What is Heaven actually like?

[gracelandz]

I'm new to Christian Forums, and I've only just realized how broad the topical sub-sections are. When I saw the title of this thread under "Today's Posts" and opened it, I was surprised by the discussions and instinctively assumed it was trolling. It was only after I entered my post that I realized that this thread was under a "philosophy section." So please excuse me if my first post came across abruptly. I'll try my best to answer your questions in good faith - in a manner that better suits an open philosophical discussion.

The whole point of Heaven is that it is a blissful place of joy and happiness. Yet if I converted and made it to Heaven, how could I possibly enjoy such a place knowing I was forever removed from my friends? (Gracelandz: This is a misconception to begin with) Is it? How so?

Heaven is God's realm. I trust this is an acceptable statement. Even though experiencing perpetual joy and happiness is a consequence of being in this realm, man's personal benefit or pleasure is not the focal point of its existence. The whole point of heaven (implying its purpose) is not so that it can be a place of bliss, but rather bliss so happens to prevail there because God is there. Naturally, meaningful fellowship is also another consequence for all those in this realm, and that these friendships would be genuine and lasting. But fundamentally, everyone's closest and most faithful friend would be... God. God's friendship is the ultimate bliss. God himself would be your greatest joy and your greatest happiness.

I stand by that analogy (mugging). There is no free choice to accept or reject God - it is coercion plain and simple.

Allow me to present you with an alternative analogy. While playing games with my 3 year old son in our front lawn, I momentarily lost sight of him. I ran around the house but he was nowhere to be seen. Then I spotted him nearly at the end of our long driveway heading toward our very busy road. I ran as fast as I could to get to him but then realized that if he saw me running towards him, he could playfully head straight into the traffic. So I stopped and called out his name as calmly as I could. Son... please stop... turn around... come back to Daddy. If you keep going that way, you're gonna get hurt.

Then please tell me the simple truth of the case: what is Heaven like?

I'll try my best. It might be better if we examine some (not all) of the fundamental virtues of God's character.

God is King
Heaven is not a democracy or a commune. Heaven is a kingdom. Those of us who were born and raised in a democracy (of the people, for the people, by the people), may perceive this to be an adverse form of government.

God the Father
The kingdom of heaven is also a family. The subjects of this heavenly kingdom can address their King as Father.

God is Holy
Holiness is an absolute state of perfect righteousness - the absence of all wrong-doing. Holiness and sin cannot co-exist in the same place - just like light and darkness can't. It's not that light or darkness can equally cancel each other out, depending on the circumstance... but rather in the absence of light, all that remains is darkness. Darkness cannot enter into a room and cancel the light. Darkness cannot remain when light enters the room... it has to go. It's not personal, vindictive, or revengeful... it's simply the intrinsic characteristic of the absolute virtue of holiness.

God is Love
All absolute virtues are intertwined. Therefore love and holiness are intertwined. Holiness isn't holy if it is void of love, and love would be flawed without holiness. Where one absolute virtue exists, all the other virtues will be there also. Perfection isn't perfect if there's something missing. It would be reasonable to accept therefore that a holy God also loves mankind. However, it is obvious that mankind is tainted with a sinful nature. If the notion of being sinful sounds offensive, let us refer to sin instead as - imperfection. The evidence of our daily lives and human historical records show that mankind is imperfect. In as much as God's love and compassion causes Him to yearn to be reunited with all of mankind - perfection and imperfection cannot co-exist in the same spot. So if God Himself is perfect in love, why doesn't He just ignore mankind's imperfection and bring everyone into heaven?

Back to the Fall of Man
The King of moral perfection will not (cannot) coerce, manipulate, oppress, or stupefy the subjects of His kingdom. You will not find someone in heaven that would say, "I don't really want to be here. I'm only here because God twisted my arm." If God were to force man to experience bliss without a free-will, this would be as you say - nothing more than a loaded gun pointed at one's head. There are no robots, puppets, hostages, or victims of domineering in heaven. If you get there and you find these guys, you're not in heaven... somebody switched the sign at the front door. The heavenly kingdom (if it really is a place of holiness), will uphold the free-will of its subjects. However, free-will cannot be exercised - if the subjects of the kingdom have no other choice but to be loyal to the King. There has to be a mechanism in place that gives them an optional choice. The bible speaks about a man, a woman, a tree, and a serpent in the garden of Eden. Whether this is an abstract illustration or historical fact is irrelevant... the important thing is that the mechanism is evident in the account. The man and the woman can partake of the entire vast resource in that garden... but NOT the fruit of just... one... tree. The rest is history - mankind no longer walks with God. This was not God's plan. His plan was eternal blissful fellowship with man. The wages of sin is death. Another way to rephrase that is - the consequence of willful disregard is separation. Man and woman were perfect until they were willfully chose imperfection - which cannot co-exist with God's holy nature. We are the descendants of Adam, disintegrating through the centuries - having eternity etched in our hearts, but living in faulty bodies that continually expires until it finally withers and dies - no longer able to self-perpetuate without contact with God.

