How do we approach a new proposition?

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:33 am

Og3 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:28 pm
How often does one have a chance to test one's theories scientifically, after all?
SEG wrote: That's also commendable that you guys have moved on from your seedy past if this is true. I'm also glad that white Christian groups don't persecute blacks in the US - or do they?
Og3 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:28 pm
I can speak for the Baptist churches in my local area.

The local association of Baptist churches, which covers the West Coast from just below San Francisco to just above Santa Barbara, and inland to the first mountain ranges, has a very large percentage of Chinese and Korean churches in some areas (especially the South Bay Area) and a large number of black churches in the East Bay Area (both of these clusters reflect local demographics). A person of any race would be welcome at any church in that association (Baptists voluntarily work with other local Baptist churches for things like missions, starting new fellowships, mutual support, etc., but the association does not exert any direct control over local churches; we're different from CoE or RCC in that respect).

Legally, in the USA, one cannot persecute anyone. If a black man wished to join an all-white church and was rejected on the basis of race, he would have the option of suing that church for damages. Hopefully, no one would do such a thing -- reject a man for race, or sue other Christians over race. If my discussion on a bus in Singapore with an ex-pat. from RSA is any indication, a black man is far more likely to be "persecuted" in Singapore than in Birmingham, Alabama.

That gentleman, who had emigrated from the Republic of South Africa to Singapore, struck up a conversation based on my American accent, and then proceeded to ask about race relations in the USA (apparently the picture you all have of us, there in the commonwealth nations, is that we ride blacks around like ponies or something). From there he started to tell me how scientists had proven blacks to have a smaller cranial capacity than whites.

I got off the bus well before my stop, and found my own way back to the Sembawang wharves.
Very glad to hear that OG. Steven Anderson the Baptist Church pastor from Arizona seems to have different views on blacks and gays. Also the Westboro Baptist Church is a whole other story. I'm sure there must be dozens of churches like these.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:42 am

Og3 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:10 pm
SEG wrote:Yeah? How about Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Philadelphia Church of God, Global Church of God, United Church of God, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentecostals, Unification Church, and Unity School of Christianity? All Christian denominations and all don't recognise Jesus as God's son. This only one issue among thousands of quibbles on God's words. Which is the correct one to believe everything? Where is his unalterable manual? Just like him, it doesn't exist.
Those are all pseudo-Christian sects (avoiding the pejorative word "cult") which have deliberately perverted the Bible. It's like me trying to prove atheists wrong because they disagree with zoroastrians or Roman Stoics. Give me a break here, SEG. You know this is a stretch: We've discussed Mormonism separately.
Yeah? Who defines what is substance and what isn't? It's a mess, be honest.
Well, the whole point of a creed is to define what's of substance. So the first definition of what was of substance were the disciples, Peter and John, together with Jesus' brother, James (the one mentioned in the universally accepted passage from Josephus); they wrote the Pre-pauline doctrine, which they taught to Paul, who recites it in 1. Cor. 15.

The other creeds are merely clarifications and expansion of the pre-pauline doctrine. Here's a test for you, if you really want to know the truth: Print the Nicene creed, cover the name of it, and then go round to all the christians you can find and ask them to put tick marks next to every point of that creed with which they agree. You'll have to explain the archaic words "catholic" (meaning universal) and "apostolic" (meaning having people sent out to share it). You can walk down the high street and simply ask people, "Are you a Christian?" and if so, "Do you agree with these points?"

Ministers will be onto you; they'll likely say that it's the Nicene creed, and of course they believe it; on the other hand a few percent of random Christians will think you're up to something and will be a bit cagey about it. But I'll wager that 90% will agree without reservations, and 95% so long as you explain "catholic" means universal. Up for a scientific experiment?
Sorry but so what? Say most Christians believe in roughly the same things. That doesn't mean much if they all are barking up the wrong tree. You do know that it's not just Christians that have contradictory beliefs about what their god's word is all about? You have billions more with the Muslims, Jews and then the non-abrahamic religions. ALL think that they have got it right. What are the odds that only one church of one religion has it all together, rather than all being wrong?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:43 am

Claire wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:24 am
Og3 wrote:
Lich wrote:
Discernment is not a requisite of feeling it. Oxygen exists in air, thus since air can be felt, oxygen is also felt.
I see. So if you perceive the window, then you need not discern the ninjas on your front lawn, so long as you discern the window itself.

