Quote:
|
Originally Posted by C-Mac
Thank you for expounding, nothing you need to apologize about.
Interesting point that struck a chord with me, when a follower had asked Jesus if he would show him the Father(God), he replied "He that has seen me has seen the Father also"-John 14:9. Jesus represented his father in every aspect so well that he could state this. When I actually read the OT stories, I could see a God that still showed much patience and love toward many unappreciative undeserving people. So the OT God is is still the same loving NT God that still requires exclusive devotion. Albeit he was much more active and more detail orientated prior to Jesus arrival, then he enacted the latest, less complicated arrangement based mostly on principles. Still, in the New Testament it clearly states that he will eventually destroy the same type of faithless habitually sinful people that he had destroyed in the past. He hasn't waivered in any way on his high moral standards just because todays religions have and thankfully he still does allow time for repentance. Even though God has done away with such things such as the need to sacrifice animals and abstinence from certain foods, he still requires more than just faith or just believing. He requires action too. He expects us to try earnestly to live our lives accordingly and in harmony with his principles. The reward for doing so is still the same as it was from the very beginning, doing so he rewards us with life and if we choose not, death.
Not sure if this perked up any kind of a different thought for you but what you feel is a common (mis)understanding that I too used to think until I finally opened the book, read it for myself and unbiasly researched it.
PS If God were a woman wonder why she would have made men physically superior to women?
|
So much to respond to...but, it's getting late and I need to sleep....to get up early tomorrow....here's my quick response, and I'll check back tomorrow....
I've read the Old and New Testament stories; more than once.....and I don't agree that they represent the same God. Now, in fairness, maybe you have read them more prayerfully and thoughtfully than I (I mean that---no sarcasm intended.) So maybe I just need to RE-read them, I guess. However, the OT and NT Gods....to my way of thinking are like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
FWIW, I do agree that perhaps it's the church that has wavered, rather than God...but, then, I struggle with what a benevolent God would think of/do with that...given the complexities of modern life and the reasonable "misinterpretation" of believers in such circumstances. Would He simply say, "they should know better and do better?" or would he be more forgiving?
As for the changes you have conceded....I still haven't found NT basis for some of those....only that they make sense, really (no sacrifice, forbidden foods now okay, etc.)
As for common misunderstandings.....I guess I'd ask what do you think of the conscientious and diligent and scholarly types who would disagree with your interpretation? Are they just not earnestly seeking enlightenment, or are they just not yet enlightened? I'm not implying you are casting aspersions or making a judgement....but somebody is right, and somebody is wrong.
Finally, male physical superiority? Maybe it has something to do with the hunting and gathering function of males in earlier Western societies....because, frankly, women have strengths in other areas over men....which, in the long run, prove more important.
