If you want to really want to learn about god, stick with the OT. He comes through loud and clear there.
I'm reading the Bible cover to cover...
homeschool....i watched the video....but with my quirky and offbeat sense of humor.....i only found it as funny as the bible account itself, since it was pretty dead on..........but damm.........it left out the incest!!.......
and instead of using those thin pages as tp, i saw a western once and when ever the guy wanted a smoke, he read a page and then rolled one........i always like that idea
IF the OT and the Old covenant had been "right on the button", there would have been no need for the NT or the New Convenant.
One gets a far better "picture" of God though his Son Jesus.
there would have been no need for the NT or the New Convenant.
I believe Dagney's comment was more out of sarcasm.
By (anachronistic) humanistic standards, I would prefer the God (Yhwh) of the "OT" book of Jonah to that (Jesus & Father) of the "NT" book of Revelation, for instance.
The opposition between the mean OT God and the good NT one only stands if you paint both with a very broad brush.
I like to skip to the end of books....damn! Everyone dies, birds eat corpses...Witnesses live in Paradise!
To me, the way Jesus portrays his father in the NT makes just more "sense" to me.
I don't see an omnipotent and omniscient being as being jealous, angry or punishing things he knows were gonna happen and why.
A loving, compassionate, grace giving God makes more sense to me from that point of view, I see these qualitites as superiour to the others more prevelant in the OT and as such, more in line with a supreme being.
Now for an anti-humanist literary take at the OT/NT opposition:
" I don't like the "New Testament"—you will already have guessed as much. It almost disturbs me that I stand so alone in my taste with respect to this most highly regarded and overvalued written work (the taste of two thousand years is against me). How can I help that! "Here I stand. I can't do otherwise." I have the courage of my own bad taste. The Old Testament—now, that's something quite different. All honour to the Old Testament! In that I find great men, a heroic landscape and something of the rarest of all elements on earth, the incomparable naïveté of the strong heart. Even more—I find a people. In the New Testament, by contrast, I find nothing but small sectarian households, nothing but spiritual rococo, nothing but ornament, twisty little corners, oddities, nothing but conventional air, not to mention an occasional breeze of bucolic sweet sentimentality, which belongs to the age (and the Roman province)—something not so much Jewish as Hellenic. Humility and pomposity standing shoulder to shoulder; a chatting about feelings which are almost stupefying; vehement feelings but no passion, with awkward gestures. Here, it seems, there's a lack of a good upbringing.
How can people make such a fuss about their small vices, the way these devout little men do? No one—and certainly not God—could care less about it. Finally, they even want to possess "the crown of eternal life," all these small people from the provinces. But what for? What for? It's impossible to push presumption any further. An "immortal" Peter—who could endure him? They have an ambition that makes one laugh: they spell out their most personal things—their stupidity, melancholy, and their indolent worries—as if the essence of all things had a duty to worry about such things. They never get tired of wrapping up God himself in the smallest misery they find themselves in. And the most appalling taste of this constant familiarity with God! This Jewish—and not merely Jewish—excessive importuning God with mouth and paw!"
F. Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, III.