Sorry Folks. I love a good argument as well as the next guy, but I can't bring myself to make fun of the mentally ill. I'm out on this one.
Lich wrote:False equivalence. Oxygen is inherently part of air. Ninjas are not a part of windows(inherently or otherwise). Yet another false premise from the self proclaimed "logician."
We weren't able to break the constituent parts of air down until recently in human history, and we didn't know much about oxygen as a distinct thing from air. Our ancestors didn't feel the oxygen on roughly 20% of their skin, vs the other 80% of the "air" touching it. If you were to wear an oxygen tank, sent into different rooms where some had oxygen in the air, and others didn't, and the pressure is still the same, you'd be unable to tell which rooms held oxygen based on the feeling on your skin. Also, "air" doesn't inherently contain oxygen, unless you want to specify that by "air" you mean the air that exists on Earth's surface.
Nice work, Claire.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:55 am

Rian wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:03 am
Are you in mid/northern California, Og3? I'm a SoCal girl, and so glad to be back home after an 11-year sojourn in the (neighboring) desert of Arizona, where you can literally fry an egg on the sidewalk in the summer *gag*
We haven't been to Arizona Rian, but I would imagine it would be similar to Las Vegas's blistering heat when we got to go there last year. I fondly remember San Diego, we stayed near the beach for when I competed in the 1987 World Police & Fire Games. I loved Balboa Park and all the museums.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:31 pm

Rian wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:03 am
Og3 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:28 pm
I can speak for the Baptist churches in my local area.

The local association of Baptist churches, which covers the West Coast from just below San Francisco to just above Santa Barbara, and inland to the first mountain ranges...
Are you in mid/northern California, Og3? I'm a SoCal girl, and so glad to be back home after an 11-year sojourn in the (neighboring) desert of Arizona, where you can literally fry an egg on the sidewalk in the summer *gag*
Salinas, near Monterey.

What part of SoCal?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:35 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:55 am
Rian wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:03 am
Are you in mid/northern California, Og3? I'm a SoCal girl, and so glad to be back home after an 11-year sojourn in the (neighboring) desert of Arizona, where you can literally fry an egg on the sidewalk in the summer *gag*
We haven't been to Arizona Rian, but I would imagine it would be similar to Las Vegas's blistering heat when we got to go there last year. I fondly remember San Diego, we stayed near the beach for when I competed in the 1987 World Police & Fire Games. I loved Balboa Park and all the museums.
Arizona is like Las Vegas on steroids (actually fairly similar, but a bit warmer). People don't walk around outside during the day, but at night all the businesses are open late, and you'll see people playing baseball in the park at 10 or 11 PM. At least that's how my visits to Tucson have gone.

San Diego is a great because it has the ocean to cool it down. I would consider moving there one day, or at least Oceanside / Carlsbad.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:37 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:33 am
Og3 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:28 pm
How often does one have a chance to test one's theories scientifically, after all?
SEG wrote: That's also commendable that you guys have moved on from your seedy past if this is true. I'm also glad that white Christian groups don't persecute blacks in the US - or do they?
Og3 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:28 pm
I can speak for the Baptist churches in my local area.

The local association of Baptist churches, which covers the West Coast from just below San Francisco to just above Santa Barbara, and inland to the first mountain ranges, has a very large percentage of Chinese and Korean churches in some areas (especially the South Bay Area) and a large number of black churches in the East Bay Area (both of these clusters reflect local demographics). A person of any race would be welcome at any church in that association (Baptists voluntarily work with other local Baptist churches for things like missions, starting new fellowships, mutual support, etc., but the association does not exert any direct control over local churches; we're different from CoE or RCC in that respect).

Legally, in the USA, one cannot persecute anyone. If a black man wished to join an all-white church and was rejected on the basis of race, he would have the option of suing that church for damages. Hopefully, no one would do such a thing -- reject a man for race, or sue other Christians over race. If my discussion on a bus in Singapore with an ex-pat. from RSA is any indication, a black man is far more likely to be "persecuted" in Singapore than in Birmingham, Alabama.

