Opinonated2 - your last comment is a pretty good example of cherrypicking. Christians believe in two testaments. The old and the new. The new supersedes the old. So in order to criticise Christianity you pick on the superseded testament. I'm afraid that doesn't work.

What I don't understand about this thread is the hatred that many of the posters have towards Christianity specifically. Given that we all believe things that other people believe to be wrong, why can't you just leave Christians alone to believe what they like? Afterall, these beliefs have led them to minister to the poor, build hospitals, schools, universities and campaign for free speech and equal rights. They might be wrong beliefs in your view, but they have to be admitted to have good outcomes.

The lack of tolerance that I see from some avowedly atheistic posters doesn't speak well for atheism as a force for good. But I'm not going to characterise atheism by the behaviour of a few of its adherents, anymore than I would Christianity on the same basis.

“There are those who, like me, subscribe to the Darwinian model of evolution and see competition and adaptation, sometimes against a backdrop of catastrophic climate change, as fundamental to understanding and accepting the nature of life on earth.”

Jennifer Marohasy’s allusion to Darwin and her acceptance of “the nature of life on earth” has me perplexed. Did Darwin include in his model of “evolution, competition and adaptation,” the industrial pollution of soil, water and air; the threat of nuclear waste and accidents; maniacal religious wars, destruction of the ozone layer and ecosystems from man-made organochlorinated chemicals; the greenhouse effect; possible loss of planetary oxygen through reckless deforestation and poisoning of the ocean plankton and rivers or the dangers of toxic additives in our food?

Is this what Jennifer perceives as ethical and fair "competition?" How does the planet and its non-human species “compete” and “adapt” to the synthetic environment manufactured by the malignant hand of humans?

To this, can we add species extinction, proceeding at an astronomical rate, Australia’s mining giants trashing the lands of poor nations, the absence of hope and positive perspective in the victims, loss of meaningful connection with Nature, and general alienation?

“Blind faith” in global warming claims a Christian? Are these people's eyes glued on or do we have only apocalyptic Christians on this forum, driven by their own ignorant "blind faith" in believing that it is entirely the hand of *their* supernatural deity bringing the world to an end and therefore we cannot and should not resist it?

But Graham, Christians cherry-pick the superseded testament to pick on homosexuals don't they?

As for your "good outcomes" argument, many peoples atheistic philosophies lead them to pursue good deeds as well. Many of the doctors working in those hospitals are atheists. Many charities are borne of a decidedly non-religious viewpoint (Doctors without borders, CARE international, Fred Hollows Foundation) and they save many lives and improve the lot of people around the globe without having any alternative mission to preach to them or convert them. Cannot their "good outcomes" thus be used to justify atheism?

Personally I don't think you can describe atheism as any kind of "force", let alone a force for good or evil. It is simply an absence o superstition. That view is in opposition to Christians who believe that everyone is required to believe as they do (what are missionaries eh?).

If you feel that we should leave Christians alone to believe whatever they want, fine, I'll be good with that. Just leave US alone first.

Opinionated2

I am glad you realized that their is a difference between Passover and Pentecost as the rest of your bible knowledge also looks dubious.

First you accuse the apostle Mathew with deceit. Your explanation makes no sense. Why would men invent this story about Jesus if it was not going to win them any friends and quite likely to be killed? I think the ‘some people’ you mention are telling porkies

The virgin birth was prophesied approximately 600 years before Christ appeared on earth. Again I think you are believing too many porkies. Not all gospels record all events as you rightly point out.

2. Re read the gospels and Isaiah' prophecies and you will see you are wrong.

3. Both Scriptures are right.Have a read of Philippians 2 and you will get the picture. Taking an isolated Scripture out of context really is not an honest way to interpret Scripture.

4. I hardly see ordering the destruction of nations practicing child sacrifice, perverse sexual practices, murder, rape etc etc as an atrocity. Would you like to live in a nation where no one is safe and people have no consideration for anyone but themselves. Besides that it is incredibly arrogant to question the integrity of your Creator. Remember you are the created one and the heathens really have a very poor record when pointing the finger at God. When He does intervene in man's affairs He is judged as harsh and when He does not He is criticized. You seem to have a bit each way (ie question HIm when He does and criticise Him when He does not.

5. 'reasonable' is in the eye of the beholder.

6. 'Science calls a conscience "a conscience" - problem solved!

Yes but it still can’t explain where it comes from

7. Would God be proud that many creationists argue that Cain had an incest with an unmentioned sister?

Yes (to be con't)

Graham Y wrote:

"Christians believe in two testaments. The old and the new. The new supersedes the old."

Dear Graham Y,

Please explain. What does it mean when you say that Christians believe in a superseded and a New Testament. If the Old Testament is superseded why believe in it?

Bugsy, you're running a straw case. I've never said that atheists don't do good. But I don't pick on atheists for being atheists per se, and I'm asking why you pick on Christians for being Christian per se.

And Christians wanting to convert people is not the same as them being contemptuous of people who don't believe what they believe. I think anyone is entitled to try to convince someone to change their mind. What they're not entitled to do is to treat them unfavourably because they won't. It would be very unChristian to look down on someone just because they wouldn't be converted.

You seem to be wanting to have it all your own way. I can't try to convert you, but you are entitled to tell me I have to change my way of behaving because you don't agree with it.