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]

And again, I have to ask, where and when? When the boy is about to hit the ball ...

The analogy is inappropriate. What is the point of continuing to build on it when I disagree with it? Any answer I give will be rooted in the flaws of the original analogy.

Well, at least you can see that a transcendent God can't be involved with a boy and his broken window.

I'm not sure about the modification to my vision but I can see that a boy and a broken window do not represent notions of divine activity and responsibility.

Sin basically means to miss the mark, to make mistakes, and flawed thinking and behavior cannot lead to correct thinking and behavior.

Satan manages very well missing the mark each time, then. Sin is something disapproved of in a religious context and comes in all shapes and sizes. It might be something innocuous like failing to fast or eating the wrong food. Your definition is designed to accommodate your point.

When God pays, then man's debt is paid. God forgives the debt by paying the debt himself.

Basically I disagree with this convoluted notion of God "paying" anything. It strains credulity. If the universe is conducted on such primitive ideas it is a wonder there are not frequent planetary collisions.

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.

I exemplified one of many possibilities; there's no either or assumption so no false dichotomy.

The slugger and his cronies can't pay for it as they're too poor to even play on a baseball field...

Well I know as much about baseball as I know about God's wine list. Another consideration is responsibility, diminished or otherwise. If Dad allows a half-witted son to play around with stones, then Dad must pay the penalty. If God endows his models with imperfect tools then he carries some of the blame for their use.

Anyway, all this meandering around the OP takes us too far, I think. We are dealing with the bible reader's perception of the deity portrayed and in the OT we find that he, transcendent though he is, throws himself into mass slaughter. We usually call this bad. Jesus wanders round giving water to the thirsty and food to the hungry. We call this good. The conclusion is that the OT being is bad and Jesus, be he God or man, is basically good. We can find instances where the bad egg is not quite so bad and where the good Lord is not quite so good. But our summary would be: OT God, bad. Jesus, good. And this has nothing to do with broken windows or the Schleswig-Holstein question. Go well.

[Elijah John]

I'd like to redirect the conversation a bit, if possible, to an aspect of the OP that seems to have been pretty much overlooked. Namely this:

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

Is a bloodthirsty Father the logical implication of Pauline vicarious blood-atonement doctrine?

And doesn't that notion feed even further into the misconception that the Father is the "bad-guy" who needs to be appeased?

Jesus saves, from what? Or from whom.

Doesn't this hero-worship of Jesus imply that the Father is little more than a wrathful threat?

And is that negative portrait of the Father entirely justified by Scripture? Or is that negative portrait of the Father simplistic?

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 42 by Elijah John]

Although I don't like when people refrain from answering/defending their own arguments, for the sake of being friendly I will try to answer your question.

Does Pauline blood-theology...

Since different people have different interpretations, especially Christians, answering this question is kinda impossible since you cannot get a christian to agree with another on most theological details.
The 1000+ denominations of Christianity is proof of that.

What is Pauline blood-theology according to you?

Only when comparing your interpretation's sound logic I can say if it is relevant to Jesus/god.

[shnarkle]

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.

I think you may want to reread what I've posted because nowhere am I affirming such a thing. In fact, I'm affirming the opposite. I'm pointing out that the guilty party CANNOT pay. I've even pointed out that none of them can pay.

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

Payment is described in most, if not all; it's options,( e.g. a new window, no new window, i.e. a boarded up window, or perhaps a big gaping hole).

Your analogy assumes a JUST payment but god does not offer a just payment,

I'm not sure that your private interpretation, or lack thereof; of justice is sufficient to make an argument.

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.

Again, baseless assertions aren't sufficient to refute the analogy. The analogy works perfectly well in showing the essential problem; i.e. someone has to pay.

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

Again, I'm not injecting irrelevant particulars into the comparison. I'm simply pointing out that accidents happen, mistakes are made, damages are incurred and are dealt with in any number of ways. The analogy is perfect when the owner of the home replaces the window themselves.