That gentleman, who had emigrated from the Republic of South Africa to Singapore, struck up a conversation based on my American accent, and then proceeded to ask about race relations in the USA (apparently the picture you all have of us, there in the commonwealth nations, is that we ride blacks around like ponies or something). From there he started to tell me how scientists had proven blacks to have a smaller cranial capacity than whites.

I got off the bus well before my stop, and found my own way back to the Sembawang wharves.
Very glad to hear that OG. Steven Anderson the Baptist Church pastor from Arizona seems to have different views on blacks and gays. Also the Westboro Baptist Church is a whole other story. I'm sure there must be dozens of churches like these.
Never heard of Anderson. As for Westboro, that's not a church. It's a family trust posing as a church so that they can sue people for defamation. In my opinion. Which I state without malice.

Either way, as stated, Baptist churches are independent. If you once got bad sweet-n-sour at a Chinese takeaway in Adelaide, you wouldn't blame the Chinese takeaway place in Melbourne. Further, let's suppose that someone nominally a Christian -- or even sincerely a Christian, but misguided -- does something really truly categorically evil. That does not disprove Christianity... it disproves the person's adherence to Christianity.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:53 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:42 am
Og3 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 1:10 pm
SEG wrote:Yeah? How about Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Philadelphia Church of God, Global Church of God, United Church of God, Christadelphians, Oneness Pentecostals, Unification Church, and Unity School of Christianity? All Christian denominations and all don't recognise Jesus as God's son. This only one issue among thousands of quibbles on God's words. Which is the correct one to believe everything? Where is his unalterable manual? Just like him, it doesn't exist.
Those are all pseudo-Christian sects (avoiding the pejorative word "cult") which have deliberately perverted the Bible. It's like me trying to prove atheists wrong because they disagree with zoroastrians or Roman Stoics. Give me a break here, SEG. You know this is a stretch: We've discussed Mormonism separately.
Yeah? Who defines what is substance and what isn't? It's a mess, be honest.
Well, the whole point of a creed is to define what's of substance. So the first definition of what was of substance were the disciples, Peter and John, together with Jesus' brother, James (the one mentioned in the universally accepted passage from Josephus); they wrote the Pre-pauline doctrine, which they taught to Paul, who recites it in 1. Cor. 15.

The other creeds are merely clarifications and expansion of the pre-pauline doctrine. Here's a test for you, if you really want to know the truth: Print the Nicene creed, cover the name of it, and then go round to all the christians you can find and ask them to put tick marks next to every point of that creed with which they agree. You'll have to explain the archaic words "catholic" (meaning universal) and "apostolic" (meaning having people sent out to share it). You can walk down the high street and simply ask people, "Are you a Christian?" and if so, "Do you agree with these points?"

Ministers will be onto you; they'll likely say that it's the Nicene creed, and of course they believe it; on the other hand a few percent of random Christians will think you're up to something and will be a bit cagey about it. But I'll wager that 90% will agree without reservations, and 95% so long as you explain "catholic" means universal. Up for a scientific experiment?
Sorry but so what? Say most Christians believe in roughly the same things. That doesn't mean much if they all are barking up the wrong tree. You do know that it's not just Christians that have contradictory beliefs about what their god's word is all about? You have billions more with the Muslims, Jews and then the non-abrahamic religions. ALL think that they have got it right. What are the odds that only one church of one religion has it all together, rather than all being wrong?
I just want to note here that our point is drifting. Your original question was concerned with finding the right version of Christianity -- in your metaphor, which tree to bark up of the 55,000 possible. So it turns out that they're really one tree with many branches. Now you're expanding the question to which of the many possible forests in the tree located in.

Yes, Christianity expands Judaism. True. Yes, Islam disagrees. True. Yes, all the others disagree. True.

But it's not a question of odds. We don't throw dice and say, "Oh, I rolled double-threes, that makes me Zoroastrian." It's a matter of a REASONABLE INFERENCE -- and that is what this thread is all about: The Reasonable Inference. I didn't randomly decide to be Christian. I presented myself with the possibilities, and chose the reasonable inference that Christianity is correct.

I very nearly became an Existentialist instead. But Existentialism seemed like a dead end, intellectually. It has some very large logical flaws, and I couldn't live with those. I would have felt dishonest. In reading Existentialists, I had to turn a blind eye to the assumptions that they had made, and then watch as they, like Tolstoy (a Nihilist, but close) came back to X=X, or A=A, or 0=0. You can't factor a term unless that term is in your equation.

