Christians, explain this one to me:

[Smallville]

This is to “Voter”

I do not quite understand your concepts of “justice” or “satisfaction” when trying to apply religious concepts to law.

In Judeo-Christian beliefs all mankind is born with Original Sin due to Adam’s downfall in Eden â€" an action an omnipresent, omniscient, loving God could have prevented beforehand by not creating evil, sin, temptation (etc.) in the first place.
Despite having destroyed wicked and immoral mankind with a world-wide flood, having man repopulate the world again, and giving mankind a set of commandments to live by, God is still not pleased with the Free Will choices mankind is allowed to make. And, in Christian beliefs, to save mankind God sends a mortal savior, kills him, resurrects him, and uses him as the only true path to eternal salvation. (I know this is an abridged version of beliefs, but it is the core.)
The simple question is why wasn't mankind made perfect to start without evil/sin/temptation ever introduced? The free will argument doesn't fly.

So, “God's sense of justice was satisfied by Jesus' death.”

Justice: n. 1. The quality of being just; fairness. 2. a. The principle of moral rightness; equity. b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness. 3. a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. b. Law: The administration and procedure of law. 4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason.
Satisfy: v.tr. 1. To gratify the need, desire, or expectation of. 2. To fulfill (a need or desire). 3. a. To free from doubt or question; assure. b. To get rid of (a doubt or question); dispel. 4. a. To discharge (a debt or obligation, for example) in full. b. To discharge an obligation to (a creditor). 5. To conform to the requirements of (a standard or rule); be sufficient to (an end). 6. To make reparation for; redress.

With these beliefs and the definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed., it would appear that God, if he exists, is not what he’s purported to be: not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnipresent, far from a loving being, and someone/thing with a perverted sense of humor along with any other humane qualities.
If God made us in his own image, then don’t you think there would have been just a little foresight in conformity so that there wouldn’t be such variation? We would have all the same values, the same ideals, the same, well, everything. But we don’t.

You mix up “law” with “justice”. They are not the same. Law is “a rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority” (and by some definitions also the Mosaic scripture). In America, religious authority, no matter how much desired by fundamentalists, does not establish law or justice. In America, we create Law by the will of the people, even though legislative boundaries might be only a mile apart. Consent of the governed is an American ideal for our laws, our justice, our existence; and, of course, it might seem “weird” to people who don’t have the same freedom.

The last point, about the Manson murderer with terminal brain cancer â€" tough _________. (fill in the blank accordingly) Forgiveness is not in the law. The law nor justice does not forgive. Save that for your moralists, religious or no. This woman took part in gruesome murders of innocent people and an unborn child. If you are not familiar with the Sharon Tate Murders, please check into it for your own edification.
You say, “Family members of her victims testified that they thought it would be unjust to release her, even though she can barely move and so poses no threat to society. Apparently they are not able to simply decide to forgive.”
Yes, it would be unjust to release her regardless of her “posing no threat to society”.  As far as finding forgiveness â€" neither would I. There is no way I could find a way to excuse for a fault or an offense; to pardon; to renounce anger or resentment against someone who committed crimes like these.

[Loffler]

No, by this I mean that people sometimes have trouble relating to each other's senses of justice.  As God made us in his image, it's not surprising that some people can relate to his sense of justice, and some can't.

If we're in his image, shouldn't we all be able to relate to his sense of justice?

We're in his image, but fallen, so we can relate in part. I'm guessing you agree that murder and stealing are wrong, so you relate in part.

All I can know for sure is that I relate in part to whoever wrote the 10 Commandments. And those (along with the one about lying) are probably the 3 commandments which require the least explanation, since they're based on an obvious reciprocity. Nobody wanted to be killed, stolen from, or lied to. Those are more accurately called "The Duh Commandments."

Incidentally, they're also the commandments most often cited when attempting to demonstrate God as the source of morality.

[Promethium147]

Good Stuff!

But - forgiveness is not available from God, or anyone else, until sincere repentance is DEMONSTRATED - by actions. FundieGod has not yet repented.

To forgive without penitence is EVIL! It encourages the Evil to do Evil!

Revenge is good - the US supreme court sez that revenge is about 30% of the impetus for punishment, and it is Good. I tend to agree with them - for once.

Justice is not a Department, though. It must reside in each of us, and each must act upon it. I take revenge on another because -

1) If he hurts me, he is likely to have hurt others before.
2) If he hurts me and gets away with it, he is more likely to hurt others in future.
3) My revenge may seem disproportionate to my hurt, but it is not designed around my own hurt - it is designed to accommodate all previous hurts, and deter future hurts.

