God is not really a role-model dad.
The difference between human dads and God, is that we did not genetically engineer our kids. If we are working with the biblical definition of God, then the dad in heaven created us EXACTLY the way he wanted us to be, because he is all-powerful, and he doesn't make mistakes.
He made us with some capacity to resist sin -- we are not homicidal maniacs -- but if Eve did disobey God, and Adam too, it was not because Adam and Eve were more powerful than God, and could cunningly rewire their brains to overcome their innate good nature, and reprogram themselves for evil.
No, it is because they were created weak ... intentionally.
Isn't that a little fucked up? It's like taking thalidomide ... on purpose.
But it's OK, because the story is not literal. We evolved. There wasn't a literal garden of Eden. There wasn't one original Man, and one original Woman. There were thousands, over millennia. And in a way, you are the start of the genetic branch that continues with your kids, and I am the start of the genetic branch that continues with my kids. I am Adam to their Cain and Abel and Seth.
But then if there was no original Adam, and no original Eve, what is "original sin"?
I completely agree that Jesus was an awesome guy, and we should all try to understand his insights and apply his wisdom in our lives. But the book of Luke traces his genealogy from his literal father all the way back to figurative Adam. At what point does the genealogy stop being literal and start being figurative?
If he died to save us from the spiritual wages of a figurative sin committed 6000 figurative years before we were literally born, what does that mean? Wages, let us not forget, which are still applied to us by an omnipotent, omniscient creator who knew that our figurative ancestors would commit that original sin, because he made them that way, and he knew what would happen ... well ...
Well, I just don't understand. Why would God let His Son die a slow and agonising death for something God Himself intentionally engineered? Why would He punish all His children for a mistake made thousands of (figurative) years prior? How can one guy scapegoat the crimes of another? e.g. If my friend raped someone, should it be legal for me to go to jail on his behalf, so that the rapist can walk free, and potentially rape again? Assuming scapegoating is a valid and morally-acceptable construct, and assuming we are all guilty of original sin, and assuming that it is good and just that we be punished, for eternity, in hell, for this, why would God only forgive our sins after His son was tortured? Is it not possible for Him to forgive us without His Son first being tortured? Would hemlock have been an acceptable alternative to flogging and crucifixion? And if all that doesn't sound nightmarishly crazy enough, does it make sense that God only forgives those of His children who recognise that they ought to be punished for a sin that they didn't commit, and that Jesus accepted this punishment on their behalf. In other words, it seems to me that God will only save you if you first admit that you are guilty.
If I do admit that I'm guilty, and that His Son did indeed die a horrible death in order for God to forgive me, does that mean that I am obligated to spend eternity with this Incredibly Smart And Terrifyingly Cruel Sociopath? I'm not so sure that it's a good idea