Why should I stop being a Christian?

I’m not hurting anyone, am I?
The biggest misconception of Christians, is the belief that Christianity is basically all good moral teaching and provides the only solution to heal a broken, hurting world.
Here are some reasons why Christian faith is damaging to yourself and others:

(I typed this article about a year ago when I was wrestling with my faith and the negative effect it could have on my world-view. These points still hold true, however, and are worth contemplation.)

1. 
   Have you ever worried about assurance of your salvation and turned to the bible to find it? You’re more likely to find an elevated sense of anxiety. The assurance is said to come from the Holy spirit working in your heart, but there is no detectable "feeling" or "knowledge" that produces any certainty. This lack of assurance can cause enormous anguish for those who struggle! This could be for themselves or their loved ones, "in danger". Is this a reasonable fear? Does God not care if you struggle?
2. 
   If you do happen to have the "feeling" and the security for yourself, you are still condoning the actions of a god who wishes to torture all unbelievers for eternity. Do you ever consider how unfair this is? It is unfair both from a predestination or a free-will standpoint. Would you not even investigate its validity before accepting such a doctrine?
3. 
   You are put under pressure to evangelize your faith. Have you ever felt uncomfortable with this and unsure of even what to say? Shouldn’t we be eager to share "truth"? Your beliefs sound ridiculous when you explain them to someone outside the church. This is because you have been subjected to years of indoctrination and suspended disbelief. If you summarized God’s "plan of salvation" into one statement, you would realize how twisted and sinister it sounds. The church has skilfully woven the gospel message into creeds, liturgies, and confessions like an art-form of embellished language to conceal it’s actual absurdity.
4. 
   Your world-view of humankind does not inspire greater morality, but becomes focussed on personal salvation as the intent of charity and "good works". The dilemma is that "works do not justify" but, you must do "enough" good-works to appear sincerely thankful and have "assurance" of being saved. However, you never know how much enough is. The end result is frustrated Christians who give up trying altogether or live out their lives in fear.
5. 
   You view certain ethnic groups (such as Jews who died in the holocaust) as perhaps being punished by God and therefore lose your sense of compassion, because they "deserved" to suffer. The same attitude can occur after a natural disaster that affects a "pagan" religious culture. In this way, we fail to sympathize with fellow mankind that desperately need our help.
6. 
   You separate yourself physically and mentally from your neighbours and community if they are unwilling to share in your beliefs. You may associate with them, but only under the pretense of "outreach". Segregation is actually taught as the responsibility of a practising Christian.
7. 
   We ignore the work of science and favour obscure Bible verses, taken wildly out of context. (Example: "Jesus said, only the sick need a doctor", therefore, I oppose vaccination.) This only serves to irritate health officials who are trying to protect society.
8. 
   We are not able to use our own judgement on matters of social justice, fairness, etc. We are taught that our own reasoning is corrupt and "sinful" and we ought to consult "God’s word" and the interpretation of a religious institution. Our thoughts are held captive and free-thought is discouraged. This is dangerous because the Bible compares "hate with murder" and "lust with adultery" and views them as equally sinful. Our common sense would dictate that these are things are on drastically different levels of harmful behaviour! It would therefore be correct to state that one can lead to the other, but dangerous and foolish to equate them. This could lead some to conclude, "if I’ve lusted, I may as well commit adultery" or "if I hate someone, why not kill him"?
9. 
   We attribute many circumstances and actions to the "work of the devil". Such claims are unfounded. There is usually a much more rational explanation. (Example: generational differences in worship that cause conflict. The reasons for this conflict is obvious because they are seen wherever two generations express their ideas.)
10. 
    We corrupt the imaginations and fill the minds of children with fearful stories of a fiery afterlife or a blissful heaven. How sad that we must destroy their innocence with our own "fear of the unknown".
11. 
    You are accused of a crime that you did not partake in, have no awareness of, or any guilty conscience that convicts you. You have not been read any charges (in any formal proceeding), have not had a chance to defend yourself, and have been presented no evidence. Yet, for this crime (original sin), you have been sentenced (and all humankind) to an eternal place of torment; Hell. The only escape, is faith in Jesus, who mediates on your behalf (if you were elected before creation). Will you accept this sentence without question? Does the "plan of salvation" make any sense, when God said repeatedly in the old testament that "each soul must die for his own sin" and "children will not die for the sins of their fathers"? Would God say one thing and do the opposite? Would he unjustly accuse us and then punish an innocent in our place? Do two wrongs make a right?
