Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Remission of Sin

[SteveII]

What makes you think justice is an essential attribute of god? People say it's in his nature, but how can we know for sure? Certainly not from the bible, unless you have a habit of taking people at their word by default, despite what their actions say.

If I believe large section of what we call the Bible is direct revelations concerning God, I most certainly can use the Bible to inform my beliefs about God. Your argument is something like:

1. I don't believe the Bible contains revelation from God.
2. Your beliefs about God are wrong because of 1.

---

You miss the point of essential attribute. God does not impose these things. The term 'justice' is defined by this attribute that could not have been any other way. There is no "justice for..."--it is just 'justice'.

The problem is that "being just" is not part of the definition of the classical theist God. You assume it has to be an attribute of God, provided God exists. And why does God being "just" have to be in a way that seems to serve his own interests anyway? There seems nothing great about a God who can't let this whole sin concept go. Rather than be just and holy (which sounds so damn human to me), why not instead be like the God of universalism, who is all about eventual reconciliation for all? This seems more divine to me than the God that you espouse.

Why isn't Justice part of the classical definition of God? It is the crux of the entire message of redemption (which is what the entire Bible leads up to). No assuming going on: Bible verses about Justice. 

They key I think in understanding this issue is that God is perfectly Holy--not able to tolerate sin in the least.

[Harry Nevis]

What makes you think justice is an essential attribute of god? People say it's in his nature, but how can we know for sure? Certainly not from the bible, unless you have a habit of taking people at their word by default, despite what their actions say.

If I believe large section of what we call the Bible is direct revelations concerning God, I most certainly can use the Bible to inform my beliefs about God. Your argument is something like:

1. I don't believe the Bible contains revelation from God.
2. Your beliefs about God are wrong because of 1.

---

The problem is that "being just" is not part of the definition of the classical theist God. You assume it has to be an attribute of God, provided God exists. And why does God being "just" have to be in a way that seems to serve his own interests anyway? There seems nothing great about a God who can't let this whole sin concept go. Rather than be just and holy (which sounds so damn human to me), why not instead be like the God of universalism, who is all about eventual reconciliation for all? This seems more divine to me than the God that you espouse.

Why isn't Justice part of the classical definition of God? It is the crux of the entire message of redemption (which is what the entire Bible leads up to). No assuming going on: Bible verses about Justice. 

They key I think in understanding this issue is that God is perfectly Holy--not able to tolerate sin in the least.

And, of course, what is described as justice in the bible has little to do with how we use the term.  Just like "love", "good", etc.  So it clarifies nothing.

[Chad32]

If I believe large section of what we call the Bible is direct revelations concerning God, I most certainly can use the Bible to inform my beliefs about God. Your argument is something like:

1. I don't believe the Bible contains revelation from God.
2. Your beliefs about God are wrong because of 1.

---

Why isn't Justice part of the classical definition of God? It is the crux of the entire message of redemption (which is what the entire Bible leads up to). No assuming going on: Bible verses about Justice. 

They key I think in understanding this issue is that God is perfectly Holy--not able to tolerate sin in the least.

And, of course, what is described as justice in the bible has little to do with how we use the term.  Just like "love", "good", etc.  So it clarifies nothing.

The bible makes claims that he's a good guy, but then shows his favorite means of trying to solve a problem is by killing people. Which doesn't actually work, given how many people supposedly died, and in the present day we still have a lot of problems.  If his ways are so alien to us, and some christians clai we need a god to fill some vague void in our lives, then we need a different god. This one is defective.

[GrandizerII]

Why isn't Justice part of the classical definition of God? It is the crux of the entire message of redemption (which is what the entire Bible leads up to). No assuming going on: Bible verses about Justice.

The Bible God is an add-on of the philosophical classical theist God. The classical theist God, in its pure form, is not necessarily just. You need a collection of ancient books written by human beings to give you that attribute for your add-on God.

The problem for you is that I, and other atheists, have no reason to accept that God, if he exists, must be just (and particularly in the way you conceive of "just").

They key I think in understanding this issue is that God is perfectly Holy--not able to tolerate sin in the least.

How would you really know that though? What if, instead, the universalist God represents the true God? Perhaps "holy" and "sin" are silly concepts to the true God that he finds it laughable that many people think these matter to him.

And the "not tolerate" part doesn't sound godly to me, even if towards sin. I'd be far more impressed by a God that doesn't so easily triggered by the things we limited beings do.

[SteveII]

Why isn't Justice part of the classical definition of God? It is the crux of the entire message of redemption (which is what the entire Bible leads up to). No assuming going on: Bible verses about Justice.

The Bible God is an add-on of the philosophical classical theist God. The classical theist God, in its pure form, is not necessarily just. You need a collection of ancient books written by human beings to give you that attribute for your add-on God. [1]

The problem for you is that I, and other atheists, have no reason to accept that God, if he exists, must be just (and particularly in the way you conceive of "just"). [2]

They key I think in understanding this issue is that God is perfectly Holy--not able to tolerate sin in the least.