So the fact that there are many religions is irrelevant; the "odds" of randomly choosing the right one are likewise irrelevant, because the thinking person does not RANDOMLY choose.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by Og3 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:06 pm

SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
Og3 wrote:
Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:55 pm
In the same way, if you sacrifice your only son, (even if he is willing) the police give you twenty-two years in the slammer (Gaol, Jail, hoosegow, lockup, lockdown)... guess what? You deserved it.
God stopped Abraham's sacrifice -- we've had this conversation before, I think -
- so he did not sacrifice Isaac. The event was a symbol of what would happen on that mountain 2000 years later, when God's only son would lay down His life in atonement for the sins of mankind: Jesus, high priest, carrying Jesus, the sacrifice, into the temple of Jesus, God, for the sins of mankind.
This is a terrible story on many levels, even though none of it was likely to be true. God commands Abraham to commit murder on his unsuspecting son by using deception for the purpose child sacrifice.
Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, “Father?”

“Yes, my son?” Abraham replied.

“The fire and wood are here,” Isaac said, “but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.
Abraham lied to his own son, telling him that God would provide the lamb for the burnt offering after his son innocently asked him what was going on.
God did provide the lamb. That is one of the parallels with what happened on Mt. Moriah 2000 years later.
This is child abuse at the highest level, and it was all instigated by God. He should have had the power of omniscience and had no need for any such "test". Imagine Isaac's immense fear for his life and the loathing of his father when he realised that he had been tricked by this crazed fool.
The point was not so much to test Abraham as to lay the prophetic foundation for the crucixion.
Yet Christians reading this are often in awe of God's mercy, even though he thought up this absurd test. What would it prove anyway? That he was a servile sycophant that would murder his own son on request? Mentally ill people would read this and think that they should accept and obey voices in their head that they imagine was from their god, regarding it logical to murder without question.
Jepthah's sacrifice was not requested, ordained, or honored by God. It is included in the Bible as a bad example, that is, don't make rash pagan oaths before God; he's not that kind of god.
Do you know what? A truly loving, benevolent and omniscient god upon hearing Jepthah say: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Should have stopped him in his tracks and said, "No, there is no need to make a vow like that as that would be your sweet innocent daughter. If you killed her that would be a terrible mistake and a violation of my absolute moral commandment, "thou shalt not kill". We both know what the penalty for that is, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Jepthah was supposed to already know that.
On your list, seriously, you've made no effort to separate what God commanded from just random bad acts, some of which were actually condemned by God.
Just on a quick glance, 1 and 5 don't belong at all, and 136-155 are all references in the Apochrypha, a set of pious stories that are not actually scripture.
Your god is absolutely guilty for murdering everybody in the flood, and here is what the author said about No.5:
it isn't entirely clear, from the story in Genesis 34 anyway, what God had to do with it. And for that reason, I originally left it off the list of God's killings. However the deuterocanonical book of Judith clears all that up very nicely.

Here's what it says.
O Lord God of my father Simeon, who gavest him a sword to execute vengeance against strangers, who had defiled by their uncleanness, and uncovered the virgin unto confusion: And who gavest their wives to be made a prey, and their daughters into captivity ... who were zealous with thy zeal. Judith 9:2-3 So God not only approved of the Shechem massacre, he gave Simeon the sword to do it with.

Thank God for the Catholic Bible.
Since the Bible doesn't say how many Hivites were killed in this massacre, I just gave it the usual 1000 for a standard biblical massacre. But two victims were known by name (Shechem and Hamor), so I added 2 to the "biblical number" for God's killings.
Right. Deuterocanonical, in other words apochryphal, i.e. pious but non-inspired non-scripture.
in 10, the ten spies actually live out their natural life span (40 years), but merely are not allowed to enter the promised land. 49, 53, 54 are all things humans did without any reference to God or morality... 61 is not a murder... 72 is arguably a mercy killing, since he had suffered a stroke when his wife gave him bad news during his hangover... 75 is a prediction of a future outcome, i.e., the family line will end badly , 76, 77, 85, 86, 88, are bad acts by others, not God; 119-131 are from chronicles, which recaps other parts of the old testament...