[shnarkle]

I'd like to redirect the conversation a bit, if possible, to an aspect of the OP that seems to have been pretty much overlooked. Namely this:

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

Is a bloodthirsty Father the logical implication of Pauline vicarious blood-atonement doctrine?

And doesn't that notion feed even further into the misconception that the Father is the "bad-guy" who needs to be appeased?

Jesus saves, from what? Or from whom.

Doesn't this hero-worship of Jesus imply that the Father is little more than a wrathful threat?

And is that negative portrait of the Father entirely justified by Scripture? Or is that negative portrait of the Father simplistic?

I don't agree with the OP I don't see the wrathful father/appeasing son as accurate. There are plenty of examples of Jesus engaging in activities that are anything but what most people would characterize as good, e.g. raging through the temple overturning the moneychangers tables, calling the Syro-phoenician woman a dog, affirming that anyone who dishonors their parents should be put to death, he calls people "fool", "liars", "adulterers" etc. Jesus affirms the dictates of the father completely. When someone refers to him as good, he asks, "Why do you call me good, only God is good"?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 42 by Elijah John]

Although I don't like when people refrain from answering/defending their own arguments, for the sake of being friendly I will try to answer your question.

Does Pauline blood-theology...

Since different people have different interpretations, especially Christians, answering this question is kinda impossible since you cannot get a christian to agree with another on most theological details.
The 1000+ denominations of Christianity is proof of that.

What is Pauline blood-theology according to you?

Only when comparing your interpretation's sound logic I can say if it is relevant to Jesus/god.

Pauline blood-atonement theology is the notion that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins. That the Father would not, or could not forgive without blood payment and uphold the justice of His universe.

This notion is contracted by Scripture, both in the OT and the NT. (Hosea 6.6, Micah, 6.6-8, the Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes, the Parables of Jesus and many other passages)

Jesus himself preaches and proclaims the Father's mercy. And a merciful Father is not a "monster" of a Father.

[shnarkle]

And again, I have to ask, where and when? When the boy is about to hit the ball ...

The analogy is inappropriate. What is the point of continuing to build on it when I disagree with it? Any answer I give will be rooted in the flaws of the original analogy.

Then why did you say, "there and then"? I'm simply asking what you meant by "there and then".

Well, at least you can see that a transcendent God can't be involved with a boy and his broken window.

I'm not sure about the modification to my vision...

I'm not modifying it.

but I can see that a boy and a broken window do not represent notions of divine activity and responsibility.

I'm not presenting a representation. I'm presenting an analogy that points to the fact that someone has to pay. In each case it is the same; the owner pays in the analogy; God pays in the gospels.

Sin basically means to miss the mark, to make mistakes, and flawed thinking and behavior cannot lead to correct thinking and behavior.

Satan manages very well missing the mark each time, then. Sin is something disapproved of in a religious context and comes in all shapes and sizes. It might be something innocuous like failing to fast or eating the wrong food. Your definition is designed to accommodate your point.

it's not my definition, but thanks for acknowledging that it makes my point.

When God pays, then man's debt is paid. God forgives the debt by paying the debt himself.

Basically I disagree with this convoluted notion of God "paying" anything. It strains credulity.

Evidently not enough to address, or even refute it though.

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.

I exemplified one of many possibilities;

And I pointed out that the one you presented is false.

there's no either or assumption

I didn't present an "either or" assumption.

The slugger and his cronies can't pay for it as they're too poor to even play on a baseball field...

Well I know as much about baseball as I know about God's wine list.

In either case, all that is necessary to understand is that they are unaffordable.

Another consideration is responsibility,

No, this is not another consideration. This is what we are considering in the first place.

If Dad allows a half-witted son to play around with stones, then Dad must pay the penalty.

Dad is a half wit himself, and doesn't have the money; no one has the money except the owner of the broken window. He pays because no one else can.

If God endows his models with imperfect tools then he carries some of the blame for their use.

The implements aren't what matters. They could be using top of the line bats they stole from Dodger's stadium.

Regardless, he pays. It isn't about blame, it's about justice. It's about making things right again, and the kids can't pay/all of humanity can't pay the price.