12. 
    It has been said that the church is not a place of perfect people but one where people are aware of their "imperfections". This is not the whole truth. The church actually teaches that people can do "no good" and that God sees "nothing desirable" in them. This is the antithesis of "perfect" and of simply "falling short". We are taught that we are objects of wrath that deserve nothing but to be thrown into the fire and disposed of. What effect does this have on your self esteem and sense of self worth? Could God not have foreseen the human condition before creation and could therefore have avoided the whole ordeal? Why did he create human-kind if he was unable to tolerate "predictable" human behaviour?
13. 
    The church uses a form of shame-based conditioning to implement its doctrines. In order to bring a law-abiding citizen to "repentance", they must first artificially produce feelings of guilt by pointing out your past thoughts, actions and mistakes that are considered "sinful". Then they make you resurface those feelings of shame and inadequacy and expose you for the wicked, morally depraved wretch that you are. The next step you are naturally expected to take, is to fall down on your knees, with a broken, sorrowful spirit, cry out to God for mercy, and confess that you are a sinner! The church then tells you, what you are in need of is "God’s grace". The irony in this is profound. The formula here is eerily similar to brainwashing tactics used on POW’s in the Korean war. Curiously, the end result of brainwashing is also described as "rebirth" once the target has accepted the new belief. Do you really think God needs this kind of process to draw people to him?
14. 
    The Bible is filled with extreme views that can be used to provoke hatred, violence and abuse of children, women, minority groups, or other cultures and religions. How can a Christian possibly defend these statements as the commands of a loving, merciful god? If we ignore them, we deny that all God’s words (in the Bible) are trustworthy and true and that he is in all things just, righteous and fair. If we obey them, we would need to enter into back into a primitive civilization of intolerance, slavery, abuse, sexism, racism and violent slaughter of disobedient children, homosexuals, "non-virgin" brides, etc... Is this progress of humanity? Why do we obey some old testament laws and not others? Who is the judge of which laws to accept and which to discard as "obsolete"?
15. 
    Christians partake in obscure rituals such as communion: "...therefore, my flesh is food for you to eat and my blood is for you to drink". What a disgusting thought! Why would Jesus say such things without proper explanation? The origins of this ritual are uncertain, but was also practised among pagans in Paul’s time. In the pagan culture of the 1st century, such practises would have been ubiquitous and common. In today’s culture, it is nothing short of crude and sickening.
16. 
    You have unreasonable expectations about prayer. If you view prayer as anything more than a ritualistic expression, you are deceived. There is no indication today of the power of prayer’s influence or that it produces any effect. Christians simply deal with this problem by rationalizing, "it’s (not) God’s will". This is the "easy-out" in any situation because it always explains the interpreted result. Too much reliance on prayer can cause a person to make poor decisions and not listen to their own feelings on the matter. It can also lead to reading unrelated events as "signs" and making a decision that counters ones own will. It can also be dangerous if you believe that prayer will guide a bus of teenagers through a snowstorm or heavy fog. Prayer does not overrule stupidity!
17. 
    We always pray for the sick and injured and ask for healing, but has God ever healed an amputee? Is anything impossible with God? Did he not restore lepers to health in the Bible? Do lepers not lose arms, legs and digits from their disease? There is no reason why God could not cause an amputated limb to reattach or grow back. Why should we think that he will heal any other sickness or disease? Why don’t we give more of the credit to doctors and scientists for their accomplishments?
18. 
    The Bible has errors that cannot be rationally explained within the Christian theology. There are however, very convincing alternative explanations to these problems if we are willing to accept that the Bible is not infallible. Many of the difficult passages in the Bible are not mysterious if one understands the motives behind the verse. For example: the quote from Jesus about "not throwing the children’s food to the dogs", and the Gentile woman who is willing to "lick up the crumbs", is a polemic by reactionary Jews who felt the kingdom of heaven was "first for the Jews", but the leftovers were for the Gentiles. These racial roots ran deep in society and also became embedded in the gospel writings. This portrays Jesus as having societal racist tendencies. Was it not Jesus who said, "For God so loved the world..." and "Love your enemies". Jesus in the gospel of Mark starts out with Jesus preaching in a Gentile territory and showing no partiality to Gentiles. Could both stories then be true? A Jesus that incites racism is not a beneficial model for society.
19. 
    You are living under a delusion... and that’s not healthy in the long run, only destructive! Don’t you care about the genuine pursuit of truth? The truth will set you free!

