QuakerInfo.com Forum

[bookworm33]

This may seem like a childish question, but please bear with me. I've read lots of different answers but none satisfy me, so I thought I'd ask it again. For those Quakers who believe in the Bible, how do you reconcile Old Testament God with New Testament God? I understand that a father has to discipline his children, but encouraging genocide and war seems a little over the top. I know, he is also merciful in the Old Testament, but he seems a lot more...hormonal or something in the Old rather than in the New.

I know I'm probably viewing this in the most negative way possible, so thats why I'm trying to get some more ideas from other people. Thank you for your time.
_________________
Truth is always exciting. Speak it often then. Pearl S. Buck.

[orPowers]

I think we have talked about this in the past and you can find some other views expressed, but the problem with "reconciling" stems from the untenable position that "scripture" is inspired directly by God in a way that makes all elements "TRUTH" undeniable. A much more reasonable perception of "scripture" is that it is a record of the growing awareness of the nature of God within one ethnic group, recorded from the earliest myths and histories by people who expressed their own ideas about God in relation to that group and the rest of the world. You can easily see development from a childish anthropomorphism as seen in the description of God's visit with Abraham before destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, culminating in the expression of Micah 6:8 and just off the top of my head I forget the reference indicating that God had not required sacrifices, but a contrite heart. As you note, the life and ministry of Jesus expressing the nature of God is in stark contrast to the parochial ideas of a people in the middle of one of the most violent and vicious eras and areas in global history.
I hope that provides at least a start for you.
In His Love,
orPowers
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

[james]

I would agree with what orpowers says, but also point out that the not particularly kind or gentle God of Genesis, Exodus, Job, and some other books, has a certain appeal, as a character, that the later God of love doesn't particularly have.

For one thing, that earlier God is genuinely present in the stories, and the later God is not really present but just talked about. Also, it seems to me that earlier God--fickle, frightening, arbitrary, violent and generous by turns--is a better representative of the power of the universe as we humans encounter it. The later God strikes me as a unconscious representation of something we don't understand within us, and the earlier God a representation of something we don't understand outside of us.

I know you asked for the thoughts of "Bible believing" Friends--not me--and I hope some folks like that respond here. I hope you don't mind hearing my perspective.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[bookworm33]

No, not at all, I'm happy for any responses to my question. I was just curious about bible-believing Friends especially, I'm not sure how they explain it.
_________________
Truth is always exciting. Speak it often then. Pearl S. Buck.

[pilgrim]

Well, I'm not a Bible-believing Friend either, (assuming by that you mean someone who believes the biblical narrative to be literal truth rather than metaphorical) but I do find much inspiration in the book. Whats been conveyed to me at my meeting is the concept of "Progressive Revelation," that God reveals more and more of the Truth to us over time, as our understanding of it grows. I personally believe that, since every person is capable of experiencing God, that every individual culture develops its own unique understanding of him. The writers of the Old Testament had there own conception of God and Truth, which had changed by the time of Jesus, and has likewise changed into what it has become today.

Another concept that may be of interest is "Sola Scriptura," the belief that the Bible is infallible and interpretive of itself. The idea arose with the Protestant Reformation, and placed the authority of the Bible above the Catholic hierarchy. But I feel that it is possible to believe the Bible was divinely inspired without believing that it is infallible. Historically, Friends have placed the authority of the Inner Light above, or as equal to, the authority of the Bible.

[jessaka]

Thanks so much for these answers, which is just another reason why I am interesting in Quakerism.

[BillSamuel]

Well, a lot depends on how you read the scriptures. Large parts of it may not best be read just by taking it at seemingly face value.

I am currently reading Daniel Berrigan's The Kings and Their Gods: The Pathology of Power, a study of 1 & 2 Kings. He notes, "Only a minuscule portion of the books could be deemed edifying."

But he does see them as valuable scripture. "The compassion of the Word of God is thus revealed. A strange compassion, seemingly devoid of mercy. The method is irony, truth concealed in paradox, all the more striking for being masked."

Berrigan (a Jesuit) also says, "Through these books, we must come to know the worst of our ancestry - as well as the worst that lurks in ourselves. We must come to know also the truth of structures and systems, throughout the ages and today."

I got this book because I thought it might help me to understand the true meaning of the Old Testament and unpack from it what some portions seem to be teaching us on the surface.

My wife once brought me to something at her church (affiliated with Southern Baptist Convention) where a seminary professor was speaking about some things he learned after many years in that role. He had basically seen things somewhat as you have described. A friend advised him to read the Old Testament to see how many times the word "love" was used.

He found it was used over and over again. In fact, God's message of love was found throughout the Old Testament as well as the New. He came to appreciate that there was not such a dichotomy between the Old and the New as he had thought.

I also note that if you check it out, you will find that most of Jesus' teachings come from the Hebrew scriptures. There is this strong continuity.

Nevertheless, there are significant parts of the O.T. that seem problematical. But one can find that all scripture "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16) if one expands their approaches in looking at it.

There are different ways to do it. One way is exemplified by Berrigan's view of Kings as irony. Another way is looking at a progression of understanding of God. Another is to look at the dialogue between the priestly and prophetic traditions within the Old Testament.

And through all of it, we need to keep in mind the early Quaker admonition that the scriptures could only be truly understood if we are in the Spirit which brought them forth. The onus is not on the scriptures to speak to us. The onus is on us to live in that Life which will open the scriptures to us.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ

[bookworm33]

Thank you all so much, this has been really helpful for me. I'll try to apply all these ideas as I make my way through the Old Testament.
_________________
Truth is always exciting. Speak it often then. Pearl S. Buck.

[jessaka]

Took me a while to find some of my posts. A friend told me how.

I like how you explain things Bill. I will keep that book in mind.

[james]

[METALforChrist]

Well.,..... I remember reading a explanation, of this and they made quick mention of when God killed two people for not giving the Church ALL of the profit they received from selling their possessions (lying to God was pretty much what they where called) and they both got killed for it (by God) I also think however that the New Testament actually really involves Jesus the most anyway, so characteristics of God aren't as present in the new testament as the Old.

[Keith Maddison]

orPowers, friend thy speaks my mind, what thee said is just how I see it.
_________________
Don't follow leaders and watch the parking meters, the pumps don't work because the vandals took the handles.
Keith

[orPowers]

Why, thank you for that endorsement, Keith. You and Bob speak my mind in your quote, too. hehe
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

[jessaka]

I like what Orpowers and James both said here. I remember reading Karen Armstrong's book, The History of God, and she showed how God evolved over the years, plus the drastic change when Christ came on the scene.

[Pulpculture]

For me the Old Testament is a collation of parables from the past. They cannot be literal (you only need to look at Noah and this blows the absoluteness of the OT out of the window.) The New Testament was predominantly written / changed by Rome a few hundreds of years after Christ was supposed to have lived. The NT was written by people that never met Jesus and there is evidence to show the intentional (and unintentional manipulation of the documents.)

For me personally nearly a 5th of the world is wrapped up in debating the Bible rather than living a spiritual life (many think they are living a spiritual life!)

FYI and to put my comments into perspective - I am a Christian. I don't get wrapped up in the finer details as I'm only on this planet for a short time and there is much I can do to make changes for the good rather than spending my time analysing (don't get me wrong I've done lots of that in the past!)
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!