Thus, since the law can't catch everyone, perps are punished in disproportion to their crimes, and are used as examples to others. The likelihood of being caught is low, but if caught, the punishment is vastly disproportionate to my profit from the crime. If I steal, merely making me return what I have stolen won't stop me from stealing again.

We do this individually, and we should. It is only natural - and nature knows what it's doing here.

Revenge is a Social Duty, I would assert.

Revenge is mine, sayeth the Lord. This means several things; 1) the Lord has all Authority, 2) the Lord will get to it eventually, so - don't worry, and of course - 3) do as Lord sez, not as Lord does.

But I am my own Lord, and none other shall ever be. Therefore, revenge is mine. Doing it appropriately is called Art of Revenge.    

[tdh26]

The simple question is why wasn't mankind made perfect to start without evil/sin/temptation ever introduced? The free will argument doesn't fly.

Perfect love (which God has for us) demands we have a Free Will. Love cannot be compeled from someone, it has to be given freely, thus we can love him or deny him. It's our choice. Adam and Eve chose to disobey him and fell from grace but it was their choice!
They were created perfect. Evil/sin is the absence of God. Similar to a dark room is the absence of light. Sin is removing ourselves from his grace (light).

[Loffler]

The simple question is why wasn't mankind made perfect to start without evil/sin/temptation ever introduced? The free will argument doesn't fly.

Perfect love (which God has for us) demands we have a Free Will. Love cannot be compeled from someone, it has to be given freely, thus we can love him or deny him. It's our choice. Adam and Eve chose to disobey him and fell from grace but it was their choice!

That was Adam and Eve's free will affecting ours. That hardly seems fair, and hardly seems like free will at all.

They were created perfect. Evil/sin is the absence of God. Similar to a dark room is the absence of light. Sin is removing ourselves from his grace (light).

But we don't really have a choice. If we turn God down we go to hell. That's no choice at all. That's the choice a mugging victim has with a gun to his head.

[Smallville]

The simple question is why wasn't mankind made perfect to start without evil/sin/temptation ever introduced? The free will argument doesn't fly.

Perfect love (which God has for us) demands we have a Free Will. Love cannot be compeled from someone, it has to be given freely, thus we can love him or deny him. It's our choice. Adam and Eve chose to disobey him and fell from grace but it was their choice!
They were created perfect. Evil/sin is the absence of God. Similar to a dark room is the absence of light. Sin is removing ourselves from his grace (light).

The concept of Free Will as a "choice" from an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient loving and protective God is a crock. Either God controls everything, is everywhere to keep an eye even upon the smallest sparrow, with total knowledge past, present, and future in a kind and loving manner with our best interests at heart or he ain't there.
Why would such a god allow us to sin? Oh, yeah, the circular argument of "Free Will".
I can buy free will but not the other. It doesn't cut the mustard.

Why should we, the descendants of Adam and Eve, be punished for their sins? There is no definitive answer that could justify punishing the children for the sins of the father.

The argument of evil/sin being the absence of God is another comparative fallacy. If God is omnipresent, how could he be absent?

[Voter]

This is to “Voter”

I do not quite understand your concepts of “justice” or “satisfaction” when trying to apply religious concepts to law.

In Judeo-Christian beliefs all mankind is born with Original Sin due to Adam’s downfall in Eden â€" an action an omnipresent, omniscient, loving God could have prevented beforehand by not creating evil, sin, temptation (etc.) in the first place.
Despite having destroyed wicked and immoral mankind with a world-wide flood, having man repopulate the world again, and giving mankind a set of commandments to live by, God is still not pleased with the Free Will choices mankind is allowed to make. And, in Christian beliefs, to save mankind God sends a mortal savior, kills him, resurrects him, and uses him as the only true path to eternal salvation. (I know this is an abridged version of beliefs, but it is the core.)
The simple question is why wasn't mankind made perfect to start without evil/sin/temptation ever introduced? The free will argument doesn't fly.

There's a simple answer, but the free will discussion is unnecessary in this thread. Feel free to start a new thread with the above if you like.

So, “God's sense of justice was satisfied by Jesus' death.”

Justice: n. 1. The quality of being just; fairness. 2. a. The principle of moral rightness; equity. b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness. 3. a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. b. Law: The administration and procedure of law. 4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason.
Satisfy: v.tr. 1. To gratify the need, desire, or expectation of. 2. To fulfill (a need or desire). 3. a. To free from doubt or question; assure. b. To get rid of (a doubt or question); dispel. 4. a. To discharge (a debt or obligation, for example) in full. b. To discharge an obligation to (a creditor). 5. To conform to the requirements of (a standard or rule); be sufficient to (an end). 6. To make reparation for; redress.

Yep, the needs or expectations of God's sense of moral rightness was fulfilled by Christ's death.

