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?

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 50 by shnarkle]

Are you trolling ?

You are making so many undeclared assumptions, i tried to find your initial post about it and did not find any of the conditions you mentioned.
Please link it, if it exists.

So lets actually start from your initial post so you cannot accuse me of not looking hard enough.

"What Jesus and Paul are saying in effect is that neither you nor I are sufficient to stop the metronome from swinging. God Himself must intervene. He must pay the price Himself."

Yes but you forgot that god designed this system himself, he created us in a way that we cannot "stop the metronome from swinging."
He is responsible for it, you cannot blame the dog for making pee inside the house if you locked him inside it. You are responsible for the mistake and thus you should pay for cleaning the mess.
You somehow think that it is just that the dog is responsible for your mistake, by trying to shift the argument on the fact that the dog cannot pay even if it was responsible.
The equilibrium must be payed by god not at the price of the humans, while that is not what happened.

God punished humans for their sins, it is completely different then god saying, OK I screwed up, I fix it, it is not your fault.

Basic common sens throws your entire flawed logic out of the window.

[Replying to post 35 by shnarkle]

This is the only time I can seem to find mentioning the boy and the ball breaking the window.

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 see no conditions there that the owner wants it fixed, nor that the slugger cannot pay.

So you cannot blame me if I thought it had to do with responsibility or blame.

That being said let me answer your reply:

"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. "

No, justice does not require a new window at all, because justice is a human invention/discovery, we created what we think is justice/fair according to our current standards.

So when the wind breaks your window, you cannot say, justice requires a new window thus I will go and buy it.
Justice has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The NEEDS is what makes me go and buy a new window.

This goes back to your argument about balance which you seem to confuse so much.

The need to have a window arises from your needs, it is a human thing.

The problem is that god does not need anything, he has everything he wants according to the theology.
Your analogy breaks apart here yet again.

So you cannot say that humans cannot pay for something, you have to say that god created humans so that they cannot pay for something.

You are so arrogant to think that god is so impotent and flawed that he wanted something from humans and he failed at it?
To the point that he had to go back and fix his own mess every single time?

You insult your own god every time you think humans cannot pay the price because god forgot to install the equipment to pay.

Ridiculous.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 50 by shnarkle]

"What Jesus and Paul are saying in effect is that neither you nor I are sufficient to stop the metronome from swinging. God Himself must intervene. He must pay the price Himself."

He is responsible for it,

Yes!

you cannot blame...

I'm not blaming anyone.

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 see no conditions there that the owner wants it fixed, nor that the slugger cannot pay.

I suppose that the owner could leave the gaping hole in his living room, but as I pointed out before this still leaves a gaping hole in his living room which means the owner pays by having a gaping hole in his living room. The reference to a sandlot usually suggests poverty. Perhaps that may not be so apparent these days; my bad.


"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. "

No, justice does not require a new window at all, because justice is a human invention/discovery, we created what we think is justice/fair according to our current standards.

So when the wind breaks your window, you cannot say, justice requires a new window thus I will go and buy it.
Justice has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The NEEDS is what makes me go and buy a new window.

Fair enough. I don't see a problem here. Yes, the need or a new window means that either they live with the hole, or they buy a new window. God can live with man in his impotent state or he can redeem him by paying the debt himself. God fixes the situation.

The problem is that god does not need anything, he has everything he wants according to the theology.
Your analogy breaks apart here yet again.

Perhaps, all analogies break down somewhere.

So you cannot say that humans cannot pay for something, you have to say that god created humans so that they cannot pay for something.

No, God created humans prior to anything breaking in the first place. Humanity is broken; so it seems that the window is itself a metaphor for humanity. Thanks for helping me fix my analogy. (':D')

This is actually working better than I originally planned. The slugger represents the rebellious will as well as the lack of forward thinking of humanity.

You're right, the analogy was missing something. It's much more complete now. I appreciate your critique.

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 52 by shnarkle]

At least we seem to agree that your analogy was not as clear as you originally thought.

Fair enough. I don't see a problem here. Yes, the need or a new window means that either they live with the hole, or they buy a new window.

Yes, next time specify that it needs to be fixed because you are assuming that everything needs to be fixed.(undeclared assumption)

God can live with man in his impotent state or he can redeem him by paying the debt himself. God fixes the situation.

You are missing the point that god engineered for all those events to happen in that exact manner just like he engineered for a talking snake to go and talk to eve in the garden so he would be able to punish Adam and eve.
This is all according to his divine plan.

The problem is that god does not need anything, he has everything he wants according to the theology.
Your analogy breaks apart here yet again.

Perhaps, all analogies break down somewhere.

Lol not "somewhere", but completely.

YOU CANNOT use that analogy with god since it does not apply to god because god has no needs.
The analogy is based on who must/can pay for the need of a new window. God does not need anything including the new window.
If there is no need for a window/anything then the analogy cannot be used for god.

So you cannot say that humans cannot pay for something, you have to say that god created humans so that they cannot pay for something.

