# What if she really spoke to God? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326 "2004-03-30T15:54:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/61 "2004-04-01T02:29:58Z")
> [@EvilHamsterOnCrack](#): > > Speaking as Devil’s Advocate, - or god’s advocate as it may be -, god never said not to kill before Abraham. Abraham came way way before they started introducing laws. This was one of the first times that god even spoke to man, in the bible. What am I missing? I thought that the first time god allegedly spoke to man was in the first book sometimes called Genesis where he said > [@](#): > > And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/62 "2004-04-01T02:41:08Z")
> [@EvilHamsterOnCrack](#): > > Speaking as Devil’s Advocate, - or god’s advocate as it may be -, god never said not to kill before Abraham. Abraham came way way before they started introducing laws. This was one of the first times that god even spoke to man, in the bible. Besides, even assuming that Abraham would have known the law, how would one be supposed to know what would be the greatest sin : disobeying a former law or a current command? On what basis could Abraham have responded to god : “well…you’re contradicting yourself, here, and it’s obvious that the correct course of action is to follow your former instructions rather than the new ones”. The poster stated that he should have known better than committing a sin in order to promote a greater good. But what is a sin if not “not obeying to god”? If Abraham had thought that sacrificing his son was a sin (because god said so, by definition), he would have also knew that not sacrificing him was the same thing : refusing to obey god, hence sinful. Since both orders would have had an equal weight, emanating for the same ultimate authority, the logical course of action would have been to assume that the most recent command superceded the previous one (in the same way christians believe that the new testament supercede the old testament), hence to go on with the sacrifice. So, I don’t think that \*\* little nemo \*\* point stands. Besides, this sounds like an idea thought up by a “trickster” (and a cruel one at that) kind of god rather than by a benevolent, blah, blah…one. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/63 "2004-04-01T03:44:01Z")
Clair: Look. All I’m going to say is that you’re reading WAYYY too much into my post. All your emotional refuting of my “points” was completely wasted. I never ONCE said that I _approved_ of what went down. A “ **compelling** reason” is not the same thing as a “ **good** reason”. “Compelling” implies neither positive nor negative; it merely means “urgent”. > [@](#): > > \*\*You seriously intend to tell me that this is acceptable??? not criminal??? \*\* No. I didn’t mean to tell you that _at all_. You read ALL that into it. Take a chill pill, eh? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/64 "2004-04-01T03:44:53Z")
> [@EvilHamsterOnCrack](#): > > Speaking as Devil’s Advocate, - or god’s advocate as it may be -, god never said not to kill before Abraham. Abraham came way way before they started introducing laws. This was one of the first times that god even spoke to man, in the bible. I hereby refer you to Genesis 4 where Cain comes to understand very clearly that murder is wrong. In addition, Genesis 9:6 lays down very clearly that murder is wrong. Both of these references are pre-Abraham. Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/65 "2004-04-01T04:07:47Z")
Clair: I will, however, add that I’d like to say how _offensive_ I find it that you make such amazingly _sweeping_ assumptions about me, knowing absolutely nothing about me, yet you feel free to go ahead and say things like this: > [@](#): > > \*\*But I’m pretty certain you find some way to interpreted away such statements. > > I’m pretty certain too that you don’t follow the law (do you keep kosher?)\*\* That’s a really sucky debating technique, ya know? To assume in a superior fashion that you know what the other person is thinking. Stick to what I say, not to what you _think I might say_. And apparently my references to being a “Conservative Christian” and a “Fighting Fundie” went right over your head–you’re asking me if I “keep kosher”? _Geez_. :rolleyes: Way to pay attention to nothing else that’s going on in the thread beyond your own contribution. File for future reference: I’m a Conservative Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant Christian. We don’t “keep kosher”. Oy. :rolleyes: Little Nemo: > [@](#): > > \*\*Consider another lesser known biblical passage; God’s demand to Moses that he sacrifice his first born son. Once again, Moses appears willing to obey God’s command but his wife Zipporah defies God and refuses to sacrifice her son. In the face of this defiance, God does nothing; Zipporah and Moses go unpunished and the whole issue is dropped. > > Unlike the better known incident of Isaac’s sacrifice, this incident is hardly ever mentioned or discussed by biblical scholars.\*\* …That’s because the incident you’re describing never happened. Courtesy of the [Bible Gateway,](http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+4&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)Exodus 4, Moses is on his way back to Egypt to confront Pharaoh: > [@](#): > > \*At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met {Moses}and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son’s foreskin and touched {Moses’} feet with it. “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me,” she said. So the LORD let him alone. (At that time she said “bridegroom of blood,” referring to circumcision.) - Now, how are you getting “God demanded that Moses sacrifice his firstborn son” out of that? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/66 "2004-04-01T13:38:09Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Shodan, despite my respect for things you have posted in the past, I will do none of the above. My comment regarding Graham was just my opinion. It is based on the fact that I do not believe that god (if there is a god) would not talk exclusively to some vain right wing money grubbing conservative asshole. In other words, you want to make insulting accusations against those with whom you disagree without a scrap of evidence to back it up. And **you** call Billy Graham an asshole. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/67 "2004-04-01T17:38:26Z")