God is Just / God is Merciful
Justice and Mercy are also character virtues that are intertwined. Holiness isn't holy without justice, nor is it holy without mercy. However, sometimes these virtues might appear in conflict with each other. If a repentant criminal was brought to the King for sentencing, how can this King uphold justice and mercy at the same time? If he sends the criminal to the gallows, the king can be accused by the repentant criminal of being unmerciful. If he sets the criminal free or offers a disproportionately lenient sentence, the King can be accused by the criminal's victims of being unjust. So what about mankind's situation? How can God forgive and restore man to his original condition (eternal life), but also be blameless by meeting the requirement of the law, which is to uphold the proper punishment of the crime, which in this case is death (eternal separation).

(Gracelandz: ... limiting the definition of happiness as simply being where your friends are located. ) Not quite. I have not defined happiness that way. However, if you genuinely care about someone who is burning in Hell while you enjoy the fruits of Heaven, how can you possibly be expected to be happy? Surely your empathy for your friend will haunt you?

God the Savior
The Father King sent His one and only Son to pay for the debt which mankind could never pay. His Son left the garden, was born with a human body, and dwelt without fault among the descendants of Adam. Incorruptible even though tempted extremely to the verge of death, He lived a flawless life to meet the legal requirements of an acceptable ransom. At the appointed time, He allowed Himself to be judged unjustly - receiving and accepting a death sentence He did not deserve. He went to the serpent pit and recovered the keys (legal authority) of hell and death and rose from the dead, then ascended to heaven bearing a resurrected body that can reside with absolute holiness. He sits at the right hand of the Father with full authority to judge mankind in the last day as to who can and who cannot enter heaven. No one can enter heaven except through Him. The principle is simple... through one man (Adam) all have sinned and fall short of God's nature, and through one man (Jesus Christ) the conditions of mankind's redemption has been met - with both justice and mercy. The condition to avail of the redemption however is much harder to accept, not because it's impossible to do, but because it appears foolish in the wisdom of this world. The condition of entry into heaven is a free-will choice to believe and have faith in Jesus Christ. Mankind once again stands in front of a free-will mechanism, but it will divide men and reveal their hearts. Some will choose to believe, others won't. Jesus is the new tree in the garden of heaven, the cornerstone that the bible speaks about, that is a stumbling block for many. Everyone will be given the chance to freely decide to believe if Jesus is really who He says He is. There will be no guilt, remorse, or any sort of emphatic haunting in heaven regarding those who don't wish to be there. Such things cannot co-exist with bliss. Torment and regret belongs at the other place.


.

 

[juvenissun]

I am glad.



But are you prepared to do God's will, whatever that may be? Would you kill if that's what God wanted? Would you plant a bomb in a crowded place if that's what God wanted? Would you abandon, even kill, family members, if that's what God wanted?

I realise these questions are unsavoury, but they are important...

If all your IFs were true, then I would. This is the case for many extremely faithful Muslims.

But for Christians, there is no such worry. The more faithful one become, the more peaceful one will be.

 

[Giberoo]

I will modify it slightly:

If you would care about someone who did not end up in Heaven when you are in Heaven, then Heaven will not be a very nice place after all?

If you accept the modification, then we agree.

Our "emotion" in Heaven will be different from our emotion now.

So, when we get to Heaven, we stop caring about anyone else who isn't there (or destined to get there)?

 

[Giberoo]

From human point of view, you are right.

From a Christian point of view, you need to make some adjustment. Then you can achieve more happiness. Perfect or not would depend on the strength of your faith.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

 

[Giberoo]

If all your IFs were true, then I would. This is the case for many extremely faithful Muslims.

