If anyone wanted to convince a load of ignorant and superstitious people who believed that “heaven” was “up” and that somebody who used to be on the ground was now in heaven, then clearly an upwards motion would be necessary to get there. Once convinced, the ignorants could probably be persuaded to hand over their money and children, if told that an invisible communication device was available exclusively for their use - via the criminal who was extorting their assets, of course.

That is exactly what happened. Nothing written above suggests otherwise. The passage in question refers to a simple, straightforward, up. Not some elusive, magic, up. The cloud in question is an actual cloud, not a magic cloud. Above it there is not a great deal of interest until reaching alpha Centauri - if one happened to aim in that direction. Any floating persons ascending at walking pace would now be approaching the orbit of Mars.

Also, the supposed most erudite atheist in the world are gathering in Australia for their convention while refusing to debate Christians:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-34463-Albuquerque-Christian-Apologetics-Examiner~y2010m3d4-Atheism–celebrate-reason-while-absconding-from-reasoning

Reason? No, merely self-aggrandizing and self-professed pseudo-erudition.

Perhaps the reason he went up is because he was from up… he and his kind came here to teach mankind… perhaps we are their experiment and they care for us just as we care for those under our protection…

It is just as plausible as these spirits from another dimension, who surely would not have had to go up to go home?

But to return to your question, I believe that we ought to be as tolerant as we are able. Tolerance is not some form of radical relativism, but a recognition of the humanity that we all share. ‘You have beliefs. I have beliefs. Your beliefs are different to my beliefs…. um, what to do? I say! I’ll be tolerant of your beliefs if your tolerant of mine! And so long as neither of our beliefs causes anyone harm, then I shall respect you for having them’. Tolerance seems to work best when it is reciprocated. It is proactive, not defensive. Really, it is summed up by the saying: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.

I tend to think (or hope) that tolerance is really what any democratic society is founded on. Thus, when other cultures enter our own multi-cultural society, we expect them to be tolerant towards members of our society. I tend to reject the view that suggests that, if we tolerant others, we are siding with an other’s personal choice or particular value. This is simply untrue. Tolerance means that we are upholding the same political freedoms that allow for everyone’s beliefs - not just my own. Ultimately, it is for the people of a democratic society to collectively decide the degree of freedom, and congruently, the limitations of what will and won’t be tolerated.

So, my answer. We ought to be proactive in understanding each other. We cannot afford to dismiss other people’s values or beliefs as ‘wacky’ or ‘primitive’ or ‘demonic’. We must delve a little deeper. If something doesn’t make sense to you straight away (and I’m not talking to anyone specifically here), we must look a bit longer until it does.

I acknowledge that the NLT is a paraphrase-translation. I wouldn’t use it as my key source if I was expositing the scriptures. I have found, though, that at small group, when the NLT is read out alongside the NIV or ESV, it is very vivd and helpful alternative text. I still really like it, and if it’s used alongside a NIV, ESV or NRSV, I think it can be a really excellent tool for understanding and illuminating difficult passages.