The appeal to Jesus’s supposedly loving character (minus all his threats of hellfire) only pushes the problem back a step since now the question is why that human character should be identified with the source of nature.

The biblical blaming of our species for the state of nature (as in the positing of original sin) is pure theological propaganda that has no chance of overturning a late-modern philosophy that incorporates scientific objectifications. Also, the literalistic reading of Genesis fails on aesthetic grounds.

The retreat to mystery muddies the water and provides you with Pyrrhic victory, at best, since such mysticism would deprive “God is love” of any meaning. Calling that a theological “nuance” would be euphemistic since you’d be engaging, rather, in a sophistical evasion of communicative responsibility.

Likewise, only sophistry will help the monotheist reconcile the contradictory sides of God’s character, sides that made more sense in the polytheistic scenario.