There is no doubt the stories of Jesus engender a number of emotions and feelings in His followers under the umbrella of 'grace'.

It seems unlikely that much anger is directed at that or the notion of "the between of self and neighbour".

Proposing that "leaving all of the billions before his coming and those in far-flung countries who have not heard of him out in the cold, or rather, burning in everlasting fire" is "logically credible" may raise some ire, though.

I much prefer this Understanding of the Universal, non-Christian, non-sectarian, Spirit-Breathing Spiritual Way of Life taught and demonstrated by Saint Jesus of Galilee while he was alive.

http://www.beezone.com/up/secretsofkingdomofgod.html

Plus this assessment of the fabricated origins and political purposes of the Bible. Political purposes which intended to consolidate the political power of the church "fathers" who won the culture wars of their time and place, and who thus had the power to define "official" Christian-ISM.

http://www.beezone.com/up/forgottenesotericismjesus.html

Plus this reference on the origins of the modern so called religious mind, as distinct from the mind, or rather psyche, that informed religion in ancient times, and prior to the European Renaissance.

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism.aspx

Just a suggestion, Mr Sellick.

Listen to your daughters. They are trying very hard to explain something to you. About you, not about your ideas.

"Being broadminded liberal moderns they objected to my exclusion of other ways to God or enlightenment. They are supported by the current ideology that sees inclusiveness as the highest virtue."

That comes across as condescending. Maybe it's in the editing, but it seems to me that you are being somewhat scathing in your description of them as "broadminded liberal moderns", and dismissive of the idea that inclusiveness is actually a highly commendable trait.

They probably admire your intellect enormously. Don't disappoint them by belittling theirs.

Your theology students are also trying to tell you something, this time about your ideas.

"I must have been seen as narrowly sectarian and ignorant of other cultures and religions."

The rest of your piece here simply confirms this as an accurate assessment. You appear to be trying far too hard to justify a literal interpretation of John's gospel, when a less tunnel-visioned approach could yield far more effective results, in terms of your students' understanding of the Christian message.

I am an atheist myself, but I can still spot poor marketing technique when I see it.

Dear Peter,

<< One can live a good life without Christ. The answer is obviously yes, one can.>>

Not so. The true answer is yes, “but”!

If Christ is “full of grace and truth.” Why does the Christian Church promote threats, fear, uncertainty and doubt to sustain itself? Is this because Christ’s love is conditional?

Conditional upon abiding by the man made rules created by theology? The same Theology that insists divine and not man made rules? The same theology that insists that, “it rejects the use of violence in the achievement of our ends.”? The same theology that pretends it does not embrace bias, bigotry, abuse, misunderstandings, obfuscation and the exponential growth in hideously complex explanations for that which is inexplicable?

Is in not wonderful that you can one the one hand, be sensitive to the anger against Christianity, then create a possible explanation based upon your fabricated theology, then use your fabricated theology to explain this phenomena, then use the same theology mitigate it on behalf of “unbelievers”?

The mind blowing absence of reality can only be explained by the Autopoiesis upon which it is based?

When are you going to explain why there are now some 34,000 registered man made religions on this planet?

For an in your face example of christian-ISM as uniformed militant intolerance why not try Googling: Alternet Tax Dollars Going To Creepy Christian Dogma.

Of course right-wing USA christian-ISM is a completely different kettle of (rotten) fish, as compared to right-wing christian-ism here in the land of Oz.

Islam has similar nonsense. Their statement of faith: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Christians have their humanoid god in Jesus. Muslims have their voice of God coming from Mohammed. It's the stock-in-trade of missionary religions to claim their mumbojumbo is the unique and exclusive truth. That gives them a license to murder the infidel in Crusades and Jihads. Both nutty beliefs can feel holy while murdering.

I doubt that there is a God. However, if there is one I can't believe that he/she/it is either represented by the Bible or the Koran.

There are religions that are not as unreasonable as Christianity and Islam. One is Buddhism. The key idea of Buddhism is simple. The human condition entails suffering. Suffering is caused through the human ego, by desire, clinging, attachment and greed. Humanity can find tranquility only by removing attachments that are at the root of human unhappiness, anxiety and aggression. The way to liberation is not through the worship of a god or anything else, but by becoming a fully autonomous and compassionate human being. The implication of the Buddha’s logic is that even belief in God is itself a form of human desire and clinging, a product of the ego and another cause of suffering in that it prevents a person from becoming an autonomous and free human being.