But for Christians, there is no such worry. The more faithful one become, the more peaceful one will be.

I'm afraid that is not true. Christianity has its fundamentalist zealous too. As does Judaism, and probably every other religion you would care to name. The history of Middle East is strewn with religious conflict. Ireland has been torn apart by the struggle between Catholic and Protestant for years. Fundamentalism brings out a willingness to kill in the name of religion, and Christianity has its fair share of fundamentalists.

And why shouldn't it? After all, the Bible contains many examples of holy people carrying out atrocities in God's name - even on God's direct orders. I do not see how you can maintain that faithfulness prohibits violence.

Certainly not every faithful Christian is violent. I am not saying faith necessarily MAKES a person violent. But as long as people genuinely think the word of God trumps human morality, life and law, then there will always be people performing horrifc deeds.

 

[Giberoo]

The whole point of heaven (implying its purpose) is not so that it can be a place of bliss, but rather bliss so happens to prevail there because God is there.

So it is perfectly possible to be miserable in Heaven?

Allow me to present you with an alternative analogy. While playing games with my 3 year old son in our front lawn, I momentarily lost sight of him. I ran around the house but he was nowhere to be seen. Then I spotted him nearly at the end of our long driveway heading toward our very busy road. I ran as fast as I could to get to him but then realized that if he saw me running towards him, he could playfully head straight into the traffic. So I stopped and called out his name as calmly as I could. Son... please stop... turn around... come back to Daddy. If you keep going that way, you're gonna get hurt.

I don't think that is an applicable anaolgy. If your son ran into the road, it would be a tragedy that you were unable to avoid. This is where the analogy fails. God created Hell. He set in place the arrangement that the Christians go to Heaven and the non-Christians go to Hell. Hell is not a danger He is trying to protect us from; it is a punishment He is willing to inflict - a threat.

Holiness is an absolute state of perfect righteousness - the absence of all wrong-doing. Holiness and sin cannot co-exist in the same place - just like light and darkness can't.

This is an interesting one. There is no sin in Heaven?

I hope you would agree that even the very best-intentioned among us accassionally puts a foot wrong. We are all falible. Christian doctrine holds that humans are, by nature, sinful. But if we retain our Earthly personalities, how can we reconcile the ideas that 1) Heaven is free from sin, and 2) Heaven is populated by falible humans?

I often hear it stated that the Earth is a sinful place because humans have free will. God allows us to do bad things because he values our autonomy. Okay, but then what about Heaven? If there is no sin, then do we humans have free will there?

If we have our free will removed and become mindless automatons enlessly singing the praises of God, then that sounds like a terrible place to be - one of mental slavery. You yourself said "There are no robots, puppets, hostages, or victims of domineering in heaven." But if we do retain our free will, how is there no sin?

One might respond that we have a purer or higher form of free will - perhaps being in the direct presence of God gives us perfect empathy, or perfect love, or our sinful desires and fleshly lusts are removed by no longer having our mortal bodies. But this too is problematic for the theists - if it is possible to have free will without sin, then why didn't God make us like that in the first place?

It is difficult to overstate the scale of this problem, theologically. If people in Heaven have free will, yet (somehow) do not commit sins, then why couldn't humans have been created like that on Earth? Giving us this lesser form of free will where sinning is inevitable, effectively means God could have given us free will whilst still making Earth a sin-free place, but chose not to. He actively chose to create sin and suffering - and to bar the gates of Heaven to the majority of the human race. If His almighty plan was to save as many people as possible, then why didn't he make us unable to sin? That would've make our ascension to Heaven a lot easier.

The bible speaks about a man, a woman, a tree, and a serpent in the garden of Eden. Whether this is an abstract illustration or historical fact is irrelevant... the important thing is that the mechanism is evident in the account... We are the descendants of Adam, disintegrating through the centuries - having eternity etched in our hearts, but living in faulty bodies that continually expires until it finally withers and dies - no longer able to self-perpetuate without contact with God.

This also touches on a very problematic concept - inherited guilt. If my father commits a crime - one that I had no participation in, or even any knowledge of - should I be punished? Do I share in the blame simply because I am his son? Do I inherit his guilt through my blood?

