Father bad guy, Son good-guy.

[Elijah John]

To read many posts here on these boards, one would think that the "God of the Old Testament" the God of Abraham, the God of Jesus, was a bad guy, or a monster.

And Jesus was the heroic good-guy Son, who sacrificed himself on behalf of those who believe the "right things" in order to placate the wrathful Father.

Or if one is a non-Theist, Jesus is still very often seen as the good-guy who teaches peace and love in stark contrast to his mean, genocidal Father.

Simple right? Or is that a simplistic portrait of the two.

Those are the points for debate and also this:

Does Pauline blood-theology play right into this simplistic portrait of "Jesus good guy", and "Father bad guy"?

What does the belief that the Father's forgiveness must be bought with blood, and sins "paid for" with blood say about the character of the Father? Is it fair to suggest that YHVH cannot, or will not forgive without blood?

[marco]

[Replying to post 28 by marco] Actualy Jesus will be presiding over the torment of the wicked.

Revelation 14:9-11New International Version (NIV)

9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives its mark on their forehead or on their hand, 10 they, too, will drink the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever. There will be no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image, or for anyone who receives the mark of its name.�

Ah, yes, Revelation says so. My sympathies are with Luther here when he had reservations about Revelation.... but you're right. However, you've to prod your way through beasts and dragons to get to meaning, so it isn't clear - at least not to Marco and I would be reluctant to condemn Christ for what Revelation "revealed".

I was making the point that Jesus wasn't the creator of Hell - the Father was; he is acting as Chief Justice, if we take Revelation at face value. Yahweh's the bad guy.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 31 by marco]
He hated the Gospel of James even more.

[shnarkle]

The Almighty Father would not violate his transcendent nature. The only exception would be to take the first horn of Euthypro's dilemma, but then we're dealing with a capricious god.

It is maybe unwise to throw restrictions on what the omnipotent Father can or cannot do.

I'm not restricting God's abilities, but simply pointing out that transcendence does not allow attributes. Moreover a god who is at liberty to violate his own will or high standards is, even by pagan standards; exercising the lowest and basest form of liberty.

And I think it is the second horn of Euthyphro's dilemma that grants the goodness of an action to God's commanding it.

You're probably right. Regardless, even those wily Greeks with their sophistry concluded that this would be capricious of the gods.

It is fascinating to view the Trinity not in the mystical way it was portrayed but in a fashion that springs from our rationalisation, reducing the Spirit to little more than inspiration coming from the head of the Father.

The word "inspiration" comes from the same root word for which we get the word "spirit".

But the Trinity involves three persons.

Yes, the doctrine does.

There is no question about Yahweh's unfortunate portrayal and Christ's benevolence often mellowing the harsh dictates of his Father, as with his treatment of the woman "taken in adultery." I don't see a way round the good guy, bad guy images.

The doctrine of the trinity see's it clearly. God the Son exercises justice by paying the just price for sin himself.

[marco]

The word "inspiration" comes from the same root word for which we get the word "spirit".

The regularly conjugated inspirare is of course related to the noun spiritus but I cannot see why you would tell m this. My point is that you are removing the person and substituting a quality. If one wants to abandon the Trinity then I can't see the point of assembling bits of it to fit in with a new theory. If you are retaining the doctrine as she was defined, then rationalisation is out.

The doctrine of the trinity see's it clearly. God the Son exercises justice by paying the just price for sin himself.

Does he? And this is a sensible theology? People sin and Christ pays the bill. I can see him exercising justice by appearing with his symbolic sword and defining goats and sheep. The attachment of debt to an incarnate deity needs a fair amount of analysis that would dwarf anything in complex mathematics.

[shnarkle]

The word "inspiration" comes from the same root word for which we get the word "spirit".

The regularly conjugated inspirare is of course related to the noun spiritus but I cannot see why you would tell m this.

Because this is how the spirit is presented in the text. Jesus comes from the Father, and when he leaves, he sends the spirit.

My point is that you are removing the person and substituting a quality. If one wants to abandon the Trinity then I can't see the point of assembling bits of it to fit in with a new theory. If you are retaining the doctrine as she was defined, then rationalisation is out.

I accept what others have presented as their perspective. I don't deny what they have presented. I don't necessarily see it the same way; at least in all of its particulars. In a way, I do see it the same way in that one person is transcendent, one person is exemplified through being or existence, and the other is immanent or the force or power of God.

The doctrine of the trinity see's it clearly. God the Son exercises justice by paying the just price for sin himself.

Does he? And this is a sensible theology? People sin and Christ pays the bill.

When a baseball sails magnificently through the living room window from the sandlot next door, someone has to pay. The slugger who triumphantly nailed it through the window, one of his parents, or the owner of the window.

I can see him exercising justice by appearing with his symbolic sword and defining goats and sheep. The attachment of debt to an incarnate deity needs a fair amount of analysis that would dwarf anything in complex mathematics.