No, God created humans prior to anything breaking in the first place. Humanity is broken; so it seems that the window is itself a metaphor for humanity. Thanks for helping me fix my analogy. ('Very Happy')

Are you serious?
If something broke, god planned for it to happen.
If god created something perfect it does not break, if it breaks it means it wasn't perfect.
Basic common sens.

This is actually working better than I originally planned. The slugger represents the rebellious will as well as the lack of forward thinking of humanity.

You're right, the analogy was missing something. It's much more complete now. I appreciate your critique.

Thanks but you are still left where you started, a flawed concept and a flawed analogy that does not represent reality or basic common sens.

God is clearly the creator of something that was broken the moment he decided to break it by sending the talking snake in his own garden.

There is no way you can change the fact that god is depicted as an evil character in the bible.

"He created us sick and demands us to be well."

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 52 by shnarkle]

At least we seem to agree that your analogy was not as clear as you originally thought.

Fair enough. I don't see a problem here. Yes, the need or a new window means that either they live with the hole, or they buy a new window.

Yes, next time specify that it needs to be fixed because you are assuming that everything needs to be fixed.(undeclared assumption)

God can live with man in his impotent state or he can redeem him by paying the debt himself. God fixes the situation.

You are missing the point that god engineered for all those events to happen in that exact manner just like he engineered for a talking snake to go and talk to eve in the garden so he would be able to punish Adam and eve.
This is all according to his divine plan.

If you believe this is about a talking snake then I really don't have anything left to say. I don't see any talking snake in the garden in the first place. There is no punishment either. So there is no common ground to discuss this topic.

If there is no need for a window/anything then the analogy cannot be used for god.

I don't see God as needing humanity redeemed, but redeeming humanity anyways.

No, God created humans prior to anything breaking in the first place. Humanity is broken; so it seems that the window is itself a metaphor for humanity. Thanks for helping me fix my analogy. ('Very Happy')

If god created something perfect it does not break, if it breaks it means it wasn't perfect.
Basic common sens.

Perhaps perfection is a process of growth. We can see this in nature. The seed must be broken for it to grow into a plant. Perhaps humanity also needs to break free from stagnant forms of thinking.

There is no way you can change the fact that god is depicted as an evil character in the bible.

"He created us sick and demands us to be well."

I don't really see much of an argument here. You think God is evil. That's about it.

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 54 by shnarkle]

perheps you are in denial that, if god created something perfect it should not need to break to grow, it should not need anything, it woud be perfect.

You don't seem to understand the nature of the christian god at all. maybe you haven't put enough thought about it.

Once you put god in any piece of logic then you don't need the balanced system you mentioned in your OP, god is the system, the engine of life itself.

Every single logical argument you put forward in our discussion is simply contradicting your own beliefs and it was easy for me to spot.

"I don't really see much of an argument here. You think God is evil. That's about it."

I don't think God is evil, I proved he is depicted as an evil character, and you seem in denial to even address the argument, and thus running away from it.

You should go and read the bible and this time do try to think what could show that i am wrong, or better, what could not be interpreted as evil by someone like me.

If you think that is too much work, then answer this question:

Can you find a single definitely GOOD ACTION done by god the father in the NT?
(no debatable or irrelevant actions please)

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 54 by shnarkle]

perheps you are in denial that, if god created something perfect it should not need to break to grow, it should not need anything, it woud be perfect.

You don't seem to understand the nature of the christian god at all. maybe you haven't put enough thought about it.

You seem to be arguing with yourself here. This seems to be a pattern. I think it may be time for me to bow out of this discussion.

"I don't really see much of an argument here. You think God is evil. That's about it."

I don't think God is evil, I proved...

...claimed.

...you seem in denial to even address the argument,

I didn't see one. I see a lot of claims, but no arguments yet.

You should go and read the bible...

Another good piece of advice. I think I'll go do that.

Can you find a single definitely GOOD ACTION done by god the father in the NT?

The Father is transcendent, therefore he is beyond actions. His actions can only be manifest through the Son, i.e. "the Word".

[Tetragrammaton]

[Replying to post 56 by shnarkle]

You seem to be arguing with yourself here.

Nope, just trying to get you back on the argument you seemed to want to ignore.

You claimed before that humans are broken and that god created everything perfect before everything broke.

Yet when I showed a point about either perfect or can be broken, you just ran away from the argument with some nonsense like; maybe something needs to be broken to become perfect.

If it is perfect it does not need to be broken first and go through all this evil experiences in life to become perfect later on.

I didn't see one. I see a lot of claims, but no arguments yet.

How do you answer that?

Can you find a single definitely GOOD ACTION done by god the father in the NT?

The Father is transcendent, therefore he is beyond actions.

Does that mean that there are no definitely good actions done by god in the NT?

The Father is transcendent

what does that mean exactly according to you?

His actions can only be manifest through the Son, i.e. "the Word".

did you repeat this from somewhere, I think i read it somewhere else.

Btw it is a lie, in the OT his actions were all over the place.
At one point he also has a friendly fist fight.

Unless you mean in the NT "His actions can only be manifest through the Son", which again it is another lie since we all know that god spoke to everyone saying; "This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him."