[http://slate.msn.com/id/2063466/](http://slate.msn.com/id/2063466/) > [@](#): > > “I have never talked publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms.” > > —Rev. Billy Graham, in a May 1994 statement denying H.R. Haldeman’s claim in his published diaries that Graham carried on about “satanic Jews” in Nixon’s presence. Quoted by David Firestone in the March 17 New York Times. > “I go and I keep friends with [Abe] Rosenthal at the New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all—I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I’m friendly with Israel. But they don’t know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.” > > —Rev. Billy Graham, in a transcript of an Oval Office conversation with Richard Nixon from 1972 recently made public by the National Archives. He was an admirer of Senator Joe McCarthy, as the saying goes, “Tell me with who you are walking and I will tell you who you are”. And I read reports on how his approval for the Vietnam War influenced the American presidents of the day. (not for the peace side as it turns out) Today, it looks like he is a better person, but I have to say his recent apologies for his past behavior were lame. Here I see that many examples are pointed out that show how friendly to Jews or the state of Israel Graham is, but I have to take those examples with a monumental grain of salt when I see his own words. I always have the suspicion that for many fundamentalists, the friendship with Israel has the background of the Christian side believing the end of times is close at hand, and it requires Jews to be in Israel. When the day comes, Israel will be converted or punished. Some friendship, but since I think the apocalypse is never going to happen, I guess I cannot complain much. I think he is harmless now, but for his followers: I have seen reports that even though sick and with a pension, he is still getting full year’s salary for his few days of work last year. That is a matter of his church to deal with, but just like the majority of mainstream faiths out there, I do consider people like Graham to be money-grubbers. Since I have seen worse, I am also not complaining much about this. So I agree that now he is not an asshole, but seeing the latest evidence, I have to say that he was one in his heyday. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/68 "2004-04-01T22:00:14Z")
Re: Abraham - Keep in mind the following: - Judaism had not yet been established in Abraham’s day. The laws with which he was familiar were the “laws of the land” and… - Abraham came from a pagan culture - he was from Ur of the Chaldees, not all that far from Babylon - where many gods were worshipped. He was likely familiar with human sacrifice, even if his own local gods didn’t require it. When the God of the Bible began speaking to him, he likely assumed that he was hearing from one of the local gods, in which he already believed, or perhaps a new god. He went ahead and followed each of the instructions that this god was giving. By following these various instructions - to pack up and move; go here; do this - he became prosperous and successful. Everything went well for him as he followed the instructions he was given. - God saw that Abraham was faithful and obedient … as long as the results were beneficial to him. But how would that faithfulness and obedience hold up to an instruction that would result in loss? Would Abraham still be faithful? As it turned out, he was. Abraham had only the law of the land - which did allow human sacrifice in the place he lived, amongst the Canaanites - and his own personal experience to use for comparison with what God was telling him. It’s possible that, at this point in Abraham’s life, he still didn’t fully realize that the god he was speaking with was any different from the other gods with whom he was familiar. As to the lady in the OP, it’s entirely possible that _something_ did indeed tell her to kill her children. The Bible makes it clear that _evil spirits_ i.e. devils or demons will attempt to decieve us. If the devil was willing to try to tempt & trick Jesus into sinning, what’s to stop him from trying to tempt & trick ordinary humans? This is why, when we believe we have received instructions from God, we are supposed to verify those instructions by comparing them to scripture. If the instructions contradict scripture, then those instructions did not come from God. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/69 "2004-04-01T23:25:15Z")
