Rowdy,
I am not saying anything should be banned. The scholars of religion are quite at liberty to take the Gnostic texts seriously, as historical documents. However, as far as Christian theology is concerned we must make distinctions about orthodoxy, otherwise we would have to take Dan Browns rubbish seriously as well. When you come across an ancient text that is so out of step with the rest of the canon, for example it posits the sort of dualism you indicate, then you must make the decision that this is not at one with the Word. I know this raises all kinds of concerns about the church trying to impose a monoculture and the burning of heretics but theology does have the task of discernment as does any intellectual discipline. We have had wacky theories in auditory science that have been relegated to the dustbin. Unfortunately, the discipline of theology has been reduced to individual belief in which mine is as good as yours and you have not right to be critical. There is still such a thing as blasphemy.

Sells,
I personally do not see a problem in asserting a limited set of beliefs, or consistent theology, with allowing other people to also hold beliefs in a similar way - even if the content of our two belief sets differ or even contradict themselves. There is a sense where this individual freedom expresses the Golden Rule in form, rather than by a specific content. Everyone believes something, but that something is not believeable to everyone. But that shouldn't detract from real faith...
Its not about claiming that all beliefs are equally true to everyone. Knowledge is always partial, even if it feels absolute.

Sells,

You tell us that "the Bible is inerrant" and the only foundation for truth, values etc, then say "I have never paid much attention to the formation of the canon" - so we really are in the realms of 'faith' here and it's probably pointless to discuss it.

But when I mentioned the reputable clerics, theologians etc who have had their faith profoundly changed by new interpretations, you cite Dan Brown ! Not the same thing.

You say that "the only proof that God exists is the existence of Israel among the nations" - is this sort of mystical, or the country Israel ? if so, why couldn't I replace Israel with 'China'?

One other thing ....

One thing I really like about old people is that so many of them move past 'particularities'; pejudices, habits and limits of a lifetime seem to melt away as unimportant and they just appreciate and accept and value the person / life in front of them.

Here's a superficial example - my mother is about to give up her driver's license and will stop going to the Catholic Church she has been to forever and instead walk to the nearest church - which is Church of England. She doesn't see the difference as very important. She has her own thoughts but is interested to hear those of others. Mind you this didn't seem to apply to the last Pope who was so good at silencing some of the most respected Catholic theologians - blasphemers I suppose. What's the better approach - my mother's or those members of the Church of England who are tearing it in two over their differences ?

Sorry for the revisit of my chestnut but this one still grates.

In pondering Christianity's apparent unwillingness to contemplate the implications for the faith of the Rwandan massacres, as evidenced by Peter's comments, I was struck by the following verse from Matthew 23;

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass the sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

It might be time to cease casting stones at universalism and the perceived mote in John's eye and look to the log in your own.

Sells
You stated in your last post that the gnostic gospels were excluded because they didn't agree with the gospels. That's not quite how it was. A huge number of gospels were in existence by the time that the christian canon was decided upon. One bishop in the 2nd century lists 40 that were around in his part of the world. So how did the church decide on the 4 we have now? According to the church council this was very simple. They picked those four because they agreed with christian theology. But how did they know that they had the right theology? Easy. They knew because their theology agreed with the gospels they'd just chosen. A beautifully circular argument!!
I'll give you a historian's version. The gospels were chosen because some guys in a back room decided what the church should believe then went a looking for evidence to fit their theology. Fact is they could have chosen any of the hundreds of gospels then in existence. They just happened to have chosen those four. Then all they had to do was declare all the other gospels heretical because they didn't agree with the 'canonical' gospels.