That is a big jump from isn't in the OT at all
It isn't a big leap at all. I stated that Satan is not in the Bible. Satan being the Christian entity that is said to oppose God. The term ha-satan is in the Bible, but it refers to an adversary, more of an office than a specific character. Simply, it isn't Satan.
He sat with Moses and Abraham. Everybody else was treated the same. I would hardly call him a have a chat type God. He was on his way to rain fire down on two cities when he had that "chat" He has always been a strict God who demands submission and obedience. He rules through fear. It sounds like a battered spouse story. He is happiest when he is feared and she walks around thanking him for smacking her around.
God is not said to have sat with Moses. In fact, we are told that when Moses asked to see God, God told him that if he say the face of God, he would perish. Instead, Moses was instructed to call into a crevice, God covered his eyes, and walked by. When God called Moses out, he was simply able to see a glimpse of God's back side. That is no sitting with Moses. Huge difference, especially since God told Moses that if anyone saw God face to face, they would perish, but that was not true in the case for Abraham.
More so, you are only taking a very small look at what the Bible says about God. You are only taking the stories in which God is depicted as strict, and ignoring the rest. With the story of God and Abraham, God was anything but strict. God sat down with Abraham, and they conversed. Abraham was even able to convince God to change his mind. God was going to have Sodom inspected and see if there were any righteous. After their conversation, Abraham had God agreeing that if there were only but a few righteous individuals in there, God would spare the city. As in, God was being flexible.
Also, the idea that God rules for fear is a fallacy. Much of the Bible portrays God ruling through love. The story of Jonah is a great example of this. As in, the story ends with a statement from God saying that God loves everyone, including the wicked.
If you pick and choose only the stories that depict God as strict, and ruling with fear, you have to ignore a vast majority of the Bible.
Sorry, but the opinion of every Tom, Dick and Harry regarding how they want God to look like is meaningful when the issue is the God of the Bible. What you are telling me about is make your God mentality. Could be valid and I am not knocking it, just saying it doesn't fit in this scenario.
The fact is that we are limited in our knowledge in regards to God. Seeing that the Bible is written by humans, it is inevitably flawed. And since we can't actually study God physically, all we have are perceptions.
This isn't about making one's own God, it is simply the fact that we only have individual perceptions when it comes to God. There is no concrete evidence of God, and even less for a concrete definition of God.
As for the difference between the classical view of God, and a more modern view of God, that was in response to the theological problems regarding the classical view.
What would be the difference between the Bible and a couple books I write about God, If God was not the source of either one? The whole religion falls apart if it is not at least inspired by God. Think about it.
I have thought about, as have millions of others. The Bible is not a book simply about God. If that is what you break it down to, then I have to assume that you haven't really read the Bible.
Buddhism doesn't fall apart because it is largely non-theistic (I say largely because there are some strands that are theistic, and I don't want to ignore those). Humans compose those scriptures. And that is perfectly fine. Throughout much of history, the books of the Bible were accepted as being written by humans as well, and there was no problem with that. I don't see why there should be a problem.
In fact, much of my theological outlook, as well as my view on God, were not formed by the Bible, but by other theological works, including modern works.
The conclusion you come to simply is not logical, and really shows a lack of understanding when it comes to Christianity. Also, Christianity is not centered around just a belief in God. While that is at the basic core, most of the theological and philosophical ideas of Christianity deal with other matters.
Technically yes it has everything to do with a serial killer. There is an actual definition you know. So they are not confused with mass murderers or other nut jobs
I actually have a degree in criminal justice. I know what the definition of serial killer is. While some definitions may include the idea of psychological gratification. The FBI definition does not contain such an idea though, but says that the motivations could be for a variety of reasons such as anger or financial gain. If we take the stories about God killing seriously, the motivation is usually anger. So yes, serial killer would be the correct term.
Remarkable. I am arguing with a person who says he believes in God and defends that belief by saying the Bible was written men and things attributed to God most likely either were natural occurrences or written for political reasons therefore the Bible isn't literal nor can it prove the existence of God and for frosting it is just plain wrong.
I never defended my belief in God. You simply are making that up. I believe in God based on faith. I don't have to defend it, nor will I.
I also didn't say that the Bible was plain wrong, or isn't literal. I have been careful to make a distinction between the Bible and individual books. I have also been careful to say that the Bible contains a variety of different ideas. So I'm not saying the the Bible is wrong. I'm saying that parts of it are wrong. And I'm hardly the first Christian to do so.
Uhm that is because the verses I was referencing were intended to be read as literal. The believes those things actually happened. Other than because you would prefer for it not to be do have anything to support you claims?
Whether or not they are meant to be literal, does not mean that we have to take what they state at face value. Historians and scholars do not do this with any other text, why should we make the Bible a special case?
I'm not saying that what happened in that situation didn't happen. Yes, a child got sick and died. I'm simply not taking the entire story literally, as there is no reason to, as I know enough about ancient writings to know that it was common to attribute to a god certain events that couldn't be explained in other ways, or to attribute something to a god for political reasons.
I realize a lot can happen in 4 paragraphs, but scan up and read were you explained the two different personalities God showed to Moses and Abraham
And that actually shows exactly what I was saying. God's nature doesn't change, but perception does.
