Why is the god in the old T so mean? And why so different from the new T?
611788
This is only a theory, \nbut when Constantine and the Council of Nicaea canonised the Bible, they weren't too kind to the Jews. They didn't want anything to do with them as they felt Jews were beneath them. So they made it known, separated Easter from Passover, introduced the death penalty for ministering Judaism, same for those listening, coined the term 'Christ Killers' and basically treated them like dirt, and the same went for their Prophet and Book. \nAfter changing words in the Bible, adding to it (words like 'begotten' meaning to sire or father), calling Jesus a son of God - which was more powerful than having a Prophet who was only spoken to by God, they then started to regain their power back away from the people.... and all because some guy called Jesus had stirred up plenty of trouble for Rome by giving out free medicals and telling them to believe in One God that created all of us.\nThey set out to burn any Bible that didn't match their own and kill anyone who wouldn't accept the new doctrine - crusades. \nThe God of Constantine in the NT would certainly be more merciful than the God of the Moses in the OT.... it says so, as written by powerful political men of the 4th Century.\n:)
787797
saying that G-d has several names is a big difference between saying G-d has parts. \n\nin the strict sense of the word Christianity is not monotheistic.\n\n\noh and I am not Muslim
667487
Humans have almost always looked to one god or another to help them explain things they could not understand as well as to use to control the masses around them ... don't think that the "christain" god is anything other than a new god on the block ... there have always been gods for as long as there have been men and yes, they are the creations of our minds and not the other way around ...
425454
Uh, no. \n\nThe concept of a trinity is nothing new. While the word itself isn't in the Bible, the concept was around for a long time before; that's why and how the apostles understood it even without it being specifically named. But it doesn't work at all the same as any mythology.\n\nThere's a blog on my 360 that explains it in detail, but there's too much to include here and still hope to be literate. Anyway, the idea has nothing to do with Adam, Abraham, or Moses. The message of Jesus is hardly to worship 3 gods, nor is it to worship the trinity. He did say to worship the God who sent him, but made very clear comments about his own deity.
1122638
I think it went much further than Gay.  Much of the old writing were of a vengeful God. One whose name you could not mention.  Jesus freed us from the old testament.  Beside Jesus told us to love your brother, sounds pretty perverted to me.  But also pretty open minded.  His first invite to heaven was a theif wasn't it. If God is good and the Devil is evil both without the other concept in them aren't they equals in some sense. Hell was in the times of the Bible only a burning pit for the evilest of criminals outside the gates of Jerusalem not someplace of eternal damnation
268495
Well, except that the Egyptian religion is much closer to Hinduism in that beyond the "Trinity" there is a Brahman or higher aspect from which these three are all actually one whereas the Christian Trinity states clearly that there is one God in three Persons. Hinduism and Egyptian religion share this higher concept and reject the idea that the names of the Gods in the Trinity are individual Persons..individual Gods. They are merely reflections of the higher Divine. \n\nI apologize that the name of the higher Egyptian Brahman type eludes me. Let me explain it from Hinduism (since I know the names). I have friends that actually practice the Egyptian religion and have studied it (and I've studied a great deal myself..including reading hieroglyphs).\n\nIn Hinduism there is one God. This one God is called Brahman. It can be thought of as both Nirguna Brahman (without form, name, and attribute) and as Saguna Brahman (with form, name and attribute). Everything in the universe is manifested from Brahman. Brahman is infinite...limitless...without any limits. Brahman is beyond form, name, and attributes and yet it also become form, name, and attributes when it manifested the universe. The problem of course is that it is very difficult to worship the infinite unknown without form, name, and attribute (the word Brahman literally just means "supreme" or "highest"). Hinduism then has the Trimurti or Trinity. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Brahma represents Creation, Vishnue represents Preservation, and Shive represents Dissolution. But Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are NOT seperate from Brahman. They are Brahman! When Hindus worship whatever name and/or form, they are actually worshipping Brahman. The Egyptian religion is the same.\n\nSo................\n\nWhen worshipping the Christian Trinity there is God the Father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Spirit who are all individually unique and to be worshipped....yet all three are God...they are all said to be God. One God in Three Persons. When worshipping Jesus, Jesus is the bridge to God. If you worshipped the Holy Spirit, you are still worshipping God. If you just worship God the Father, you are still just worshiping God. \n\nThere really isn't much of a difference. It often appears on the outside that CHristians seem to be worshipping three Gods, but through theological teachings you realized that there is God who has resided in Heaven (the Father), this God manifests in human form as Jesus, and also interacts with people now through the Holy Spirit. While each are individually identifiable because of their qualities (forms), they are all actually God. Hindus and Egyptians would agree. Hindus go so far as to have avatars or incarnations of God all the time (even today) that they worship and Egyptians often did, too...this was their pharoah.