> [@Duck Duck Goose](#): > > Clair: > > Look. All I’m going to say is that you’re reading WAYYY too much into my post. All your emotional refuting of my “points” was completely wasted. > > I never ONCE said that I _approved_ of what went down. A “ **compelling** reason” is not the same thing as a “ **good** reason”. “Compelling” implies neither positive nor negative; it merely means “urgent”. > > No. I didn’t mean to tell you that _at all_. You read ALL that into it. Take a chill pill, eh? 😉 OK. Then , if the “compelling” reason god had to order the slaughters weren’t particulary “good” what were they? Evil? Bad? Morally neutral? Clearly stated : were these mass murders moraly bankrupt or not? Do you condemn the people who were guilty of committing them or not? Do you condemn the being who suposedly ordered them or not? Finally, how can you state that an omnipotent “god” could have “compelling” reasons to order something? How could he be compelled into anything? If he’s benevolent, surely he could have found a way to solve the issue without ordering a massacre? Except of course if you think that such a massacre can be moraly acceptable, which is roughly the position you tried to hold in your previous post, by writing there was a risk of “cultural contamination”, a statement which _reeks_. I don’t need a pill. I need a clear statement about your moral stance regarding these massacres. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/70 "2004-04-01T23:45:39Z")
> [@Duck Duck Goose](#): > > Clair: > > I will, however, add that I’d like to say how _offensive_ I find it that you make such amazingly _sweeping_ assumptions about me, knowing absolutely nothing about me, yet you feel free to go ahead and say things like this: > That’s a really sucky debating technique, ya know? To assume in a superior fashion that you know what the other person is thinking. Stick to what I say, not to what you _think I might say_. > > And apparently my references to being a “Conservative Christian” and a “Fighting Fundie” went right over your head–you’re asking me if I “keep kosher”? _Geez_. :rolleyes: Way to pay attention to nothing else that’s going on in the thread beyond your own contribution. That’s precisely because you stated you were a conservative christian that I had no much issue in making assumptions like this one. Now, if you’re conservative christian who keeps kosher, I stand corrected. Reread your post (not only I read it, contrarily to what you’re implying, but I stil remember its content) . You stated that you could disagree with Paul concerning the position of women in the christian churches, because it isn’t backed by other scriptures, and that only unambiguous statement are not subject to christian’s personnal interpretations. So I asked whether or not you’re eating kosher, because it’s unambiguously stated in the scriptures that you should. And because Jesus stated that the law wouldn’t change a iota till the end of times. So, what are you relying on to decide that you don’t need to keep kosher? If Paul and the apostoles aren’t authoritative sources concerning woman’s role, why should they concerning what you’re allowed to eat or not, and moreso than the old testament? Where in the scriptures is it unambiguously stated that you don’t need to be circumcized anymore? If you can discrad so easily Paul’s teachings, then you should just ignore them all and only accept as a revealed truth what is included in the old testament and in the gospels (and by the way, if Paul’s statements can be incorrect, then why couldn’t Luke’s statements and quotes be incorrect too? What is definitely authoritative and why, exactly?) Or, more generally, how do you decide on what can be ignored (Paul’s stance about women, God’s stance about the dietary laws…)? How is deciding on your own which statements in your holy books are to be considered god’s will not “picking and choosing”? ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/71 "2004-04-02T15:33:30Z")
> [@](#): > > **how can you state that an omnipotent “god” could have “compelling” reasons to order something? How could he be compelled into anything?** ??? Do you really not understand what the word “compelling” means? It means “urgent”, or “vital”, or “really really important”. It doesn’t mean “God was _compelled_, or _forced_, to order the massacre”. It means “God thought the massacre was really really important.” > [@](#): > > \*\*If he’s benevolent, surely he could have found a way to solve the issue without ordering a massacre? \*\* ??? Whatever gave you the idea that Yahweh was a “benevolent” God? You’ve been listening to too much Victorian Sunday School propaganda, with God as the kind and loving Big Daddy, and not reading your actual Bible enough. Yahweh is one of the most perfectly terrifying gods I’ve ever heard of. The Greek gods were pikers compared to him. The Jericho and other occupation-of-Canaan massacres were Sunday School picnics compared to some of his other stunts. Noah? Ring a bell? God destroys the entire world just because he’s disappointed in the way that “people” (which, I might add, **he** deliberately _created_ the way they were) turned out. Instead of trying to salvage them, he just says, “Aw, the hell with it”, and sweeps it all away, people, plants, animals, all of it, down the drain, literally. The Children of Israel, while wandering in the wilderness, whine and complain, and to punish them for whining he does things like strike them down with plagues during which thousands die. Seems a little extreme to me. Two priests grumble about Moses. He’s too bossy. Things aren’t going well. They want a change of leadership. Punishment for grumbling: They, along with all their tents and their wives and their children, are swallowed up by the earth, _bam_, like that, while everyone else flees, screaming. Surely a benevolent god could have found a way to resolve the issue without having to kill a lot of innocents? Because ten out of the twelve Israelite spies come back and report, like total pussies, “We can’t take this land”, God punishes the _entire crowd_ by making them ALL wander an additional 40 years in the wilderness, until all ten pussies are dead. Why not just strike the pussies down, let everybody else go into the Promised Land? Nobody knows. He’s Yahweh. He’s like the phone company–he doesn’t have to. Only a god like Yahweh would think of sending his own son to die in a particularly gruesome, painful, and terrifying way, for an abstract ideal like “the forgiveness of sin”. Surely he could have found a way to solve the issue of “sin” without ordering a crucifixion? Ananias and Sapphira hold back some of their money from the apostles’ kitty, and then lie about it. They are both struck dead on the spot. No appeal. I could go on, but you get the idea. “Benevolent”? No way. > [@](#): > > **Reread your post (not only I read it, contrarily to what you’re implying, but I stil remember its content) .