Moses did not get a glimpse of the face of God, what he saw was the hindmost parts of God.

I do agree that we see as much of God as we were created to see. However since we were created to be different individuals clearly we were created to see different aspects of God. You make my case for me.

Also, clearly the Bible does show a difference in the instructions of God from OT to NT, anyone who has read it can tell you that.

As for Him being personal, no, that is is simply your attempt to minimize God, as I mentioned before. It is the arrogance of humanity that requires us to see an infinite being in human terms.

A personal God would change His mind once in a while, wouldn't He. It is the humility of merciful God that makes another living being in His image, that is to look upon his Creator as "Daddy". This more reveals the lovingkindness nature that is predominate in The Father, and further evidence of his personhood. God has a Holy Personality. He is perfect. We are lesser and imperfect, contaminated by our father's sin when born. He choses us out of those separated from Him for fellowship. The acid test is the Gospel. Those who respond positively to the Gospel are His Elect, those chosen from before the Big Bang.

You got it bass ackward, as Satan would have you have it: Safely shivvering in the darkness in terror of The Light.

Dd

qualities. If God is all knowing, then, no he would not change his mind, if he is perfect then there is never a need to "change his mind". But again, you limit God to that which you can understand. I put no such limitations.

I say this because it is clear from the teachings of Christ that no amount of hate is appropriate and yet you insist otherwise.

As for the rest we are just going round and round. The books were compiled by men with a political agenda. Even older books were rejected if they did not fit that agenda. None of the books were actually written by anyone who was actually there. This isn't revisionist history, it is actual history.

The difference here is, I put my faith in a higher power, you put your faith in a book written by men. You limit God to some anthropomorphic being that you think you can understand and who is, at best imperfect. I offer no such limitation

Good for you. I "limit" God only by what I know of Him and that is only what He reveals of Himself to me and enables me to process at whatever level he enables it. God obviously values the processes of things. Made in His image and living in an environment provided by Him, we find ourselves doing the same thing. When the product is sufficiently smoothed, one puts away the sand paper for it has served its purpose. God may want a certain thing for a Jew as His Promised People that He wouldn't require of a gentile. For instance, you will hold your loved ones to a higher standard of decorum than you would a stranger. Their slights and small betrayals will seem much more painful than those coming from persons you have no intimacy with.

Dd

"I say this because it is clear from the teachings of Christ that no amount of hate is appropriate

=== Hate Evil, Love good. Hate even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." ===

and yet you insist otherwise.

=== There is a time and a season for everything. Even for God Himself. "Jacob I loved. Essau, I hated." ===

As for the rest we are just going round and round.

=== Yes, my siblings and I used to call it the one armed dance. Don't you ever get tired of getting your ass beaten? ===

The books were compiled by men with a political agenda.

=== Luke ran with the pack. Paul was contemporary and also dealt dirtly with Christ. Peter wrote his own letters as did the author of James. None of these people ever aspired to political office. ===

Even older books were rejected if they did not fit that agenda.

=== Rejected as inspired text. Remember the five tests they applied to manuscripts they considered. We've been through this before. Number one was: Must not contradict Inspired Text. You want to call that, didn't fit an agenda, but remember, they are only certifying history, here, as well as doctrine common to those called "Christians". Christians were not political in that day. ===

None of the books were actually written by anyone who was actually there.

=== Paul, Peter, Luke, Timothy, Titus, James, John the Revelator/Apostle.

This isn't revisionist history, it is actual history.

=== Not the babble you blather. You are talking pure excrement from the gob hole of ignorance. ===

The difference here is, I put my faith in a higher power,

=== Yeah, your own terribly feeble intellect and emotions, no less. ===

you put your faith in a book written by men.

=== "... as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit of Christ." Add that and I will agree with that one statment in isolation. ===

You limit God to some anthropomorphic being that you think you can understand and who is, at best imperfect.

=== There many aspects of God that it is given men in general to understand, and some of us are blessed with more complete learning than others. Now there are many things we don't understand about God, which would stand to reason. After all we can't even fully understand women and they are right there in front of us all day, every day. ===

I offer no such limitation.

=== Because you don' know shit from shinola, but you want to be considered smart.

Dd

Paul never met Jesus and none of the books were actually written by disciples who did. This is historical fact.

As for political motivations, I didn't say the authors were political minded, though it could be argued that Paul was. I said the people who compiled the books were. That is also a simple historical fact.

What is funny is you can't see how you argue against yourself. You claim on the one hand God is limited and imperfect, they claim exactly the opposite. You claim that there is only one way to find a relationship with God, then claim that different people should approach God differently.

And lastly, you are so filled with hate and rage and fear it is unimaginable that you could actually develope any sort of relationship with God, under those circumstances.

No, it seems clear that you are one of those who hide behind a dogma because you are incapable of developing such a relationship. It makes you feel superior because in fact you feel deeply inferior, again as is evidence by your racist rants.

I feel sorry for you.

make up your mind. Just going by this post I take it you believe that might have something different in mind for say, the Hindus. They approach God in a very different way. One reason for this, I believe, is that God cannot be known fully, so different people approach him differently.

That part I agree with.