[kosta50]

Inconvenient elements of the story can be dropped without penalty (it's not part of the message) and new elements can be added in to taste. That is faith a la carte, and with all respect that's what I see you doing when you dismiss the God of the OT.

It's not a matter of convenience and I am not dropping the OT God, just the perception the Jewish people had, and some Christian groups have, of Him. Our perception of the OT God is that He is (by necessity) Christ-like and that if He appears not as the Christ of the Gospels then it is not a correct perception of God. It's not a matter of convenience but of what standard we use. In our case, we use Christ. I think that would be the definition of a Christian.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: Inconvenient elements of the story can be dropped without penalty (it's not part of the message) and new elements can be added in to taste. That is faith a la carte, and with all respect that's what I see you doing when you dismiss the God of the OT.

It's not a matter of convenience and I am not dropping the OT God, just the perception the Jewish people had, and some Christian groups have, of Him. Our perception of the OT God is that He is (by necessity) Christ-like and that if He appears not as the Christ of the Gospels then it is not a correct perception of God. It's not a matter of convenience but of what standard we use. In our case, we use Christ. I think that would be the definition of a Christian.

Well, the problem with this truncated view of God is that it means you follow One God revealed in One Person. That is NOT the definition of Christian. :) The correct standard is the totality of scriptures, which reveal three distinct Persons.