I find it interesting that the athiest in the argument presents as more loving, polite, and accepting of different points of view.

Thank you, Flendolyn. I’ll take that for the compliment you meant it to be.

This will probably sound overly-sensitive, but I’d like to point out that saying this kind of thing sort of implies that you find it surprising that atheist can be as loving, polite or open-minded as a Christian. Or at least, that’s how it came across to me.

Just so you get an idea of how this sounds to me, how does the following sound to you:

“Regarding Flendolyn’s comment, I find it interesting that a woman comes across as more logical than the men in this discussion”.

We’re all just people. All capable of love, logic and open-mindedness. These attributes don’t belong exclusively to a belief system or gender.

All that said and done, I do recognise you probably didn’t intend your comment at as slur on atheist-kind and thank you for the spirit in which you meant it.

your, “best scientific understanding” is just a set of opinions that you think are worthwhile.

No, this is not just a set of opinions, it’s the result of the use of the scientific method. An extremely powerful tool for understanding reality and, hence, the effects of human actions on the environment we live in.

If you think the bible is incorrect then I have no further comment on this matter for you

At every opportunity I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt and argued from the assumption that the Bible is true. My personal belief is that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be but I’ve tried to keep this from muddying the discussion.

You want to believe that I’m incapable of doing good because I resist a campaign that asks me to turn my lights off for an hour

My criticism has been of your method of using an interpretation of literature to trump scientific evidence. I believe you (like everyone I’ve met) are fully capable of doing good.

Resisting Earth Hour does nothing of what you say it does. Calling it anti-christian does not stop its followers from claiming to follow Christ.

No one has claimed it stops Christians from doing anything. My comment was to highlight the logical fallacy that any cause with concern for ‘creation’ (instead of your false dichotomy of ‘creator’) would have you treat any humanitarian or natural crisis as ‘anti-Christian’.

So, in order to contribute anything of value to this debate you can either treat the word of God with some respect or you can deny the word of God and argue for service to the Earth over Him.

Or, we can ignore your attempt at forcing a false dichotomy and proceed with me very generously giving ‘the word of God’ the benefit of the doubt (which, I hasten to add, I should be under no obligation to do) and discuss your interpretation of scripture.

Frank – I’d read your comments policy. It’s biased against people who would rightly point out that something dumb is dumb. I realise I didn’t include a reason why Damian’s post was dumb, but I’ve not abandoned the discussion to a simple insult.

Damian – Your “best scientific understanding” is merely a lot of opinions that you like. If you’re going to insist that the bible is incorrect then your disapproval of my resistance to Earth Hour is useless.

Your implication that my right use of the word of God correctly makes me a “snake handler” or against any notion to prevent ecological and humanitarian disasters is dishonest in the extreme.

The fact is that my resistance to a silly turn-off-lights-for-an-hour campaign does not imply anything you’ve mentioned. The fact is that it is possible to make yourself sound nice while repeating lies. The fact is that supporting Earth Hour does not restrict ones ability to claim Christ.

So, in order to contribute anything of value to this debate you can either treat the word of God with some respect or you can deny the word of God and argue for service to the Earth over Him.

And no, the comment policy is not biased, at least, not against respectful discussion. If you plan to be obnoxious then it is biased against you. It’s quite simple – don’t call someone elses comment “dumb”. Instead, state why you disagree. The rest of what you’ve said is fine.

In terms of code, I’ll flick you an email since I’m not sure if the code can be shown here without it trying to action itself.

Damian – your, “best scientific understanding” is just a set of opinions that you think are worthwhile. If you think the bible is incorrect then I have no further comment on this matter for you. It looks like you’re just going to continue to try and paint me into a corner. You want to believe that I’m incapable of doing good because I resist a campaign that asks me to turn my lights off for an hour.

Resisting Earth Hour does nothing of what you say it does. Calling it anti-christian does not stop its followers from claiming to follow Christ. And supporting Earth Hour gives you no ammunition to imply that I’m irresponsible or a “snake-handler” for not.

[url=http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25146]link code test[/url]

[quote]quote code test[/quote]

If those don’t work can you point me to the code that does?

This comment is not acceptable, especially as a comment offering no further thoughts until prompted by the person you directed it at:

Damian. That is, without doubt, the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

By all means disagree and have robust discussion, but simply offering insulting comments such as this will lead to you being blocked from commenting.

I value your input, so familairise yourself with the tone asked for in the comment policy and engage in discussion accordingly.