elevator

Thanks for pointing these out Leelee. I have seen a detailed discussion on the subject somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me recall right now exactly where. I have also heard the defense that you need the Holy Spirit to understand the bible right, and, of course, we as non-believers lack the Holy Spirit and so are painfully unable to read the bible correctly (at which point it is necessary to point out Psalm 119:130).

elevator

I agree, separating the old testament God from the new testament God in order to avoid having to make excuses for God's behavior before the appearance of Christ smells quite distinctively of desperation. The old testament God, being the alleged creator of the universe no less, has a central place in all abrahamic religions, no matter how much one may try to attribute the less-than-godly actions of this deity to his evil counterpart. If your information about the Gnostics are correct (I know very little about Gnostic beliefs); we are presented with the uncomfortable notion that Satan created the universe (unless the real God created the universe, then disappeared into oblivion and let Satan rule the world and spread terror upon it - all in the name of the true God). Most Christians would, of course, deny this, and so we still fall back into not being able to make excuses for this God.

If God really exists and has all the properties that Christians wish to attribute to him, he should really know better than behaving the way he does throughout the Old Testament. Numerous philosophers throughout history has pointed exactly this out; the biblical picture of God is distinctively nastier than the picture most Christians paint of this same God.

Roland

This reminds me of God asking Adam where he was hiding after he ate the fruit.

karlmarx

Not really. I'm not an expert on Gnostics, but what I've gleaned from Freke and Gandy, and other authors, is that Gnostics are a fluid, easy-going bunch. I think most Gnostics take the whole story allegorically, with an understanding that interpretations can vary. I don't think the point is to rescue the OT at all costs - I think their point is that if someone can derive some "spiritual" benefit from the story based on a particular interpretation, then it's a worthwhile story. That's why you'll find them not just studying Christian myths, but other myths as well. Well, that's my understanding of them, at least.

Well, their interpretation (if there can be anything like "the" Gnostic interpretation) is that Satan, aka the "demiurge", aka the OT "God", DID in fact, create the material universe. It was created by him because he's a temperamental, egotistical being, hell-bent on being worshipped. He's like this because he doesn't understand that he's not the "real" God - that notion escapes him, just like the unenlightened think that the material world is all there is.

This material universe is what's preventing us humans from seeing our true selves - as spiritual creatures. As long as we cling to this material universe, we suffer. It's a myth to explain human suffering. We escape this suffering by understanding there's something that transcends material reality. Lots of mystic traditions have this idea.

To make a reference to pop culture, for instance, the movie "The Matrix" is heavily influenced by Gnostic ideas. If you've seen the movie, the Matrix in fact corresponds to our material reality. To become "enlightened" is to see we're something more than that - to escape this lower and "unreal" state of existence.

This is where the figure of the Saviour/Jesus comes in - he represents our transcendental self (as opposed to our material self). By being killed in this "fake" material world, he rises in the "real" spiritual world, and shows everyone the way. It borrows a little from Platonism - which speaks of another world "more real" than this material one (in the case of Platonism, that's the world of Platonic Forms).

I'm not a "Gnostic" - I just take an interest in their belief system, and find that it's not all that illogical. It's very fluid, undogmatic, very much unlike what orthodox christianity is like.

I think most Christians would not consider the Gnostics as Christians at all. Which is probably why they were burned at the stake as heretics once upon a time.

Lugubert

I must admit, though, when still formally a Christian, I coveted my neighbour's ass. But however tempting, as soon as she opened her mouth, I changed my mind.

Joan of Bark

The god of the OT does change forms regularly. In Genesis, he is much closer to a typical Greek god, with all the attendant emotional baggage (He is also just one of many gods; that is, the God of the Hebrews -- and one who is jealous, temperamental, error-prone, cruel and irrational).

It's only later in the OT that He transforms into the kind of god Christians like to portray.

elevator

That statement was directed towards Christians, not the Gnostics. Gnosticism was used as an example of ways to explain the apparent contradictions between various old testament (and new testament) verses.

I agree completely; and therefore it is, as Half-Life asserts, really hard for Christians to explain away the nastiness of the old testament. It is, after all, part of the Christian canon. The Gnostics are brought into the equation as a way to explain this (per Half-Life's assertion) and I have heard appeals to the Holy Spirit as well - the assertion that one cannot understand the true meaning of the old testament until such time as one are in possession of the Holy Spirit. See my post above.

The problem is, as I said in my last post, that the biblical picture of God is distinctively nastier than the picture most Christians paint of this same God - and as the originial poster asserted, that God's behavior (falling back on a promise in this case) is inconsistent with the picture painted of this same God by believers in the Christian doctrine.

elevator

This isn't exactly compatible with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity the Christian God is often marketed as. It is, of course, not a good selling point to prospective converts to point out God's history as a deity in need of anger management.

John Kesler

Keep in mind that the golden-calf incident isn't the only time that Moses had to convince Yahweh not to destroy the Israelites. See also Numbers 14, and notice the similar language.

In neither situation did Yahweh change his mind because of repentance. Rather, the change was solely because of Moses' intercession, which included appeals to Yahweh's ego. To argue, as some Christians do, that Yahweh knew all along that he wouldn't destroy the Israelites is to impose a later conception of God onto the text (as in Isaiah 42:9). And if Yahweh were just testing Moses, why would Yahweh need to give the same "test" again, using the same temptation--starting over with Moses--since Moses already "passed" once? This is the same deity who needed the "bow" as a perpetual reminded not to destroy the earth with a flood again.

Leelee

That's one forgetful God. He's even more forgetful than me!