Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to Victim.

[genkaus]

Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. No victim required.

Ha. The perfect statement to show the evil and corrupt nature of Judeo-Christian god. I am giving you the ability to act outside my will, bit if you use it, I'll fuck you up.

[Godscreated]

There are a lot of victims in our sin, from strangers to family. So, what is it you would have God do for the victims, we made them victims, is it not our responsibility to respond to our victims?
Would you have God not forgive the sins of those who asked forgiveness, that would make Christians the same as the unbeliever, is that what you want, us in the same boat with you?
So, what if God did not forgive us, how would this be any better for the victim, you're not forgiven, so how are your victims any better off?
I think the real question here is what are we to do for our victims, whether we are Christian or unbelievers?

[Minimalist]

Would you have God not forgive the sins of those who asked forgiveness, that would make Christians the same as the unbeliever, is that what you want, us in the same boat with you?

Psst...G-C...there is no one forgiving your sins. It's just shit you made up.

[Ryft]

Jesus forgiving sin is unjust to victim. Sin by its very nature must have a victim; without a victim there is no sin. The one sinned against has the first right of forgiveness. If Jesus usurps that right, then I think it would be unjust [because] closure is being denied the victim, thus [further] victimizing [him or her]. Jesus would not condone such a thing. Secular law now demands a victim [impact statement] before sentence is given. To think that Jesus would ignore this requirement is unthinkable.

This means that, "Why have you forsaken me?" is answered by God with; because what you do is immoral. You deny the victim her or his rights. It is also unjust to punish the innocent instead of the guilty. In fact, that notion is insane. In the scenario shown here the victim is ignored, thus showing the flaw in the judge's ruling if he accepts substitutionary atonement.

I am going to assume that, first, your criticisms are addressing biblical Christianity and, second, that your inquiry is genuine and sincere.

According to and consistent with biblical Christianity:

1. How is sin defined?

2. Is "sin" and "immoral" the same thing?

3. How is justice defined?

4. When we sin, who is it against (i.e., victim)?

5. Are the innocent punished instead of the guilty?

6. How is substitutionary atonement defined?

7. Is secular law biblically-based? If not, then how is it relevant?

In order to establish that your answers are "according to and consistent with biblical Christianity," please provide the relevant biblical support for each of them.