** No, you don’t. > [@](#): > > **You stated that you could disagree with Paul concerning the position of women in the christian churches** No, I didn’t. Here’s what I did say: > [@](#): > > \*Yes, certainly, people interpret the Scriptures however they please all the time, and use them to prove their points. Nothing new there. But the difference is, those are dealing with passages that are ambiguous, or that are subject to cultural interpretation. Is Paul’s injunction against allowing women to preach just his own opinion–or is it God’s word? Nothing else in the Bible seems to address the issue of whether women should or should not preach in church. \* This is the point I was trying to make: people in Christiandom do sometimes interpret the Scriptures differently, and **as an example** I gave what is perhaps the most famous example, that of Paul’s attitudes towards women. All my post says is that **there exists** a confusion, in the Christian world, on the subject of Paul’s attitudes towards women. My own personal opinion of Paul’s attitudes, or my opinion of the accuracy of Scripture on this issue, _isn’t there_–you are reading that into it. Once again, you are addressing what you **think** I said, rather than what I **did** say. And, just FTR, I deliberately phrased it in that neutral way so as to try to avoid a hijack of _precisely_ this sort, that you’re perpetrating here: “Let’s all talk about which parts of the Scripture DDG thinks are true, or relevant, and which parts aren’t.” I was trying to make a broader point, about the way that some people do interpret certain Scriptural passages differently. To continue the point I was trying to make: The passage in Exodus that specifically prohibits murder, the “Commandment”, is unambiguous and unarguable. Nobody in the Christian world “could disagree” with it, or interpret it differently. The topic of this thread is whether Deanna Laney could have been commanded by her Christian God to kill her children. Not, “What parts of the Bible DDG does or does not discard”, or “How does DDG feel about Biblical massacres”. I’ve stated my position for the purposes of the OP’s debate: My position is that a god who officially abhors the kind of killing that we term “murder”, as opposed to the kind of killing that we term “acts of war”, is not a god who would order one of his followers to “murder”, the same way that a god who officially abhors pigs and pig meat would not order one of his followers to kill, cook, and eat a pig. Now, if you have a problem distinguishing between “murder” and “acts of war”, then I’m sorry but I can’t help you. > [@](#): > > **I need a clear statement about your moral stance regarding these massacres.** :: laughs :: No, you don’t. What you need is a new thread. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/72 "2004-04-02T16:31:39Z")
> [@](#): > > the same way that a god who officially abhors pigs and pig meat would not order one of his followers to kill, cook, and eat a pig. “On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.” – Acts 10:9-16 (KJV) ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/73 "2004-04-02T21:10:51Z")
I assume your point is supposed to be, “If God could change his mind about unclean foods, why couldn’t he change his mind about murder?” You’re right, I suppose he could. But he **hasn’t**. Unless you’re privy to some other revelation of divine scripture that I’m not. And unless you’re going to postulate that Deanna Laney is the embodiment of a New Revelation, in which God now reveals that he has changed his mind about murder, and that’s it’s not only okay, but is also mandatory in certain cases. If that’s what you’re going to postulate, then as with other New Revelations, we’ll just have to wait for confirmation from other sources besides a single person’s mind. The official permission to eat “unclean” foods was paralleled by numerous other ways of telling the early Christians that they were operating under a new set of rules, that the old Jewish law was no longer 100% applicable. It wasn’t just that Peter had this dream and it immediately became canonical. It was added together with a lot of other teachings and thoughts, raised by other issues, which all eventually turned out to be the major point of doctrine that Christians were being “grafted” onto the Vine of Judaism. For example, there was considerable discussion in the Early Church as to whether they all needed to be circumcised _first_ before they became Christians. After enough years of prayerful discussion had passed, the Early Church decided that no, you didn’t need to do that. So yes, God does change his mind sometimes–but he doesn’t do it _secretly_, telling only one person. Peter had a dream, yes, and then other people, especially Paul, had other revelations about how the Christians were supposed to be fitting into the world and how various Jewish rules were supposed to be applied to them. And taken all together, it adds up to “doctrine”. So therefore, if Deanna Laney is the precursor of a major change in the rules, we’ll just have to wait and see what “doctrine” shakes out after about 20 years of prayerful discussion. I’m betting it’s a false alarm. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/74 "2004-04-03T00:13:35Z")
