Then, I suspect that the alternatives are to design us to be perfect but without a free will or to not create us at all. Or God could remove all temptation and we would praise Him for being loving to us that way.
Or He could choose not to take offence to something He knew was coming and could have easily prevented.
Everyone has God's law written in their hearts and that's how they know right from wrong.
No, they don't. Nobody has ever been able to establish a universally agreed upon moral ruleset. Therefore, not everybody knows right from wrong.
Without any clue of Jesus, many people are indifferent about their sins. In fact, people are oblivious of their sins because they don't even know the way God works. Even I commit sins that I don't know are sins until God reveals them to me. Some people aren't even threatened with eternal ****ation. This is exactly why we need a Savior who loves us despite our sin.
No, it isn't. That doesn't relate in any way to the preceeding statements, nor does any of it justify the ****ation of anyone.
If you kill someone in a perfectly just world, you would die with the same amount of pain inflicted on your victim.
No, because that isn't even approximately just. Harming one person in reprisal for harming another person is only adding to the total amount of harm. Trying to equalize the perpetrator and victim is both petty and vindictive. It is exactly and unequivocally what "eye-for-an-eye" means, so barring cognitive dissonance, I can't really see why you would object to the term.
If you choose a lifestyle contrary to the preceptive will of God, you will get a life separate from God, therefore separate from His blessings.
Being in a situation that prevents you from meeting God's demands should not be causing Him harm. It certainly shouldn't be a punishable offence.
I get what you're saying. I assume you are referring to the laws that mean you can't say God's name in vain or laws that say you must put God first in your life. Basically the first 4 10 Commandments, right?
No. I am referring to your claim that it is justifiable for Him to condemn us for failing to do exactly what He wants, despite our inability to bend reality to His will.
1 You can disregard the maker
So? It's still the maker's fault.
2 It requires a skilled technician, a Savior
Sure, or anyone competent enough to correct the mistake or prevent it from happening (like, I dunno, an Almighty God, or something?).
You said it was about sin. Even after I defined sin. Even so, our ethics are based on moral laws which God gave us, the ones He has written in our hearts.
That line of discussion was about conscience; something I explicitly said has
absolutely no bearing upon sin.
But if we are not independent of causality, then our choices have consequences.
Yeah.
A capricious god is not a just god.
Why not?
If the rules are made and enforced through arbitrary and inconsistent whims rather than reasonable goal-oriented decisions, they aren't going to be justifiable rules.
Here the point was that if we were to regard our earthly authorities in this way, we should do so a lot more for the ultimate authority.
The point fails, however, as treason doesn't carry a high penalty "because they deserve worse for attacking an authority". The penalty is high because endangering the highest authority over a nation is liable to endanger the nation itself. If an almighty being controls the universe with the highest authority, nothing we ever do could possibly endanger either.
No where in this definition says justice is a deterrent to crime.
Preventing crime or other wrongdoing is the sole and entire reason for its existence. That's what makes it
justice, and not
spite.
It doesn't matter. Everyone still has a sense of right and wrong. If not from God [of the gaps], where do morals come from?
From the fact that living peacefully in a social group requires behavioural conformance.