How would you really know that though? What if, instead, the universalist God represents the true God? Perhaps "holy" and "sin" are silly concepts to the true God that he finds it laughable that many people think these matter to him. [3]

And the "not tolerate" part doesn't sound godly to me, even if towards sin. I'd be far more impressed by a God that doesn't so easily triggered by the things we limited beings do. [4]

1. I don't even know what you are saying. I have been very clearly talking about the God of CHristianity. Talk about goal post moving!

2. So? I don't care what you accept. I was describing a doctrine that I was asked about.

3. Because I believe the cumulative case for the Christian God is more complete than any other and that is ALL I have been describing and discussing.

4. Good think it is not God's objective to impress you.

[GrandizerII]

1. I don't even know what you are saying. I have been very clearly talking about the God of CHristianity. Talk about goal post moving!

And the OP asks why God has to be the God of the Bible who is all about justice, and particularly justice satisfied by blood sacrifice. You can't just argue that God is just because the Bible says so!

2. So? I don't care what you accept. I was describing a doctrine that I was asked about.

But the OP is about why God has to be as described by some doctrine!

3. Because I believe the cumulative case for the Christian God is more complete than any other and that is ALL I have been describing and discussing.

I believe this, I believe that. There is a reason you won't say "I know".

4. Good think it is not God's objective to impress you.

A small God like the type you worship could only dream of contemplating such objective. If he's not in it for all of us (only in it for himself), he's a useless one.

[Minimalist]

1. I don't believe the Bible contains revelation from God.

2. Your beliefs about God are wrong because of 1.

3.  Religitards have no evidence for #1.

[Rhondazvous]

Sorry I didn't follow your script. But I knew you'd say something to make god sound neurotic, and you did.. Does it really matter why god did these things? It all boils down to the end justifying the means.

They're making the story up as they go along, revising wherever needed and saying whatever needs to be said at the moment. What else can they do with a book as equivocal as the bible?

In short. Without sin there is only God's will. Only God's will =no ability to choose anything outside of it. Enter the knoweledge of god's will and of evil. Now we have choice for the first time.

Problem chose sin= choose death.

but if sinner choose to repent, they choose life and God.

God from the beginning set up the process of sin and repentance so that we may choose to be with God, or to separate ourselves from Him.

That's like saying if there were no atom bomb we couldn't choose disarmament. Since disarmament is a good thing, it was necessary to build the bomb and it's not the builder's fault if we cheese to use the bomb rather than disarmament.

This is astronomically more ridiculous when the builder is omniscient.
You can explain Christian doctrine all you want, but youcan't make it coherent.

[SteveII]

And, of course, what is described as justice in the bible has little to do with how we use the term.  Just like "love", "good", etc.  So it clarifies nothing.

The bible makes claims that he's a good guy, but then shows his favorite means of trying to solve a problem is by killing people. Which doesn't actually work, given how many people supposedly died, and in the present day we still have a lot of problems.  If his ways are so alien to us, and some christians clai we need a god to fill some vague void in our lives, then we need a different god. This one is defective.

If there is a God who created everything--and he very much expects his creation to behave, what part of that leads you to believe that he does not have the right to judge someone and take their life? You seem to be saying that God did not have the right to judge them and take their life because the right thing to do was wait for someone to die of some other cause and then judge them? What would make the former less 'right' than the latter? Do you understand how insignificant a human lifetime is to an eternal God? It does not even register.

[Fake Messiah]

If there is a God who created everything--and he very much expects his creation to behave, what part of that leads you to believe that he does not have the right to judge someone and take their life? You seem to be saying that God did not have the right to judge them and take their life because the right thing to do was wait for someone to die of some other cause and then judge them? What would make the former less 'right' than the latter? Do you understand how insignificant a human lifetime is to an eternal God? It does not even register.

If god created... but there is no evidence that god created anything. There is no evidence for any of the stories in the Genesis ever happened, no matter what religion. World has been mapped and thoroughly explored and yet nobody ever found firewall around Garden of Eden.

And what is this bullshit about that we chose sin so we should all pay the price? I didn't chose anything. Think about that: long ago, long before you were even born, the actions of a prehistoric relative condemned you to a lifetime of being vulnerable to viruses, bacteria, predators, earthquakes, fires, floods, hurricanes, tornados, and tsunamis. Is this fair? Why would a god who is concerned with justice feel the need to punish people or allow them to suffer through inaction because of something their ancient ancestors did thousands of years ago? There is a good reason why court systems in developed societies do not punish innocent people for crimes their great-great grandparents may have committed. They don't do it because it would be unjust and barbaric. Shouldn't believers expect at least the same level of justice from their gods?

I think believers would do better to simply consider another possibility. Can't all of this be explained more easily by the possibility that gods do not exist? Isn't it more likely that natural disasters kill thousands of people each year-regardless of their religion or behavior-because nature is an unintelligent and indifferent process?