348376
That means one God is true, but two isn't. That there's only one.\n\nBut I don't believe that. :(
852978
God is male and female, alpha and omega, beginning and end. \n\nThe reason He is refered to as He is that his just/righteous side is dominate over His mercy/love side.
536936
As Diplocase has suggested, a lot of this is a matter of older and newer usage --and so you will almost always want to say "I pray TO God...". \n\nBut the difference also seems to be connected to an older (more original) and newer meaning of "pray".  "Pray"  originally simply meant to ask, to implore and "prayer" means "request".  In this sense, "pray you" or "pray God" is natural.  But pray/prayer takes a broader meaning, referring to ALL communication with a superior, esp. God.  (This is why when people "pray" they are not ALWAYS referring just to making requests, even though that is still central.)  "Pray" then, may be the equivalent of "say a prayer".   For this "Pray TO God" is more natural.  But again, there is not a hard distinction between the two expressions.\n\n\nA couple of other things that may be of interest:\n\nFirst, you may still run across the 'older form' in a couple of situtations:\n1) Some traditional prayers, esp. a traditional bedtime prayer: \nNow I lay me down to sleep,\nI PRAY THE LORD my soul to keep;\nIf I should die before I wake,\nI PRAY THE LORD my soul to take.\n\n2) Occasionally as a loose wish "I pray God he's safe!"  (This is actually close to the use you see in the NIV reference above -- most translations express the wish as "I would that..")\n\nSecond, that use "I pray you" appears MANY times in the Elizabethan English of the King James Version.   But since that version uses the archaic pronouns "thou/thee" for the singular (instead of modern "you") you will mostly find "I pray THEE" (in the sense of "I ask you" or "I implore you" or, more loosely, "please!" [which itself is short for "If it please thee/you"].)\n\nThis form "(I) pray thee" is the origin of "prithee" (meaning "please").    From this we derive the informal or slang expression "pretty please!" when asking for something.
570553
What's the differance? They all point to the same God..
1187071
why wouldnt it be? I think you may be confusing God with Jesus Christ. yes they may be one in the same now, but "in the beginning".. there was ONLY GOD!! the old testament is still the word of God, as told by different people and proffets.
890046
The God of the Old Testament certainly exhibits a violent nature. He is truly not a God of love or compassion. I notice his personality makes drastic changes from time to time. The more I study the Bible, the more I am coming to think that it is no more than myth.
585815
Your rationalization sucks! In French the word chair is feminine, I am a female, does that mean I am a chair?\n  Will you feel better if you find some proof in your mind that God "isn't" perfect? God "IS" "WAS" and "ALWAYS WILL BE"!
1130826
In an odd way, sweet_shy is right.  Sure, there are translation errors and parts of it may have been added or deleted, but it's still God's work.  It was divinely inspired; the only part that really matters is the message, and do you really think that he would let his message be corrupted?  The rest is just fluff to make it readable.  Now having read the New Testament, I find that what I read is entirely in line with my knowledge of God.  I think the message comes through just fine and there are no errors in it despite whatever stages the actual text has gone through.
