Testaments.

[Viropher]

So, does anyone know a know a reasonable explanation for the ludicrous difference between the depictions of God in the new and old Testaments?

"I have won acclaim from the Egyptians by slaughtering them," and, "An eye for an eye," versus, "Turn the other cheek."

Hmm.

[Rider]

That's an easy one.

In the old testament, the Israelian people are 'gods people' and in the new testament, it's all those that believe that jezus died for their sinds.

In the new testaments (after jezus showed up) the bible speaks about the new 'groundrules' of faith. Since a believe must go with it's time.

[Viropher]

How does that explain the difference between a vengeful, hateful God and benevolent one?

In Deuteronomy, for instance, it says that if two men are fighting, and the wife of one runs between them, and grabs the other by the testicles, she must have her hand cut off.

?

[Sedodes]

So, does anyone know a know a reasonable explanation for the ludicrous difference between the depictions of God in the new and old Testaments?

"I have won acclaim from the Egyptians by slaughtering them," and, "An eye for an eye," versus, "Turn the other cheek."

Hmm.

Old testament was written before Jesus.  New testament was written after Jesus.  When Jesus died God felt the pain of loss for the first time, and also the joy of forgiveness.  By losing his only son God could now truly relate to humans.

If that doesn't do it for you, look at it from a social angle.  The Old and New Testaments were the equivalent of social standards.  Society had become a lot more "civilized" since the Old testament, so an upgraded set of social standards was needed.

Finally, it's a lot easier to rule a people via self-righteousness as opposed to fear.  Tell people they're going to be punished for doing wrong, and they'll get sick of it eventually.  Tell people they'll be rewarded for doing good and they'll love you forever.

Keep in mind that I don't particularly like organized religion, and think that the bible was little more than "planted evidence" to control people.  Same with Jesus.  This doesn't mean I don't believe in some sort of higher power, though.  I'm speaking as someone who studies religion, not a participant thereof, so a full-fledged priest, minister, or what-have-you may be able to better answer your question.

[Viropher]

Old testament was written before Jesus.  New testament was written after Jesus.  When Jesus died God felt the pain of loss for the first time, and also the joy of forgiveness.  By losing his only son God could now truly relate to humans.

But he died after preaching all that new-fangled stuff.

Not to mention the fact that God is supposed to be omniscient, negating any problems with empathy.

[ErekLich]

"... the blood of the new covenant..."

I think this one phrase that Jesus says hints at the "inconsistency" Viropher is talking about.  Christ's death was a complete restructuring of the way people related to God, in both a spiritual and a societal sense.  Christian belief is that with Christ's death, all humanity's sins can now be forgiven by asking God for it -- the penalty for the sin is already paid.  Before Christ this was not the case, and the restitution to God had to be made some other way -- often by punishing the offender.

ASB:  There is more supporting evidence for the New Testament than for any other text from that time period.  Also, if there is this grand conspiracy to "control people" who supposedly did it?

[Rider]

In Deuteronomy, for instance, it says that if two men are fighting, and the wife of one runs between them, and grabs the other by the testicles, she must have her hand cut off

Now I have NEVER ever read anything like that before.... maybe you're referring to a different bible?

and God never was vengefull, or hatefull... look it up. It never says anything like that. Sure once in a while he gets fed up with the annoying humans... but he makes up afterwards (mostly to the sons/doughters etc.)

[Harrdy]

Not to mention the fact that God is supposed to be omniscient, negating any problems with empathy.

That's a nice one  
I think there is something "bigger" than god, as described in the other thread (about the orz being evil). If god and the universe are two seperated "things" it is logic that god must become "part" of the universe to "understand" it compleatly. But then again there must be something "bigger", something where god *and* the universe can exist in  

I also heard something interresting from a collegue. The rule "an eye for an eye.." was not stated to punish the committer but to "save" him! As before one could get killed for theft eg. So the rule is stated to "help" the commiter... strange, but I can buy that...

PeAcE

[Rider]

Now do you think our puny minds (compared to the vast intellect of the Supreme Being, can comprehend the largeness of God himself.

I bet that God is so great, that HE IS a place where the universe and He reside in.

For someone with the belief in God (christian, catholic etc.) this shouldn't be too hard to grasp... but completely understand? No. Remember that we're just His creations. And that we do not own the complete intellect that He has.

Just think of dimensions for instance, you can't imagine 1 dimension more then you have.

[Sedodes]

Not to mention the fact that God is supposed to be omniscient, negating any problems with empathy.

Omnipotent as well, and if anything, god would be able to relate LESS because of this.  It's difficult, but think of it as if you've never had a family member die, but you're one of those wacky councilors that has years of schooling in coping with loss.  You're the best person in this field in the entire world.  Your friend's mom just died.  Now, you know everything there is about the pain of loss, but you've never experienced it.  You're completely unable to relate.

As for the point that Jesus preached all that stuff before he died, look at it this way:  Jesus KNEW of his fate, that he would suffer a horrible death by the people he was to save.  I can imagine that God knew all this stuff beforehand as well if Jesus did.  ErekLich also made me consider this -- maybe God related better to the strife of humanity just bb HAVING a son, rather than only by losing him.

All this does raise interesting questions about God and if his omniscience is static in reference to time or if he/she/it can see into the future.  If so, why _IS_ there and Old and New Testament?  If you truly do believe that God is omnipotent/omniscient then [eerie music] maybe my other theory is a bit more plausible [/eerie music].  Obviously an instantaneously interconnected world population via satellites and the internet wasn't taken into consideration when the bible was written.

ASB:  There is more supporting evidence for the New Testament than for any other text from that time period.  Also, if there is this grand conspiracy to "control people" who supposedly did it?