> [@](#): > > I assume your point is supposed to be, “If God could change his mind about unclean foods, why couldn’t he change his mind about murder?” Not at all. I was merely correcting your errorneous statement about Him changing his mind about pigs. You said He wouldn’t; the quoted Scripture indicates that He would and did. Granted, the vision was primarily intended to make it clear to Peter that associating with a Gentile was perfectly all right, but God did indeed specifically tell Peter to kill and eat unclean animals. For the record, I believe that the woman murdering her sons was wrong. She is either a lying sack of doodoo, or she is insane, or she was deceived by evil spirits as I suggested in an earlier post. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/75 "2004-04-03T02:52:34Z")
> [@](#): > > **I was merely correcting your errorneous statement about Him changing his mind about pigs. You said He wouldn’t…** ??? WTF? Excuse me?? I **never** said that God wouldn’t change his mind about pigs. Care to show me exactly _where_ in this thread I said that? My posts in this thread regarding pigs are as follows: On page 1: > [@](#): > > \*Why would a god whose #6 Rule, out of 10, is “Don’t murder people”, tell one of his followers to murder someone? Looks majorly contradictory to me. Like Allah telling one of his followers to go cook a pig and eat it…Not very likely. \* On page 2: > [@](#): > > _My position is that a god who officially abhors the kind of killing that we term “murder”, as opposed to the kind of killing that we term “acts of war”, is not a god who would order one of his followers to “murder”, the same way that a god who officially abhors pigs and pig meat would not order one of his followers to kill, cook, and eat a pig._ Since I was referring to Allah in both cases–explicitly, in the first case, and implicitly, in the second case–where on _earth_ are you getting that I “said God wouldn’t change his mind about pigs”? You’re wayyyy off base here. I made no erroneous statement. Your “correction” was sadly misplaced. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/76 "2004-04-03T07:54:19Z")
Let’s say God really did tell her to do it. So what? The law doesn’t recognize the fickle will of God as being correct. The law is the law. God didn’t draft the law, doesnt’ vote, and isn’t a citizen in our society. Plenty of murderers do so under the promptings of someone they trust or think of as a just authority. And frankly, while the biblical God has a stated policy on murder, that hasn’t stopped him from commanding followers to kill: it just isn’t called murder if there is some big important reason for it. Seems like a loophole: all we have to assume is that there is some greater purpose at work here that we are unaware of, and wha-la. No change in policy to be explained, just ourlack of understanding of the very tough issues God has to deal with every day. God is very tired, and he doesn’t want to talk about his day at work, just shut up and make god a manhattan and have dinner ready when god comes back downstairs. > [@](#): > > askeptic: What is the basis for some posters to type g-d? Is it somehow related to the Talmudic proscription of speaking the name of god? Not exactly. It is more because there is a proscription on erasing or defacing the name of God that is taken from Deut. 12:3 It is not that Jews are worried about the name being written per se (though they want it used sparingly and respectfully, not causually), but rather that someone who might not understand or respect would later destroy or deface the name. However, I should note that many orthodox rabbis have argued that that since computers are not a permanent form, you can type out “God.” But others have gone on to argue that someone could print out the name, and then destroy or deface it. So generally, observant Jews just try to avoid risking such events, no matter how unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Mister\_Rik](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mister_rik/32/491_2.png) [@Mister\_Rik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Rik)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326/77 "2004-04-03T09:08:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Since I was referring to Allah in both cases–explicitly, in the first case, and implicitly, in the second case–where on earth are you getting that I “said God wouldn’t change his mind about pigs”? I guess my Implicitometer must be malfunctioning. Had it been working properly, it would have detected that, in a post in which every example you cited was from the Judeo-Christian story, and in which Christianity is the only religion you specifically mention, you were obviously talking about Allah. My bad. Seriously, though, my post was in reply to a specific statement in a specific post. I was not responding to your entire series of arguments. When I’m reading a thread, I don’t generally keep track of who said what. I don’t have a photographic memory; if I had, I would have connected your Page 2 statement with your Page 1 statement. I’m afraid I simply didn’t remember your Page 1 statement. There are an awful lot of posts in this thread. My apologies for misconstruing your statement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-she-really-spoke-to-god/237326.md?page=3)