I cannot understand a system of justice which would answer 'yes' here. We are all individuals, responsible only for our own actions. Yet God is supposed to be a just God, and yet apparently I am born into sin. If we take the Adam and Eve story literally, then I have inherited the sin of my most distant ancestors. If we take it as an allegory, then what exactly is the metaphor here? How can I be born guilty? How can I be condemned for actions I did not perform?

 

[Giberoo]

That's a complicated statement. Have you ever read the entire Bible? Have you read commentaries, investigated the societal background in which it was written, or studied the text in its original language. I'm guessing not. That's not intended as an insult. I'm just saying that most people haven't done those things and it's necessary to do them in order to have an accurate picture of what the Bible truly says. Further, one cannot consider any one passage in isolation, but everything must be considered in light of scripture in its entirety. In that regard many have made a case for the position I stated based on scripture. You can see one example if you follow the link that I put in post 5, though that's a very abbreviated case. If you're willing to research the topic you can find a lot more.

I have read the New Testament, (though not in it's original language) and many passages of the Old. And I have read several studies of the Bible as a whole.

And whilst I am sensitive to the fact that we must consider a text in its social context, and that taking a passage out of context can drastically alter its meaning, I still struggle hugely with your conclusion that it is the Christian/Biblical position that faith in Jesus Christ is unnecessary for salvation.

I am not aware of any passage of the Bible which gives that impression, and I am aware of many Biblical passages which state the exact opposite. The Bible is actually rather conflicted on the specifics of what is necessary for salvation, but belief in Jesus Christ really does seem to be a running theme.

John 3:18, "He that believeth on him [Jesus] is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

John 10:1, 9, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."

John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Romans 6:23 The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Romans 3:21-28 But now God has shown us a different way of being right in his sight--not by obeying the law but by the way promised in the Scriptures long ago. We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done. For all have sinned; all fall short of God's glorious standard. Yet now God in his gracious kindness declares us not guilty. He has done this through Christ Jesus, who has freed us by taking away our sins. For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us. God was being entirely fair and just when he did not punish those who sinned in former times. And he is entirely fair and just in this present time when he declares sinners to be right in his sight because they believe in Jesus. Can we boast, then, that we have done anything to be accepted by God? No, because our acquittal is not based on our good deeds. It is based on our faith. So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.[/FONT]

I cannot see how these passages are at all unclear on the subject.

Moreover, if acceptance of Jesus was unnecessary, then doesn't that make the entire idea of Jesus' crucifixion unnecessary? I thought the whole concept was that Jesus died to pay for the sins of mankind. And thus, by accepting his sacrifice, we are cleansed of our sins and able to be with God in Heaven. In your idea of salvation, why was it necessary for God to send his son to be horribly crucified? What was the point?

The essay you linked to seems, with respect, an exercise in wishful thinking - trying to reconcile the Christian doctrine that the only way to Heaven is through acceptance of Jesus, with the obvious problem that many good people have lived and died without ever having heard of him.

There is, to my mind, a far simpler and more rational explanation: Christianity really does hold that people only find salvation through acceptance of Jesus, and that this really is a hugely unfair and unjust doctrine.

I am a Christian because Jesus has called me to be a Christian. When he did, I knew that I desired to be a Christian. No self-centered desire related to the afterlife played any role my decision.

As you say. Though I'm curious - how exactly do you describe this 'calling'? How did you detect it? How is it different from a mere desire to be a Christian?

 

[jayem]

The condition of entry into heaven is a willful choice to believe and have faith in Jesus Christ. Mankind once again stands in front of a free-will mechanism, but it will divide men and reveal their hearts. Some will choose to believe, others won't.

Is it really a free-will choice to believe? I'm sure you're aware that there is another Christian doctrine claiming that God has already determined who will be saved. And if God is the ultimate sovereign, that actually makes more sense. God's grand plan for the universe would, by logic, encompass everything. Even down to the smallest detail. Such as whether I accept Jesus or not.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm afraid that is not true. Christianity has its fundamentalist zealous too. As does Judaism, and probably every other religion you would care to name. The history of Middle East is strewn with religious conflict. Ireland has been torn apart by the struggle between Catholic and Protestant for years. Fundamentalism brings out a willingness to kill in the name of religion, and Christianity has its fair share of fundamentalists.

And why shouldn't it? After all, the Bible contains many examples of holy people carrying out atrocities in God's name - even on God's direct orders. I do not see how you can maintain that faithfulness prohibits violence.