Anyway, all this meandering around the OP takes us too far, I think. We are dealing with the bible reader's perception of the deity portrayed and in the OT we find that he, transcendent though he is, throws himself into mass slaughter.

You might as well argue that as round as a circle is, it still has four corners. Redefining transcendence to mean immanence is the only way God can "throw himself into" anything. In point of fact, this is precisely what Jesus is presenting. He is presenting the immanence of God in himself. He is manifesting the will of God.

We usually call this bad. Jesus wanders round giving water to the thirsty and food to the hungry. We call this good.

And even Jesus himself asks why when only God is good.

The conclusion is that the OT being is bad and Jesus, be he God or man, is basically good.

No, this is the question of the OP.

We can find instances where the bad egg is not quite so bad and where the good Lord is not quite so good. But our summary would be: OT God, bad. Jesus, good. And this has nothing to do with broken windows or the Schleswig-Holstein question. Go well.

My analogy refutes your assumptions by pointing out that the transcendent God manifests through the immanence of his own son, be he god and man. God because man cannot pay the price, man because it must be man who pays for man's injustice. The owner pays either way. Justice is performed with mercy.

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 44 by shnarkle]

I think you may want to reread what I've posted because nowhere am I affirming such a thing. In fact, I'm affirming the opposite. I'm pointing out that the guilty party CANNOT pay. I've even pointed out that none of them can pay.

i think you missed my point completely, i said who has to pay not who can pay.

Your analogy does not show who can pay but who has to pay, who is responsible.
You said this yourself:

Again, baseless assertions aren't sufficient to refute the analogy. The analogy works perfectly well in showing the essential problem; i.e. someone has to pay.

About this part:

Payment is described in most, if not all; it's options

The analogy is flawed because you are comparing the payment of disobedience with the payment for a material object, then you are reversing the end result of it as valid for all possible blames.

Affirming the Consequent Fallacy is a well known fallacy.

Your analogy assumes a JUST payment but god does not offer a just payment.

I'm not sure that your private interpretation, or lack thereof; of justice is sufficient to make an argument.

Are you actually implying that my conclusion that the perpetrator is to blame is unjust?
Since if you disagree with my assessment of blame, you are basically saying that it is not the one who threw the ball who has the blame.
You cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion by saying it is just my "private interpretation".

It is the JUST interpretation that basically everybody who has basic common sens always concluded.

The proper analogy would be that the slugger has to pay wherever the owner of the window wants,

Do you really want to deny that this analogy is far more accurate(when comparing it to god) then yours?

Again, baseless assertions aren't sufficient to refute the analogy. The analogy works perfectly well in showing the essential problem; i.e. someone has to pay.

No it doesn't, since it cannot be used when comparing it to god for the reasons I mentioned above.

I'm simply pointing out that accidents happen, mistakes are made, damages are incurred and are dealt with in any number of ways. The analogy is perfect when the owner of the home replaces the window themselves.

Why should the owner "replaces the window themselves"?
The owner has to replace the window because NO ONE CAN pay for it except him and he WANTS it fixed.(2 more conditions not included in the analogy)

With those 2 added conditions it has nothing to do with justice or blame.

If you keep adding conditions to the analogy you can even make a the butterfly pay.
By adding the condition that selling a rare butterfly is the only way to pay for the window.

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 46 by Elijah John]

Pauline blood-atonement theology is the notion that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins. That the Father would not, or could not forgive without blood payment and uphold the justice of His universe.

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

First of all we must make it very clear that according to the theology, Jesus is just doing the will of god, so this means that all Jesus actions and words are gods words/actions.
That is how god decided to do things through Jesus basically.(according to the theology)

So when Jesus says something about his father/positive or negative, it MUST be ignored because Jesus is just saying what God would want to say about himself.
So you might just assume god said it.

About Jesus actions which is the only reliable way to judge a person/god. Is jesus a good person or even a model/example to follow?

I don't see any of his miracles as good actions since he is depicted as a corrupt politician throughout the gospels and does good deeds only to people who happen to bump into him, the rest might as well keep suffering their misfortune.

