Peter, remco, thanks, but what you refer to are not my words but those of Louis Dupré.

There are people who have problems with the existence of a spiritual world (that science cannot make contact with); there are people who do not have these problems but have problems with a personal God; there are people who have no problems with a personal God, only with the Christian model/version of Him; there are people who have no problems with the Christian outlook in general but have problems with established churches and their office bearers, especially - explicitly or implicitly - the Catholic hierarchy.

These are four kinds of problems at four different levels, and it is very hard to understand the complaints, or even to respond, if they are confused or mixed together. If, for instance, you do not believe in (the Christian model of) God you can criticise the social or political activities of a particular Church, but you should not pass judgement on whether it is faithful to its mission. What Peter and Dupré were commenting on is a particular feature of the Christian world view, and they, especially Dupré, warn against the two extremes. In this context it is irrelevant that some outsider would rather prefer that they stick to this or that extreme.

remco, I have lived in a society that wanted to realise the “Kingdom of God” in this world: they called it communism, an utopian state of affairs when everybody will have all his/her needs and desires satisfied. We know what was the reality. “Kingdom of God” is indeed a good idea that makes people strive for it, but one should never think it can be realised … full stop if you do not believe in the afterlife. The same about “saved” and “unsaved” - this should not make a difference to those who do not believe in afterlife, i.e. believe that their souls (the “software running their brains”) will be “unsaved” (pun intended), destroyed. However, I can understand your anger at those who want to “save your soul” against your will.

I am university educated, and I thought well capable of reading. Well, maybe not. Now I am told that if a passage reads that God did a miracle then I must read symbolism or allegory into it somehow. Otherwise I’m not reading it right.

So where it says Jesus healed a blind man who was blind from birth, it must mean something else, even if that does violence to the text, and the clear intention of the author. The crowd who witnessed the event are amazed. He must be a prophet. No one has ever heard of a man blind from birth having his sight restored because of prayer.

John only mentions a few miracles in his marvelous gospel. Anyone who reads it will be in no doubt where John is aiming. It’s not rocket science. A ten year old could read John and tell you which bits are meant to taken as an account of what happened and which bits are meant as allegory.

Jesus himself then brings the lesson. “I have come to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.” (John 9:39NLT) Are we so blind we can’t read what is plainly written?

BeeTee’s CHALLENGE to us (in his post above) is starting to make a lot more sense. Have we lost the ability to read? Read the book of John in context to see what his message really is. Maybe still you won’t believe it, but don’t say it says something else.

Remco, what is left after the book? Jesus is still resurrected. His Spirit is present in the world, evidenced today by miracles, e.g.

http://catchthefire.com.au/blog/2007/07/24/at-world-doctors-conference-heart-surgeon-relates-astounding-account-of-a-resurrection-from-the-dead

His message still transforms lives, like forgiven ex-slave trader, John Newton, (see the current movie, Amazing Grace) “I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see.” Seeing such change of heart in a hardened man can be compelling evidence.

If I am to be criticised for my faith, let it be because I have big faith, not because I can’t read.

To Mick and George and other Christians. We, who do not call ourselves anything and we are neither ‘saved’ or ‘unsaved’. We are.

We believe in the innate goodness of all people and that we are one.

There is no book to look up. There is no mythology.

We acknowledge “miracles” occur all the time and when they happen to align with the Christian definition of a miracle, we understand why they should be widely promoted. Ghosts, UFOs, resurrections and virgin births are part of the unexplained. Just like the wave particle duality of quantum science. It is. We also question and get branded heretics when it touches the establishment, the church.
I write here as I feel sorry for those who classify, limit, label and define things by a book which includes stories of sacrifice and other whacko requirements so as to be called a Christian.

Practice your limited spirituality it that makes you happy. But reflect on how joyful your life could be without them. Yes yes, there is that one big fear unaddressed, of what happens in the hole. Your belief provides an answer.

How can you look into the face of a child and say it is born in sin? To not be in the Kingdom of God right now?