I don't know why this would be the case. My example seems fairly straightforward without the need for much more than basic math; the sum for the new window.

[marco]

When a baseball sails magnificently through the living room window from the sandlot next door, someone has to pay. The slugger who triumphantly nailed it through the window, one of his parents, or the owner of the window.

I can see him exercising justice by appearing with his symbolic sword and defining goats and sheep. The attachment of debt to an incarnate deity needs a fair amount of analysis that would dwarf anything in complex mathematics.

I don't know why this would be the case. My example seems fairly straightforward without the need for much more than basic math; the sum for the new window.

Your example is lucid but I wasn't talking about your example. I would question the appropriateness of your analogy. To discuss God's action on sin, in all its colourful forms, in terms of paying for a broken window certainly reduces complexity to simplicity - but, I would maintain, inapt simplicity. God, like human parents, is capable of interfering directly, there and then. The build-up of debt and the requirement for some atonement is meaningless and has nothing to do with broken windows. As for God being prevented from getting directly involved because of transcendental restrictions, he managed perfectly well with Sodom and other things.

[shnarkle]

When a baseball sails magnificently through the living room window from the sandlot next door, someone has to pay. The slugger who triumphantly nailed it through the window, one of his parents, or the owner of the window.

I can see him exercising justice by appearing with his symbolic sword and defining goats and sheep. The attachment of debt to an incarnate deity needs a fair amount of analysis that would dwarf anything in complex mathematics.

I don't know why this would be the case. My example seems fairly straightforward without the need for much more than basic math; the sum for the new window.

Your example is lucid but I wasn't talking about your example. I would question the appropriateness of your analogy. To discuss God's action on sin, in all its colourful forms, in terms of paying for a broken window certainly reduces complexity to simplicity - but, I would maintain, inapt simplicity. God, like human parents, is capable of interfering directly, there and then.

Where and when? When the boy is about to hit the ball, or when they're going to pay for the broken window?

The build-up of debt and the requirement for some atonement is meaningless and has nothing to do with broken windows.

There is no effective difference. Someone has to pay. As simple as it sounds there really is no need to make it more complicated. In both cases there is a debt that needs to be paid. Somehow, someone is going to pay the debt.

As for God being prevented from getting directly involved because of transcendental restrictions, he managed perfectly well with Sodom and other things.

If you want to redefine transcendence, sure. I see no need to redefine words to make my point.

[marco]

Your example is lucid but I wasn't talking about your example. I would question the appropriateness of your analogy. To discuss God's action on sin, in all its colourful forms, in terms of paying for a broken window certainly reduces complexity to simplicity - but, I would maintain, inapt simplicity. God, like human parents, is capable of interfering directly, there and then.

Where and when? When the boy is about to hit the ball, or when they're going to pay for the broken window?

I disagree with the appropriateness of your analogy when applied to the concept of sin and divine action. It would therefore be meaningless for me to reply in terms of the flawed analogy. God's arena of activity and choice is far removed from anyone involved with the boy's broken window.

The build-up of debt and the requirement for some atonement is meaningless and has nothing to do with broken windows.

There is no effective difference. Someone has to pay. As simple as it sounds there really is no need to make it more complicated. In both cases there is a debt that needs to be paid. Somehow, someone is going to pay the debt.

There is a broken window. Visible. Requires mending.
Sin. Invisible. May not require any mending.
Boy: human, limited in what he can do. God, omnipotent, with umpteen options open to him, including the miraculous. To say the two situations are similar is to reduce God to human status.

If you want to redefine transcendence, sure. I see no need to redefine words to make my point.

There is no need to redefine transcendence, merely a need to see how it applies to God. Loosely, he is beyond the range of human understanding and unrestrained by human failings. To deduce "he cannot act" in his own right in some matter involving sin to me is a false deduction. If it's supposed to mean God cannot pretend to be a human and so do what Christ did, then simplistically this is true but hardly the point since incarnation isn't the only way of achieving an end, surely. I think we are restraining God with human propositions. God proposes, not man.

[shnarkle]

God, like human parents, is capable of interfering directly, there and then.

And again, I have to ask, where and when? When the boy is about to hit the ball, or when they're going to pay for the broken window? If it is prior to hitting the ball, then God missed his chance, or didn't see that as a wise option. Regardless, this isn't what we're dealing with. God interferes by paying the debt himself.

I disagree with the appropriateness of your analogy when applied to the concept of sin and divine action. It would therefore be meaningless for me to reply in terms of the flawed analogy. God's arena of activity and choice is far removed from anyone involved with the boy's broken window.

Well, at least you can see that a transcendent God can't be involved with a boy and his broken window. The same must hold true with Sodom and Gemmorhah as well. If not, then I can just as easily make the same accusation to you that you are restricting God's arena of activity.

