Phat writes:
Additionally, we have the question of what is doctrine vs what is dogma.
There's no real distinction.
Phat writes:
Now to be precise, we have 66 books rather than one book, thus 66 sources.
To be even more precise, we have a
canon of approved sources which were chosen because they fit the desired dogmas. If science worked the same way, it would accept only the evidence that fits the existing theories. We'd have no quantum mechanics, no relativity, no evolution, etc. We'd still have phlogiston and a flat earth at the center of the universe.
Phat writes:
Your argument now seems to be that there is one God who is the same in the OT and the NT.
My argument is that the genocide God is in both the Old and New Testaments, so the "progressive revelation" ploy with a "loving God" has no basis.
Phat writes:
Thus, in order to satisfy this argument, the "loving God" has to be imagined and lived by us and through us.
Apparently, you have to make up a "loving God" to be able to swallow Him.
And our geese will blot out the sun.