The rules are not that someone can't comment on another's post. The rules are that [..] it's only polite to stick to the subject.

You had earlier said that "my [Denny's] reply was sufficient as the matter has not been pursued." If this wasn't part of the rule, then I'm not sure how I was supposed to know that.

if you wanted to focus your comments on G_d's love and judgment (the issue at hand)

As the record shows, my comments were focused on your comments. Let's review. Steve issued a very narrow posting that consisted of two sentences of commentary introducing 18 gospel quotes illustrating the "fire and brimstone" nature of the judgment that Jesus preached. You responded to Steve's 2 sentences with 41 sentences that acknowledged Steve's point in an initial paragraph and then launched into a broad and sweeping six-paragraph general apologetic for the Christian doctrine of salvation. My response to your expansive apologetic quoted and directly rebutted just four specific assertions from among your 41 sentences, and I closed with two simple links to more material. I don't see how you can say your comments were on topic but mine were not.

rather than my form of addressing the Deity and a large number of unrelated topics

"Large number"? You should have checked the written record before making this allegation. The only remotely "unrelated topic" in my response was a smiley comment gently ribbing you about your curious typographic convention for just one of the several terms you use to reference your deity. If I had known that a good-natured in-joke among ideological allies might make you decide to treat me as some kind of personal enemy, then I wouldn't have made it. (As for me, I know no enemies, only allies and possible allies.)

presented mostly in a manner that was hostile and insulting to my Faith and concept of Deity

Let's review some more. I described your deity as incompetent in his revelation -- and calmly presented a rational argument to that effect. I enumerated many of the deeds attributed to your deity by your sacred texts, and described them as "heinous crimes and evil policies". I stand by that description; the deeds and policies I listed are prima facie heinous and evil as those words are defined in English. I called heaven an absurd myth, and linked to an argument that I think justifies the use of those two words as they are defined in English.

Defining my belief as "hostile and insulting" would be a convenient way to avoid confronting it; I hope that's not what you're trying to do. I indeed hold theological beliefs that are directly contrary to yours. You believe the Bible describes a benevolent deity; I believe it describes a malevolent one. You could describe as "hostile and insulting" any possible presentation of my belief, so it's hard to take your charge very seriously. I wouldn't expect you to sugarcoat your belief that I deserve eternal torment, and I hope you wouldn't expect me to sugarcoat my belief that your deity is malevolent if not mythical.

If I had replied that your comment demonstrates that you are a Socialist Republican war monger...and that you avoid meaningful dialogue by refusing to communicate unless people slice and dice their communication just the way you like it and suggest that their refusal to do so makes them and their message irrelevant...and that these tendencies make you the spitting image of a spoiled, antisocial brat and loser who doesn't appear to have a life...and that you really, really need to know Jesus in your life, that would have been inappropriate.  See the difference? Don't take it personally; the exaggeration is only intended to help you understand.

Don't worry, I don't need you to explain what your exaggeration was intended for.  It's quite obvious. 

Of course, if someone were foolish enough to actually make such inappropriate statements to me in earnest, I would respond as follows.

you are a Socialist Republican war monger

I'm in fact a minarchist liberty monger whose primary loyalty is to human freedom rather than to any elephant, donkey, or torch lady.

...and that you avoid meaningful dialogue by refusing to communicate unless people slice and dice their communication just the way you like it and suggest that their refusal to do so makes them and their message irrelevant

When people are unable or unwilling to point out how the documents they fling towards me are relevant to the assertions of mine that they dispute, I indeed simply note that fact and announce that I'll remain willing to defend my assertions if in the future they ever can muster any specific criticism of them.

...and that these tendencies make you the spitting image of a spoiled, antisocial brat and loser who doesn't appear to have a life..

(Immature drivel like this would merit no comment.)

.and that you really, really need to know Jesus in your life

I know all I need to know about Jesus, and I've publicly challenged any comer to put his knowledge of Jesus up against mine: http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Challenge.html

I enjoy debating theology, but I'm confident neither of us is capable of changing the other's mind on that topic.  None of your comments have come even close to wounding my pride or affecting my worldview, and I assume you would assert the same claim. So we should set theology aside and focus on our common goal of increasing human liberty.