795343
I wrote a paper about language used for God while I was in college, I'll just paste parts of it in here where it fits in between my thoughts now.\n\nGod being referred to as a man is a perfect example of the overuse of a metaphor. the metaphor is supposed to bring out certain feelings and allow the reader to relate better to the subject at hand. the overuse of a metaphor obviously proves to have problems, when in this case, referring to God as a woman somehow tends to turn heads.\n\nit seems everyone is hitting it with saying that God is neither male nor female. biblically, there are referrences to giving God both male and female characteristics, as well as comparisons to animals and inanimate objects. God is all things. whoever quoted the I Am scripture got it right.\n\nmale references:\n\n"Along with God as a father, there are other male images for God in the Bible. God is referred to as a shepherd in Psalm 23 and Ezekiel 34 (103). God is referred to as “. . . LORD Most High, the great King over all the earth” in Psalm 47:2 and a judge and king in Psalm 96:10 (103-104). God is portrayed to have great strength and courage. In Psalm 24:8, God is referenced as being a warrior. It says, “Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.”"\n\nfemale references:\n\n"God is also referred to in feminine aspects. In Isaiah 49:15, God is given the characteristics of a nursing mother. Isaiah 66:13, states that “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem” (104). God is given the characteristics of a midwife in Psalm 22:9-10 and gives birth in Deuteronomy 32:18 and Isaiah 42:14. Characteristics of women by giving birth can also be found in John 3, when God gave his “only begotten son.”"\n\nanimal references:\n\n"God is also equated with animals throughout the Old and New Testaments. In Matthew 23, as well as Luke 13, God is spoken of as a mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings. In Deuteronomy 32 God is referenced to be a mother eagle, and then again a few animal references are made in Hosea 13:7-8. It states, “So I will come upon them like a lion, like a leopard I will lurk by the path. Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and rip them open. Like a lion I will devour them; a wild animal will tear them apart” (98)."\n\ninanimate object references:\n\n"Throughout the Bible God is also referenced as inanimate objects. In Deuteronomy 4:24, God is “a consuming fire” and in Psalm 84 God is “a sun and shield” (98). In Deuteronomy 32, God is a rock. However, “‘Rock’ applied to God implies a set of qualities, particularly ones that focus on stability and reliability, that rose in the consciousness of the believing community at a particular time” (102)."\n\nit is also important to note that God's name, which is "’ehyeh ‘asher ‘ehyeh," or roughly YHWH is found over 6,000 times in the old testament. it is roughly and most often translated as "I am (who I am)," and is a form of "to be." due to the fact that jews regarded God's name as sacred and should never have been spoken, they often substituted YHWH with "Adonai" (which is "kyrios" in greek and "dominus" in latin). all of those forms are masculine and translate as "lord." lord obviously has masculine, dominant conotations. since all these forms are masculine, the masculine idea of God was pushed over God's name. God is often also referred to as "elohim" which has no gender. the shortened, "eloh," however is feminine and means goddess, so the addition of "im" at the end could make the translation of the word merely mean, “god,” “gods,” “goddess,” or “diety.”\n\nwhoever stated that the term for spirit was ruah and was feminine was also correct. it is important to note that the spiri
180362
This is a logical fallacy, appeal to novelty, that states that because something is newer it is better.  There is nothing, per se, wrong with following customs that are centuries old just because they are old.  It's just as wrong as the "Give me that old time religion" argument, which states that because it was good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for "me".  That's an appeal to tradition.  People should follow what actually works, regardless of when it was developed.  I guess this isn't really an answer to the question, though.
459917
Um...  not sure if this is helpful, but there are repeated references to God, however there are still references to fate and wyrd, remnants of the old anglo-saxon relgion.  This is important because it indicates that the culture is in a shift between the two religions and/or that the story dates from the pre-christian era, and has simply been retold for christian audiences.