God's Evolving/Split Personality??

I have read the entirety of the Holy Bible in three translations. (NASB, NKJV, and another older translation) as i mentioned in another thread, i was actually a christian (raised that way) until i read the full bible as suggested by my mom. (to improve my behaviour/ character). Now i am atheist, but i still like the topic of religion in general. What im wondering is, why does the god in the old testament seem fundamentally different from the God in the New Testament? (i mean no disrespect by neglecting to capitalise stuff, its just how i type.) any thoughts?

Well the bible is a human not a divine product and it reflects mans changing conception of the divine. God in the old testament is a tribal warrior god. God in the new testament is more a universal loving god. The two images of god as lawgiver, ruler and judge versus loving father and savior are still in conflict in the Christian faith. Jesus tended to emphasize love over law, inner sprituality over external piety and distributive and social justice over personal salvation.

The New testament is more the view of a loving personal god over that of a vengeful, judgmental ruler (if you leave revelations out that is).
Either God is a bipolar schizophrenic or our human view of god is conflicted and distorted (the latter I think).
Certainly our views of god or gods evolve and change. I think if there is a meaningful conception of god, god would take in the experience of the world and therefore god would be changed as well (process theology).

Well the bible is a human not a divine product and it reflects mans changing conception of the divine. God in the old testament is a tribal warrior god. God in the new testament is more a universal loving god. The two images of god as lawgiver, ruler and judge versus loving father and savior are still in conflict in the Christian faith. Jesus tended to emphasize love over law, inner sprituality over external piety and distributive and social justice over personal salvation.

The New testament is more the view of a loving personal god over that of a vengeful, judgmental ruler (if you leave revelations out that is).
Either God is a bipolar schizophrenic or our human view of god is conflicted and distorted (the latter I think).
Certainly our views of god or gods evolve and change. I think if there is a meaningful conception of god, god would take in the experience of the world and therefore god would be changed as well (process theology).

Kohlberg, then, proposes that his stage sequence will be the same in all cultures, for each stage is conceptually more advanced than the next. He and other researchers have given his interview to children and adults in a variety of cultures, including Mexico, Taiwan, Turkey, Israel, the Yucatan, Kenya, the Bahamas, and India. Most of the studies have been cross sectional, but a few have been longitudinal. Thus far, the studies have supported Kohlberg's stage sequence. To the extent that children move through the stages, they appear to move in order (Edwards, 1980).

At the same time, people in different cultures seem to move through the sequence at different rates and to reach different end-points. In the United States most urban middle-class adults reach stage 4, with a small percentage using some stage 5 reasoning. In urban areas of other countries the picture is fairly similar. In the isolated villages and tribal communities of many countries, however, it is rare to find any adult beyond stage 3 (Edwards, 1980).

Basically what you are saying is that as people change, they change their definition of what god is. Is that correct? Well can we go a little further and ask the question, is it that god exists? Or is it that we humans are inventing god existence? .

The bible and religion is a human product. They are an effort to seek purpose and meaning in the world, to reject the notion that nature is blind indifference. The real divide between theism and atheism is the notion of ultimate meaning and purpose in the world, not any particular religion or sacred writing.

I may be wrong, you may be right. The point is that it is not a matter of science, of reason, or of education but a matter of feeling. It is a choice about worldviews.

The universe is rationally intelligible, creative and enchanted. I do not see this as evidence of the universe as blind, purposeless indifference. It is a matter of perspective. What do you gain from the notion of purposeless indifference?

I on the other hand feel the universe tends towards order, complexity, life, mind and experience.

I have no problem with choice of worldview, but at the same time I think all believers should also accept my own worldview and not demonize me for it.



Purposeless indifference is absolute freedom in my opinion. Why? Because I have as that ability to give myself purpose. Rather than be designed for a purpose, I can have my own. Those who are theists and believe they were created for serving a god, are locked into a purpose and anything else they want to do with their existence gives them grief and guilt. They p:shocked:ut forth this purpose ahead of their own existence. That to me sounds more like bondage. I don't want my purpose to be, god's play doll.


[/COLOR]

Your statements about purpose (although they sound a little colder than you probably meant) remind me of something someone scribbled on a desk at my school. "utter pointlessness is utter freedom" i don't know if this desk-scribbler made it up or quoted someone else, but it struck me as being quite profound. It is true, and maybe a little scary when you think about it, not being bound to fulfilling some predecribed purpose. But then utter freedom is in itself just a little scary...