With these beliefs and the definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed., it would appear that God, if he exists, is not what he’s purported to be: not omnipotent, not omniscient, not omnipresent, far from a loving being, and someone/thing with a perverted sense of humor along with any other humane qualities.
If God made us in his own image, then don’t you think there would have been just a little foresight in conformity so that there wouldn’t be such variation? We would have all the same values, the same ideals, the same, well, everything. But we don’t.

Again, beyond the scope of this thread, but feel free to start another.

You mix up “law” with “justice”. They are not the same. Law is “a rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority” (and by some definitions also the Mosaic scripture). In America, religious authority, no matter how much desired by fundamentalists, does not establish law or justice. In America, we create Law by the will of the people, even though legislative boundaries might be only a mile apart. Consent of the governed is an American ideal for our laws, our justice, our existence; and, of course, it might seem “weird” to people who don’t have the same freedom.

Your own definition of justice includes, "The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with ... law." I'm not improperly mixing them up, they are interconnected.

The last point, about the Manson murderer with terminal brain cancer â€" tough _________. (fill in the blank accordingly) Forgiveness is not in the law. The law nor justice does not forgive. Save that for your moralists, religious or no. This woman took part in gruesome murders of innocent people and an unborn child. If you are not familiar with the Sharon Tate Murders, please check into it for your own edification.
You say, “Family members of her victims testified that they thought it would be unjust to release her, even though she can barely move and so poses no threat to society. Apparently they are not able to simply decide to forgive.”
Yes, it would be unjust to release her regardless of her “posing no threat to society”.  As far as finding forgiveness â€" neither would I. There is no way I could find a way to excuse for a fault or an offense; to pardon; to renounce anger or resentment against someone who committed crimes like these.

I agree. We each have a sense of justice that we cannot simply change by conscious decision. Same with God.

[tdh26]

Why should we, the descendants of Adam and Eve, be punished for their sins? There is no definitive answer that could justify punishing the children for the sins of the father.

My sin affects more than just me. If I stub my toe, does it not affect my hand? If you were say, the son of Charles Manson, would you not be impuned to some part the chastisement of your father? It may not be fair but it's the reality of things. I could go on but my other examples are much longer.

The argument of evil/sin being the absence of God is another comparative fallacy. If God is omnipresent, how could he be absent?

God works in mysterious ways!
I had to through that one in. It's just funny! That's like, can God make a stone so big he can't lift it?
How can I, with a finite mind, fathom the mind of an infinite God? Nor could you. But I can reason His existance.

But we don't really have a choice. If we turn God down we go to hell. That's no choice at all. That's the choice a mugging victim has with a gun to his head.

Of course that a choice. That's the point. "If we turn God down we go to hell." No ones holding a gun to you head. That's just the consequences .

[Loffler]

No ones holding a gun to you head. That's just the consequences .

God is hold a gun to my head. In fact He's holding something worse than a gun to my head: eternal torture. He created me and the universe and therefore all the conditions of this situation were His doing.

But I can reason His existance.

Then do it.

[tdh26]

Then do it.

Read my previous posts. My keyboard's running out of ink!

[Loffler]

Then do it.

Read my previous posts. My keyboard's running out of ink!

You can't possibly believe anything you're written on this thread is evidence of God's existence.

[Jolly Sapper]

This is a somewhat violent thought experiment, but its not meant to be insulting or demeaning.  I only want to try to put you in a position where you feel some emotional connection to the outcome.

Would it be you be responsible for your own suicide or the murder of your parents, if I were to hold you (a Christian, suicide = bad and murder = bad) over a cliff and say, "Your family will be killed but ONLY if you ask me to pull you out of danger of falling to your death."?

If I understand your reasoning tdh  You WOULD have a free choice in that situation.  

You choose to fall to your death and save your family from some agent of mine killing your family, therefore suicide and hell.

You choose to sacrifice your family for your own life, therefore murder and hell.

And from reading your posts on this thread do you believe that for both decisions you had your free will the entire time?

[Promethium147]

Well, I just wanted to say - I'm off to start a Free Will thread right now, and Invite you. It should be up within the hour.    

I will call it "Free Will? NAWW!"

[myleviathan]

God's sense of justice was satisfied by Jesus' death.

He must be easily satisfied. Jesus is supposed to be alive isn't he? It doesn't count unless he stays in the ground. Oh, I forgot, theists can make up whatever they want to about God and then call it His 'sense of justice.'

[Promethium147]

I think this merely illuminates the fact - they fear dying more than death, pain and suffering more than freedom.

Once dead, I fully expect a complete redaction of my Death Experience, meself.

How liberating!

I clinically died once, tho, and recall it clearly - simply lovely, warm, soft, AHHH....

So hey, stop worrying, folks.