Am I the only one who feels this way about the Old Testament?

[DC Al Fine]

I’ve never read the Old Testament, let alone the whole Bible, in its entirety. Even so, it’s impossible for me to read it and not want to literally slap God in the face for murdering all of those people and what not.

It's a natural sentiment to have at times. That said it's a little... I guess cursory would be the best word. Much of the anger or confusion at God's actions are based on a failure to maintain a a proper creator/creature distinction or an overly positive view of humanity. Once those points are nailed down, the questions change.

Rabbis have been discussing these aspects of the OT for thousands of years and their perspectives are generally a lot fresher than the stale "muh Old Testament harsh and punishing God and muh New Testament gentle and forgiving God" takes in this thread.

On a related note, this has been one of the weakest points in Evangelical catechesis. When the tensions between the "two Gods" of this approach are inevitably pointed out, there's a tendency towards either umbelief like the poster above you, or Andy Stanley style quasi-Marcionism.

Evangelical churches would do well to make sure their people learn about the safrificial system pointing us to Christ, the faith of the patriarchs etc. Basically, a good strong dose of Hebrews would do wonders here.

[DC Al Fine]

I have seen believer and non-believer alike make one God into two separate parts. This notion is as strange as it is illogical, and as illogical as it is un-Biblical.

Is that any more illogical than the orthodox Christian position which makes God into three separate parts and has one third killed by another third?

That's modalism Patrick!

More seriously though, what you are describing is not what Christians confess in the Nicene Creed.

[DC Al Fine]

Personally, I think you two are both mistaken and are both missing the point of both the Eden story and of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. It was stiff-necked Man who once he realized that he had a sinful nature could not accept the idea that an imperfect being such as himself could be loved that led him to hide from himself and others. That's the significance of the fig leaves and the attempt of Man to hide from God in the garden.  It wasn't God who required the crucifixion, but Man. The point of the crucifixion and the resurrection was to demonstrate God's willingness to do whatever it would take to demonstrate his infinite love to all who are willing to accept that fact.

Sadly. not all are willing, and God's omnipotence only means he can do everything that is possible, not that he can do the impossible. There will be those unwilling to embrace the truth of the Great Commandment.

Perhaps the 1967 hymn "Love Is All You Need" will explain it better than I can.

     I have a Catholic coworker who is a big fan of the "perfect demonstration of love" theory of the Resurrection. I think I would agree that the Crucifixion and Resurrection were undertaken for our benefit (one of my major complaints about substitutionary atonement is that it sets up the Father almost as an adversary to Man, when He has always been working to redeem us).

     The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that Christ died and was resurrected to defeat sin and death and open the path of Man to Heaven by overcoming what is the final end of mortal lives. God was not angry at us, but rather willed that we should be delivered from the evil that our sins had brought to the Earth. To become a man and suffer and die was an act that He undertook because we needed it.

At the risk of sounding pretentious, its a both/and, not an either/or. The major theories are rather incomplete descriptions of what Christ did, if taken on their own, given the variety of descriptions used in scripture. Look at Colossians 2:13-14 and Hebrews 2:14 for example. Christus Victor and PSA theories each seem awkward in the face of one of those passages. Did Christ conquer death and hell? Yes. Did he pay a penalty for our sins? Yes. Each theory shows an aspect of what he did.

[DC Al Fine]

Oh great, GIA is back.

He's already gotten a 90-day ban, which I expect means that in 90 days he'll be getting a permaban when he resumes posting.

FYI

[DC Al Fine]

I have seen believer and non-believer alike make one God into two separate parts. This notion is as strange as it is illogical, and as illogical as it is un-Biblical.

Is that any more illogical than the orthodox Christian position which makes God into three separate parts and has one third killed by another third?

That's modalism Patrick!

More seriously though, what you are describing is not what Christians confess in the Nicene Creed.

It's not what's not on the Creeds, but I'd safely bet that most Christians are actually modalists, despite them reciting the creed

No argument there.