Certainly not every faithful Christian is violent. I am not saying faith necessarily MAKES a person violent. But as long as people genuinely think the word of God trumps human morality, life and law, then there will always be people performing horrifc deeds.

Half-bottle Christians could be violent.
Full-faith Christians can not be violent. That is a definition of Christianity.

 

[juvenissun]

So, when we get to Heaven, we stop caring about anyone else who isn't there (or destined to get there)?

We may still care about them. But should not be in an emotional way. Here, the "care" may mean that we can actually do something instead of just have a feeling.

 

[If Not For Grace]

But considering God is omniscience(all knowing), he knows every move that we make and will make, therefore we don't really have free will.

So don't give this dulled down version of your religion, as that simply isn't true. People don't choose whether they go to hell, evidently God does.

I know that if you offer my child a red balloon or a yellow balloon that she will choose the red every time. I do not choose for her, she chooses, but I Know what she will choose.

If I see you standing at a divide in the road and tell you this one leads to a free food buffett and the other leads to a rocky road in a desert and is full of dangerous animals and you say I'm not afraid of the animals and I always wanted to see the desert I can say but you will get hungry and there will be nothing to eat when you get there, you can say I still want to see the desert. I have not chosen for you, I just did not hog tie you and prevent you from choosing the poor path.

So it is with God-knowing is not causing nor choosing for me.

 

[Giberoo]

Half-bottle Christians could be violent.
Full-faith Christians can not be violent. That is a definition of Christianity.

It might be YOUR definition of Christianity. But the thing about religion is everyone is free to interpret it differently.

The God of the Bible orders and perpetrates a great many killings, in war, purges and for petty revenge. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is full of holy men who kill for their God and are praised to the hilt for doing so.

Consider Moses, who slaughtered the Midianites in a genocide of God's own instructions. He also put thousands of his own people to slaughter for the crime of blasphemy after receiving the Ten Commandments. And let's not forgot his sentenced a man to th horrible death by stoning for the petty crime of gathering sticks on the Sabbath. His son Joshua continued the genocide when he led his people into the Holy Land and routinely slaughtered every living thing they found inside it. The righteous King Saul is no stranger to war, killing most notable the Amalek on God's direct orders - for a crime committed 400 years earlier! And when he slaughters them all except for the King Agag and the best of the livestock (so that he can ritually sacrifice them to God) God is furious that Saul has spared their lives, however briefly, and inflicts a terrible punishment for it.

And let's not forget Abraham, the founder of the three great monotheistic faiths, was only blessed when he proved himself willing to kill his only son on God's direct orders. The message of the story rings loud and clear - when God orders you to kill, you must kill.

I applaud your dedication to peaceful, passifistic ways, but to draw the conclusion that the Bible encourages this is to ignore vast swathes of the Bible - practically the whole of the Old Testament at least - where God stands drenched head to toe in the blood of the vanquished. God's followers are called to war and to kill again and again. Committing murder, even genocide, against people you think has wronged God, is behaviour absolutely in keeping with the Bible.

 

[Giberoo]

We may still care about them. But should not be in an emotional way. Here, the "care" may mean that we can actually do something instead of just have a feeling.

'Care, but not in an emotional way'? I have no idea what that means. I'm pretty sure that makes no sense at all.

 

[juvenissun]

It might be YOUR definition of Christianity. But the thing about religion is everyone is free to interpret it differently.

The God of the Bible orders and perpetrates a great many killings, in war, purges and for petty revenge. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is full of holy men who kill for their God and are praised to the hilt for doing so.

That is true. That is also why we called it the Old Testament. Without the New Testament, there would be no Christianity. What do you think the teaching of the New Testament is about?

The realm in the Old testament is confined to the Israel and its neighbors. The realm of the New Testament is the whole earth. There is no teaching of violence, not a trace, in the New Testament.

 

[juvenissun]

'Care, but not in an emotional way'? I have no idea what that means. I'm pretty sure that makes no sense at all.

I do care about you. That is why I spend a little time to talk to you. But I have no emotion with you. This is a good example.

 

[Giberoo]

That is true. That is also why we called it the Old Testament. Without the New Testament, there would be no Christianity. What do you think the teaching of the New Testament is about?

The realm in the Old testament is confined to the Israel and its neighbors. The realm of the New Testament is the whole earth. There is no teaching of violence, not a trace, in the New Testament.