Gee, let me think... how about whomever was in a major seat of power and had a position that was being threatened by a violent uprising?  It is only a theory, mind you, so don't get all torqued off.  It's less about direct control and more about enabling control by getting people to believe that by forgiving those who've wronged you you're doing the "right" thing and will be rewarded.

As far as this "evidence" goes, just how reliable do you think this evidence is?  After all, remember that Homer spoke of Atlantis and actually plopped it on a map.  It was widely recognized as fact until we could actually go down and prove it wasn't there.  In cases such as Atlantis and the Bible the only thing that makes it "true" is an inability to disprove it, even when faced with insurmountable scientific explanations against the proposition.

Who knows, after the next world war "The Giving Tree" might be the only book left, along with a few handfulls of human babies.  They would come to regard that as the foundation of their beliefs merely because there is no evidence against the idea that the book was sent down from the great Giving Tree in the heavens.  I think the mere fact that the bible was written by mankind is proof of its less-than-divine origin.

Anywho, I just got home from work.  Time for the sleepy-sleepy.  I had more to add to this little post but my memory is fading as each blink becomes a bit longer in duration.

[Viropher]

Omnipotent as well, and if anything, god would be able to relate LESS because of this.

That doesn't hold up at all - omniscience is not simply "knowing everything". You can't put it in human terms like that.

[Viropher]

Now I have NEVER ever read anything like that before.... maybe you're referring to a different bible?

Deutronomy 25 verse 11. Look it up.

Also, D 23:1, "He whose testacles have been crushed or whose male member has been cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord."
D 23:2 "Nor shall any bastard enter the assembly of the lord, even to his tenth generation."

Parents are also allowed to kill their children for being disobediant. 21:18

There's a bunch of stuff on how to invade countries and beseige cities, too, taking the women and everything else as spoils of war, and killing all the men.
   Perhaps this is why the Israeli army gladly invaded Palestine and the Lebanon? No, not really. They just wanted land, of course.

[ErekLich]

Omnipotent as well, and if anything, god would be able to relate LESS because of this.  It's difficult, but think of it as if you've never had a family member die, but you're one of those wacky councilors that has years of schooling in coping with loss.  You're the best person in this field in the entire world.  Your friend's mom just died.  Now, you know everything there is about the pain of loss, but you've never experienced it.  You're completely unable to relate.

Excellent analogy.  Thanks.

It is only a theory, mind you, so don't get all torqued off.  It's less about direct control and more about enabling control by getting people to believe that by forgiving those who've wronged you you're doing the "right" thing and will be rewarded.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as sarcastic.  I meant to point out that I don't think any government or group of that time would be able to fool so many people and still have the religion be as cohesive as it was.

As far as this "evidence" goes, just how reliable do you think this evidence is?

Just as reliable as the evidence that, say, Julius Ceaser existed -- because its the same kind of evidence.  multiple, independent human sources mentioning facts in a consistent manner.  Also remember that the books in the New Testament were all written independently.

the only thing that makes it "true" is an inability to disprove it, even when faced with insurmountable scientific explanations against the proposition.

Ah, you've managed to come to another sticking point for me.  I don't belive that science contradicts religion at all.  I personally believe that the creation story of Genesis is largely allegorical, and things like evolution are the mechanisms God used, rather than a contradictory theory.  Just as an example.

Who knows, after the next world war "The Giving Tree" might be the only book left, along with a few handfulls of human babies.  They would come to regard that as the foundation of their beliefs merely because there is no evidence against the idea that the book was sent down from the great Giving Tree in the heavens.  I think the mere fact that the bible was written by mankind is proof of its less-than-divine origin.

Major difference here:  The only way that your scenario could come about would be if NO one were left who knew what the book was actually about and neo-humanity had to draw it's own conclusions.  This was not the case with the Bible.

Viropher:  what then is your definition of omniscience?

[Viropher]

The difference is that knowing everything is an impartial state, where as omniscience, being "all-knowing", implies not only a complete fundemental understanding of the nature of all things,  but also emotions, rationality, "perspectives" and so forth. To say God, an omniscient being, would not be able to understand something, is impossible, should such a thing exist. It imposes a human mind frame on what is a humanly impossible state.

Look, basically "omniscient" means not simply "all-knowing", but "all-comprehending". The idea of being omniscient, yet not understanding someone's perspective, is totally self-contradictory.

Philosophers and theologians would spit on you for saying otherwise.

[Sedodes]

The difference is that knowing everything is an impartial state, where as omniscience, being "all-knowing", implies not only a complete fundemental understanding of the nature of all things,  but also emotions, rationality, "perspectives" and so forth. To say God, an omniscient being, would not be able to understand something, is impossible, should such a thing exist. It imposes a human mind frame on what is a humanly impossible state.

Look, basically "omniscient" means not simply "all-knowing", but "all-comprehending". The idea of being omniscient, yet not understanding someone's perspective, is totally self-contradictory.

Philosophers and theologians would spit on you for saying otherwise.

I point again to my question as to whether God is omniscient or not.  The true definition of omniscience includes a transcendence of time in your understanding/comprehending.  If this is so, then why do the Old and New Testament contradict each-other on so many points?  The New Testament is basicly a revamped way of religious thinking, showing that God, the almighty omniscient one, has learned a thing or two, causing him/her/it to change his/her/its mind.

The strange thing is that you're even assuming God and his manner of understanding exists in definable terms.  If he's as almighty as people think, then how are we able to define anything about him/her it?  If there is a perfect, infinite entity then there's no way we'd even be able to comprehend it.  Humans are neigher perfect or infinite, nor is anything that has anything to do with our existence, so what makes you think we could understand something outside of our existence?

The grim fact is that if there is a god, we terribly misunderstand the concept in some way shape or form -- either by giving more credit to "the creator" or not enough.  Omniscience itself is a human term, and therefore not applicable to God.