has been twofold: confronted with the deaths of his companions, he has recognized an obligation to attend to their needs as he has conceived them, believing that they continued to exist in some form, either in the grave or in an underworld to which the grave gave access. But man's concern with death has not been confined to his tendance of the dead; for in the deaths of his fellows he has seen a presage of his own demise. This anticipation on the part of the living of the experience of dying has been a factor of immense psychological and social import. It is essentially a human characteristic; it stems from a consciousness of time, [..which has..] made him acutely aware of his own mortality and the inevitability of his own demise. Hence, his anticipation of death presents him with a profound emotional challenge, unknown to other species. The repercussions of this challenge can be traced in almost every aspect of his social and cultural life; but it is in his religions that man's reaction to death finds its most significant expression. All religion is concerned with postmortem security--with linking mortal man to an eternal realm--whether it be achieved by ritual magic, divine assistance, or mystic enlightenment.

You continue:

My guess is for most people that it is either a combination of the two, or simply inherited belief that one reflects upon neither critically nor emotionally.

That belief in an afterlife is inherited does not imply that its emotional appeal does not play a big role in the continuing survival of that belief.

1) I fail to see why Jesus' divinity is only believable if he interpreted non-literally the parts of the Old Testament that were meant to be interpreted in that way.

My point is that anyone who supports the actions of Yahweh in the OT has a seriously flawed sense of morality.

I find it ironic that you think the Christian idea of eternal damnation is unjust.  In fact, it is just the opposite.  In a free will schema (under God), theoretically one can, with full knowledge, choose his eternal destiny: life with God, or life without God (eternal damnation).

Your argument here does not even begin to answer the standard critique of the justness of hell. See http://humanknowledge.net/Correspondence/India/ for a discussion.

2) I find it peculiar that you would base the believability of Jesus' divinity on the discovery of physical artifacts.  [..] these discoveries would increase the believability of Jesus' divinity no more or no less than they would increase the believability that he was a master magician, an agent of Satan, or God's greatest prophet (albeit not divine).

I said "physical artifacts or historical records" -- i.e. any objective and relatively direct evidence. As you probably know, I didn't say this evidence is a sufficient condition for belief in his divinity, but merely necessary. Your perceptive comment highlights a point that few other Christians appreciate: given the recorded doctrines of Yahweh/Jesus, evidence corroborating the supernatural origin of that record could as easily point toward malevolence as beneficence. See http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/GospelProbabilities.html.

P.S. I am sorry to read that you and your family had to endure the tragic loss of your son.  We can both agree that he is no longer suffering, and that his memory will live on.

Thank you; that's very kind.