If you were to bring 158 charges against someone before a magistrate, and 45 of them the judge immediately knew to be misrepresentations of the facts, the judge would likely throw out the entire case and fine you for contempt; you would then be open to a civil charge of malicious prosecution. Not to mention disbarment.
Er, no. The failed ones would be dropped and the viable ones would still be prosecuted. He would be more guilty and ruthless than Hitler just on the millions of deaths of men, women, children babies and innocent animals alone.

Shall I outline for you the false assumptions in that paragraph?
Since we're not in a courtroom, the fact that 45/158 charges are ridiculous on the face of them should make you go back and examine the rest of them. And if you remove the Capital Punishments of pagan baby-killers, you're down to nearly nothing at all.
Wow, you are so right! God is one of the good guys, right? Wrong. Seriously bad morals, dude.
Okay, you could argue against Onan, maybe, but even that one's going to come up as a justifiable killing in the context.
Of course! Onan, should never have jizzed outside the vagina of his dead brother's wife. What was he thinking? He should have been thankful to the Lord for killing him for that little slip up (or slip out as it may be). That's one of God's main jobs peeking under the sheets late at night, all Christian boys and girls should know that!
It's not that he spilled his seed, but that he refused to give her children. The whole point was to provide her with children. Why? Because they didn't have pensions back then. Old people who couldn't work lived with their children. And those who didn't have children, didn't have people to support them.

So Onan was saying, in effect, "Let her drop dead."
You shouldn't cut and paste someone else's list; it will invariably bring you to grief. Do your own research, SEG.
Would it really make any difference to you? I have achieved my goal.
If I sincerely thought you had done your homework, I'd answer them for you one by one.

But since iyou're just repeating someone else's gossip, what's the point?
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: How do we approach a new proposition?

Post by SEG » Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:37 am

SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
Abraham lied to his own son, telling him that God would provide the lamb for the burnt offering after his son innocently asked him what was going on.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:06 pm
God did provide the lamb. That is one of the parallels with what happened on Mt. Moriah 2000 years later.
Maybe in the original version he actually murdered Isaac.
19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.
Issac is never spoken to again by Abraham, but he is written about again in the next chapter. Isaac's life is paralleled from Abraham’s life. Abraham signs a pact with the king Avimelech and so does Isaac. Abraham breaks a commandment and lies about his wife Sarah being his sister to avoid being killed by Avimelech, and Isaac tells the same lie about his wife Rebecca. This is certainly a weird story. The Gods who tell Abraham to sacrifice his son are called “Elohim” and the “angel of God” that wants to save Isaac is called YHWH.
SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
This is child abuse at the highest level, and it was all instigated by God. He should have had the power of omniscience and had no need for any such "test". Imagine Isaac's immense fear for his life and the loathing of his father when he realised that he had been tricked by this crazed fool.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:06 pm
The point was not so much to test Abraham as to lay the prophetic foundation for the crucifixion.
How do you know that?
SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
Yet Christians reading this are often in awe of God's mercy, even though he thought up this absurd test. What would it prove anyway? That he was a servile sycophant that would murder his own son on request? Mentally ill people would read this and think that they should accept and obey voices in their head that they imagine was from their god, regarding it logical to murder without question.
Jepthah's sacrifice was not requested, ordained, or honored by God. It is included in the Bible as a bad example, that is, don't make rash pagan oaths before God; he's not that kind of god.
No, maybe not, but a truly benevolent god would be upfront about his prior knowledge that would end up in a senseless death of an innocent victim. Or was she just "collateral damage" to a "greater good" of teaching Jepthah a lesson? A much better lesson would be of God showing his mercy by revealing why it wasn't a great idea and saving the waste of a young life. I guess he thought his ego was more important.
SEG wrote:
Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:21 am
Do you know what? A truly loving, benevolent and omniscient god upon hearing Jepthah say: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” Should have stopped him in his tracks and said, "No, there is no need to make a vow like that as that would be your sweet innocent daughter. If you killed her that would be a terrible mistake and a violation of my absolute moral commandment, "thou shalt not kill". We both know what the penalty for that is, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Jepthah was supposed to already know that.
A good teacher/father would have reminded him of his error and said it wasn't necessary in the circumstances. Or at least informed his seemingly unimportant nameless daughter to keep running from her madman father once she made for the hills. Where was God's mercy for her?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Post Reply