Sin basically means to miss the mark, to make mistakes, and flawed thinking and behavior cannot lead to correct thinking and behavior. Dumb luck could produce the correct answer, but it isn't consistently effective. My analogy is apt because it is an example of the fact that someone has to pay. If no one pays then the window stays broken and the owner of the window is paying for the broken window by living with a broken window. Mankind stays lost in their sin and death when they pay. When God pays, then man's debt is paid. God forgives the debt by paying the debt himself.

God requires death for sin; this is his justice. Do stupid things, make mistakes and you will die. We're just like the kid on the sandlot in that he doesn't have a job, or if he does he will be paying for it for quite a while. If that is the case then that is probably where the analogy breaks down as man cannot pay his debt. Judaism, the religion of Islam and many others disagree and claim that man's debt can be paid. Jesus comes along and points out that he must pay the debt himself, and those who say, "you're money's no good here", don't get their portion of the debt paid, or perhaps they do get their portion paid, but they refuse the offer, and offer to pay the debt themselves, but they don't have enough to cover it.

The build-up of debt and the requirement for some atonement is meaningless and has nothing to do with broken windows.

There is no effective difference. Someone has to pay. As simple as it sounds there really is no need to make it more complicated. In both cases there is a debt that needs to be paid. Somehow, someone is going to pay the debt.

There is a broken window. Visible. Requires mending.
Sin. Invisible. May not require any mending.

Whether one is aware of the sin makes no difference. The boy, in his joy over his home run; may not be aware that he broke a window. Sin, by definition means to miss the mark. The target needs to be hit, or there's no point in aiming at it in the first place. The ball needs to be hit; the window doesn't. To say there is no requirement for mending is to say the window doesn't need to be fixed which only means the owners pay for the window by living with it; they pay for it.

Boy: human, limited in what he can do.

Man: human, limited in what he can do.

God, omnipotent, with umpteen options open to him, including the miraculous.

Homeowner, they have a number of options, including forgiveness.

To say the two situations are similar is to reduce God to human status.

I see it the other way; it has the capacity to draw humanity to the divine.

If you want to redefine transcendence, sure. I see no need to redefine words to make my point.

There is no need to redefine transcendence,...

It wasn't an invitation, but an observation that this is what you are doing. By definition, a transcendent God is beyond all contact with the world.

merely a need to see how it applies to God. Loosely, he is beyond the range of human understanding and unrestrained by human failings.

That's a bit too loose for the definition of transcendence. It is considerably more than an intellectual incapacity on our part. The omnipotence of God is not within his transcendence. Transcendence is beyond everything anyone can think of; it is beyond anything that is.

To deduce "he cannot act" in his own right in some matter involving sin to me is a false deduction.

I'm not claiming God is incapable of acting. I'm pointing out that a transcendent God doesn't act as acting is not transcendent.

If it's supposed to mean God cannot pretend to be a human and so do what Christ did,...

False dichotomy. God pretending to be human would be someone like Krishna, Melchizedek, the three who visited Abram, etc. Jesus is an incarnation; not an avatar.

... then simplistically this is true but hardly the point since incarnation isn't the only way of achieving an end, surely.

It is when the price is the price of a man. A broken window is replaced with a new window. The slugger and his cronies can't pay for it as they're too poor to even play on a baseball field; they have a stick for a bat, round rocks as a ball, and all they can do is sign and donate the rock to the owners of the double paned bay window that is now littering the entire length of their living room floor.

I think we are restraining God with human propositions. God proposes, not man.

Quite true! It is God Who proposes that He will pay the debt.

[Tetragrammaton]

shnarkle sorry to intrude but you keep making fallacies to support your position on an flawed argument.

When a baseball sails magnificently through the living room window from the sandlot next door, someone has to pay. The slugger who triumphantly nailed it through the window, one of his parents, or the owner of the window.

God requires death for sin; this is his justice.

what the answer would be to this question is the slugger IF we have no more information.

Your fallacy is Affirming the Consequent Fallacy.

You are basically saying that since the guilty party who broke the window has to pay in this particular situation, then all payments has to be done always by a guilty party.

Which is simply not true since it ignores the payment involved, it is one thing to pay for a window and a completely other thing to pay for all the windows ever broken since you are guilty of only breaking a single window.

The payment is not described in your analogy thus it is a flawed analogy.

Your analogy assumes a JUST payment but god does not offer a just payment, he DEMANDS his payment of choice, him being Accuser, Judge and Jury which is a completely different thing.

God requires death for sin; this is his justice.

The proper analogy would be that the slugger has to pay wherever the owner of the window wants, and we both know that is unjust and fascistic in nature.

Apart from that you are assuming again that breaking a window is somehow related to disobeying an order which is a completely different thing.

breaking/messing with other people belongings is different from choosing to disobey them.(you might disagree with them)

It is irrelevant if they think that by disobeying them, you deserve eternal torture/death.

I can go on about all the fallacies you committed in a single post but I let you chew on that for now.