Just like a corrupt politician would when trying to get elected or famous.
Would you only heal those that you happen to bump with if you had god's powers to heal everybody?
Would you follow that example?
Would a decent person today follow that example?

Now if you ignore the miracles of Jesus and consider them a show off, then there is nothing left of Jesus then then Crucifixion itself.
He did after all suffer humiliation and death.

The question is did he do it because he wanted or because god wanted it to happen?
On the mount of olives we have that answer.

God made this plan and Jesus will do the will of god regardless of his wishes.

Jesus never had a choice in the matter if he was sent to earth to do just that.
This is the inevitable conclusion.

Is Jesus a good guy then?
I would say he is just a puppet that follows god's orders to the latter.

Thus the question should be is the christian god a good guy?

Well the answer is simple.

A Father who chooses to punish an innocent child for the mistakes of his other children is evil in nature and if anybody thinks otherwise is deluded.
Even worse is to convince his innocent children that this is a good and just action.
This evil preachment is just unforgivable.

We send these kind or parents to jail for child abuse because every single human being that ever existed is a better person then the christian god.

[shnarkle]

I think you may want to reread what I've posted because nowhere am I affirming such a thing. In fact, I'm affirming the opposite. I'm pointing out that the guilty party CANNOT pay. I've even pointed out that none of them can pay.

i think you missed my point completely, i said who has to pay not who can pay.

I missed nothing. You made a claim which is blatantly false. Here's what you posted: "You are basically saying that since the guilty party who broke the window has to pay in this particular situation". At no time did I ever make that elaborate or basic claim.

Your analogy does not show who can pay but who has to pay, who is responsible.
You said this yourself:

Again, baseless assertions aren't sufficient to refute the analogy. The analogy works perfectly well in showing the essential problem; i.e. someone has to pay.

Ultimately, the analogy is accurate in that the homeowner has to pay.

The analogy is flawed because you are comparing the payment of disobedience....

Nowhere am I remotely suggesting that disobedience is payment for anything. Payment is explicitly stated to be a new window. Payment for disobedience is death. Disobedience is not payment. Disobedience is what requires payment, or reimbursement.

with the payment for a material object, then you are reversing the end result of it as valid for all possible blames.

No, you are doing this by fiat. You are quite simply ignoring what I posted and presenting a straw man argument.

Your analogy assumes a JUST payment but god does not offer a just payment.

I'm not sure that your private interpretation, or lack thereof; of justice is sufficient to make an argument.

Are you actually implying that my conclusion that the perpetrator is to blame is unjust?

No, I'm explicitly stating that your assumption that god does not offer a just payment is invalid. God/ the homeowner see's that man/the slugger cannot make the payment, therefore he pays it himself.

Since if you disagree with my assessment of blame, you are basically saying that it is not the one who threw the ball who has the blame.

It isn't really about blame, but ability to pay the debt. The slugger cannot pay the debt therefore the homeowner is left with no other option but to pay it himself.

You cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion by saying it is just my "private interpretation".

The inevitable conclusion is that it is your private interpretation. It is an interpretation that does not follow from what was presented.

Why should the owner "replaces the window themselves"?
The owner has to replace the window because NO ONE CAN pay for it except him and he WANTS it fixed.(2 more conditions not included in the analogy)

Now you got it. Again, you might want to reread this topic from the beginning. The owner wants the window fixed. No one else can pay it so he fixes it himself. What most people think is that the owner should just forgive the sandlot kids and leave a gaping hole in his living room.

With those 2 added conditions it has nothing to do with justice or blame.

I agree it has nothing to do with blame, but justice requires a new window be installed, mercy requires that the sandlot boys be free from indentured servitude. They are two sides of the same coin.

If you keep adding conditions to the analogy you can even make a the butterfly pay.
By adding the condition that selling a rare butterfly is the only way to pay for the window.

Yes, that works. You're catching on. At least you can now see that the analogy works. Now you should also be able to reverse engineer it back to reality, to see how the Father isn't such a bad guy after all. He gave up his rare butterfly to pay for the window.