I am saddened that religion is the basis of so much strife when any fool can see the practice of religion diminishes the quality of living now and apart from the one in a million proclaimed “miracle”, there is not one skerrick of proof of an object god.

It is not a question of believing in god, there is only god.

It is just that some authors, hearing about one mystic two millennia ago, spawned a cult and membership means being saved from that fate of annihilation. Sad to have something evolve to redress our deepest fear. Christianity, like Islam is a fear-underpinned cult using mythologies that defers the ability to enjoy heaven on earth. We are one- only god.

I am a sinner. When I read the brief exchange between George and Sells, I thought "how smug"
But how uncharitable a gut response was that? My superior reaction was just one more example of how ready I am to belittle the best efforts of others to make sense of it all.
Remco, George, Sells, all of you, good on you for trying to make sense of it all.
Meanwhile, let mercy, tolerance, love and goodwill abound. And let me accept my readiness to criticise as another indication that I am not perfect, but importantly, not therefore in need of "salvation"
Fencepost.

Earth will ALWAYS be heaven to me. Can you really conceive in your mind anything more beautiful or perfect? We've looked deep into the cosmos and found nowhere else like it.

Earth is heaven... or hell, for us to create - depending on our choices. What is wrong with people sharing available resources sustainably? Why do we have the metaphor of feeding the five thousand?
Imagine all those people coming to see Jesus to learn his wisdom. When he begins sharing 2 loaves and 5 fishes, what are the rich amongst the crowd going to do? Ignore the wisdom they have come to hear? Not such a 'miracle' if others simply followed his example?

We are also reminded at the last supper "do this in memory of me" - that sharing the basics, food and drink (wine) are essential if people, from disparate backgrounds, are to coexist in peace.

Jesus had one mission: to teach the way of peace, so we can all, together, achieve the kingdom of heaven, the divine plan.

Even if heaven does exist only as a supernatural, afterlife place, then why would those living there already want anyone to join them if they have not proved themselves capable of such heavenly behaviour here on Earth?

Jesus refused the sword, suffered death at the hands of others without attempting to retaliate and yet, we have modern "Christians" causing/cheerleading the invasion of Iraq and plundering its wealth. The Christian path defends the weak using reason, not force and appealing to the universal - what we all have in "common" (communism, interestingly, being a derivative) it doesn't exploit them for personal gain.

Today, we WITNESS world leaders, political and spiritual (including Christian), more concerned with their own supremacy rather than the common good/weal and universal understanding. The world will only truly gain peace when the concerted aim is equality and not supremacy.

K£vin, remco, if I understand you properly you would prefer to pick only those parts of the message of Jesus - and to a lesser degree of what over centuries developed as Christianity - that (a) refer to the material world and (b) that are indisputably seen as positive even by non-Christians. If you do not believe in anything beyond the material world, this is, of course, the most charitable way of seeing His message. The Christians will agree, but they will insists on a deeper understanding of Jesus and of what evolved over centuries from his teachings, which unfortunately (but for a “cultural evolutionist” not so surprising) included degenerative mutations.

As a mathematician I shall certainly agree with your appreciation of mathematics and the work of mathematicians as manifested in the usefulness of computers, but I would not agree if you wanted to reduce mathematics to computing or replace mathematicians by computers. What you praise in the usefulness of Christianity (or mathematics) is only its application to everyday life, its outer manifestations, as useful and praiseworthy as they might be.

A fairy tale, I used to tell my daughter when as a child she objected to the unpleasant parts of our faith, went something like this: The three little pigs had learned their lesson, they built their houses from bricks, but now they wanted to have some beautiful flowers. So they went to a nursery and bought some plants. The first pig liked the flower, but not the rest, so she plucked its head and placed it on the ground in her garden. The second pig kept the flower and the stem but threw away the roots with the dirt they came in, because they were not as pretty as the flower. The third pig was wiser, she realised that the beautiful flower cannot survive for long without its roots. She planted the whole lot, mixing its dirt with the soil of her own garden, etc. You see, in English, “dirt” stands for the nourishing soil as well as for something rather negative