That scribbler does seem to have some profound ideas.

If someone were to say to me that the universe is made for our purpose, or some kind of purpose, as opposed to the universe being indifferent, it would seem like the right move to say that the universe will eventually yield to its ultimate heat death -- but perhaps the more appropriate question I would ask would be intended to the professor him/herself. After all, are you seeing order because there really is order, or are you simply seeing what you want to see? Usually, if you answer that honestly you will find latter is correct and one searches everywhere for it to be confirmed.

well, to deny the fact that the prevalence of order is rather uncanny, but the fact that there is a lot of order,(especially in nature) it doesn't mean that the order means anything. It could very well just be that order is necessary , like lets say the fact that oranges are nearly perfect spheres and in sections. Maybe oranges just survive better that way. There is a certain way that things operate. There is obvious order in what part of the universe(s) we know about, but that doesn't necessarily have any particularly significant impact on mankind or myself in particular. Let oranges behave like oranges and let me behave as i am wont to do. I don't know if i articulated that as well as it makes sense in my head, but i hope it makes sense...

I see both order and purpose.

well, to deny the fact that the prevalence of order is rather uncanny, but the fact that there is a lot of order,(especially in nature) it doesn't mean that the order means anything. It could very well just be that order is necessary , like lets say the fact that oranges are nearly perfect spheres and in sections. Maybe oranges just survive better that way. There is a certain way that things operate. There is obvious order in what part of the universe(s) we know about, but that doesn't necessarily have any particularly significant impact on mankind or myself in particular. Let oranges behave like oranges and let me behave as i am wont to do. I don't know if i articulated that as well as it makes sense in my head, but i hope it makes sense...

He does not see the order or the purpose.
You seem to see the order but not the purpose.
I see both order and purpose.
Where does science, reason, logic, experience or philosophy enter into those different prespectives at all?
We are all blind men trying to understand the same elephant.
To some extent reality is observer dependent and some humility is called for?

Do you?
That is the question, and I would think someone in your position would want confirmation right? Not just apparent order, and not just relying on a gut feeling, right? So the question I posed should be one of the first things you indeed ask yourself. After all, why wouldnt you? Looking for evidence in support, dont you want accurate results? Dont you want that confirmation? Because asking questions like that (i.e. eliminating bias) is what you, I, and everyone else should be doing... and that is exactly what science does. So is this something you just want to be true, or is it really true? If its really true then, since science doesnt care what the results are, you should be able to find it....

Science within its realm (the objective or measurable properties of physical objects) is a formidable and powerful tool. Science however offers us only a limited and partial view of total or acutual reality as we experience it and does not deal with purposes, values and aesthetics at all. You will find no purposes in science. The realm of spirit or of god can not be confirmed by science. The best one can hope for is that a particular concpetion of divine purpose or ultimate meaning does not conflict with science. Science tells me how to build an atomic weapon not whether and how it should be used (for example). You will get no confirmation of god and of purposes from science but then you should not expect them either.

The philosophy of religion is not a branch of science but an exercise in reasoned speculation. You of course are entitled to your metaphysical assumptions as long as you understand that those who disagree with you do not necessarily do so from a lack of understanding of the issues.
The most fundamental theistic notion is one of order and purpose in the universe. That view still dominates even in the age of reason and of science. That is not to argue for a supernatural or anthropomorphic conception of the divine, for those views I would agree lack coherence in the modern world.

Please start a thread because I find science a rather shallow source of aesthetics,morals and values.

Interesting, because I could say the same about religion.

But to respond to your comment about the bomb. In reality those who were actually working on the science of it, were fairly neutral. Even after Einstein realized it was possible to actually create the atomic bomb, he made greivences about the implications it could have on humanity. But remind you, that he also felt justified for the work because the threat of hitler obtaining the atomic knowledge first would have been a greater evil in his opinion.

The part that you completely ignore is that EVERYTHING is dualistic in nature, not just science, but religion and anything pertaining to our reality. Take for instance money. The unit of exchange can technically be used for good or bad. So why are you not demonizing money and refusing to use it? You sure like to demonize science for it's potential to cause harm, so why not stop using everything science has provided for you? If it is so morally inept why support it with using it's fruits? Are you not supporting the evil of science by continuing to use it?