Two main points here:

1) The New Testament is indeed a far more sober and passive book than the Old. The meek and mild Jesus is an infinite improvement on the blood-crazed tyrannical God of the Old Testament. But that is not to say the New Testament contains no violence at all. For one thing, Jesus strongly approves the Old Testament laws and prophets (Matthew 5:17), and never once condemns past atrocities. For another, Jesus brings with him the concept of Hell. The Old Testament God was capable of dishing out some pretty grisly fates, but at least suffering ended at death. The New Testament introduces the horrific idea that suffering continues forever. This is arguably one of the most unpleasant and cruel concepts ever devised.

2) You cannot just dismiss the entire Old Testament. It still makes up the lion's share of the Bible - which is supposed to be a holy book in it's entirety. The New Testament never explains nor condemns the actions of the Old. And worst of all, Jesus and the OT God are apparently the same person! Jesus is allegedly the very same being who ordered the massacre of the Midianites, including their women, children and animals. The very same person who punishes a man by having his wives publically raped and personally murdering his child (2 Samuel 11:2 - 12:18).

Basing your morality on some passages of the same text while arbitrarily rejecting others is the very definition of cherry picking. A person who ignores or dismisses Jesus' appeals for people to be passive and forgiving, and living by the Old Testament God's principles of violently destroying their enemies and rejoicing all the while (Deuteronomy 28:63), is just as much a Christian as you are.

Indeed, let's ponder a moment of the utterly diametrically opposite natures of Jesus, gentle lamb, and the brutal, blood-hungry, war-mongering God of the Old Testament. Jesus urges us to forgive time and time again, whereas the OT God demands the most brutal and bloody revenge at every turn on the slightest pretext. Jesus tells us to pray for and forgive our enemies, God flatly forbids us from doing so and tells us to hate and destroy them. The two are absolute polar opposites, and yet claim to be the same being. How can that make any sense?

 

[Giberoo]

I do care about you. That is why I spend a little time to talk to you. But I have no emotion with you. This is a good example.

Caring is by definition an emotion activity. Your feelings may not be strong, but if you had no emotions, you could not care at all.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

The concept of Heaven seems to be fatally undermined by simple human empathy - we care for each other. And this is the very basis of morality.

I think it's fair to assume that (according to Christians at least) only Christians make it to Heaven. Perhaps only members of a specific church, but let's just say 'Christians' for the sake of simplicity.

But I have friends from several different faiths - and none at all. If I convert, how coud I enjoy Heaven knowing my non-Christian friends were burning in Hell? And that I am spending eternity worshipping the very being that sent them there?

Pick up C. S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce". He does a much better, and much more eloquent, job of getting the point across than I can.
I do, however, subscribe to the theory, that we will not remember the people that are not there. NB: This is not something I'll claim as biblically irrefutable, only my own speculation on the matter.

 

[juvenissun]

Caring is by definition an emotion activity. Your feelings may not be strong, but if you had no emotions, you could not care at all.

Caring is a job. For example, that is what a nurse does. It could be a job you like to do.

 

[juvenissun]

Two main points here:

1) The New Testament is indeed a far more sober and passive book than the Old. The meek and mild Jesus is an infinite improvement on the blood-crazed tyrannical God of the Old Testament. But that is not to say the New Testament contains no violence at all. For one thing, Jesus strongly approves the Old Testament laws and prophets (Matthew 5:17), and never once condemns past atrocities. For another, Jesus brings with him the concept of Hell. The Old Testament God was capable of dishing out some pretty grisly fates, but at least suffering ended at death. The New Testament introduces the horrific idea that suffering continues forever. This is arguably one of the most unpleasant and cruel concepts ever devised.

2) You cannot just dismiss the entire Old Testament. It still makes up the lion's share of the Bible - which is supposed to be a holy book in it's entirety. The New Testament never explains nor condemns the actions of the Old. And worst of all, Jesus and the OT God are apparently the same person! Jesus is allegedly the very same being who ordered the massacre of the Midianites, including their women, children and animals. The very same person who punishes a man by having his wives publically raped and personally murdering his child (2 Samuel 11:2 - 12:18).

Teaching in New Testament is not passive at all. It is very very positive. What to do is much more important than what not to do.

The Old Testament is still very necessary. It is the foundation of the New Testament. The record of killings in the Old Testament are lessons, not examples.