How the Christian Faith came about

I’m assessing how the Christian Faith actually came about, given that the Jews don’t even recognize Jesus as the Messiah. My theory is that the real Jesus was concocted from the teachings of a radical rabbi(s) but that much of the miraculous circumstances were attributed to him by legend. The problem is that there is no agreement on whether Jesus came from the line of David through Solomon (Matthew), or through David’s son Nathan (Luke). In effect, these geneologies are moot, since he is not born by natural birth but by the Holy spirit conceived in Mary. He also had no natural children to sit on the throne. Joseph’s lineage has no bearing on the messiah because he did not father Jesus, according to Matthew and Luke. Mary’s lineage does not factor in because that is not even recognised by the Jewish custom, since she is the mother. The Jews only recognise the biological father’s lineage by custom. Why would God choose to work his promises through the mother’s side or by a son through adoption when this would be automatic rejection by the Jews. More than this, one of the lineage of Joseph was cursed (the curse of Jeconiah, Jehoiakim and all their decendants) to never sit on the throne (of David) again. Also God detests human sacrifice and calls it an abomination. Thus, since Jesus is a human sacrifice for our sins, is this then contrary to God’s will? We as Christians believe Jesus is God incarnated, although it was his human nature that died, however, the Jews believe God cannot die, therefore it remains a human sacrifice.
Also, the true Messiah would bring peace to EARTH, not in heaven in a second coming. Therefore, there is even more trouble with the Christian Theology. The fact, however, is that Jesus perfectly fits the picture of Isaiah 53, as one whose death and suffering was the payment for our iniquity. The question though is... who is this suffering servant? Is this a messianic reference? If not, who is this passage referring to? The Jews say that the suffering servant is the Jewish nation which is despised by many and blamed for the world’s evils. The preceding chapters confirm this theory, as well as other verses in Isaiah speaking of the suffering of the Jewish nation which is considered "stricken by God and afflicted" and "carrying our iniquity". The problem is the wording in the English Bible that is slanted toward a messianic interpretation. The only reason we see Christ in this passage, is because we interpret it that way, even though the passage is still vague.
All the same, with Jesus portrayed as the Messiah, the Early Christians had to build up an entirely new theology to support Christ and a NEW covenant. It had to do away with upholding the absolutes of the Law and circumcision and based Salvation more on faith than works (of the law). The law, it states, was simply make our sinful state painfully obvious. The law only brought judgement on us because we are unable to achieve its demands. It makes the claim that we are under the curse of sin from the garden of Eden. Therefore we are SINFUL from birth, before a baby is even born, before it can even think at all. We are LOST outright, unable to do anything. We need Christ’s sacrifice and God’s divine election ( or random selection) to receive mercy. There is no guarantee that we are picked and no good deeds will give us any better chance.
These doctrines are needed to uphold the idea that Jesus died for our sins and that his sacrifice is sufficient for us. However, with conflicting ideas of the early believers and hold-fast to Jewish tradition, there is inconsistent doctrine and ideas. We are left with a circular approach to faith that we are: "saved by faith, not by works", however, our only guarantee of saving faith is if we bear fruit (works). Hence, the end result is, we need to do works. The more we do, the more likely we are to be elect.
The Christian doctrine shows that the early Christians and Gospel writers needed to make Christ fit with old Testament doctrine. However, they are misinterpreting some of the verses in Genesis about why Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden. God did not want them to eat from the Tree of Life and live forever and become immortal. Therefore, he sent them out of the garden and broke off the special fellowship he had with them. I don’t know exactly what He meant then, by "they would surely die". They didn’t "physically" die, therefore they must have died "spiritually" because God "couldn’t have lied" (perhaps, he said "you will surely die" as a threat but didn’t carry it out). The extent of the "spiritual death" should have been nothing more than what was already described in Genesis, the broken fellowship with God and the natural suffering and decay of life. In any case, the Christians believed that Adam and Eve’s disobedience was the sin that caused the whole world to be left under the curse and totally corrupted the hearts of mankind. This idea is extremely likely to be false. We are not totally evil, unable to do good. There is good in all/ most of us. For some reason, there are humans that are malignant. This could be because of generations of poor parenting, social-economic status, dysfunctional upbringing and environments of abuse, selfishness and corrupted world view. Paul’s unfavourable view of an "unregenerate" person does not reflect reality and therefore this doctrine is suspect.
I think it is possible that there was a man named Jeshua (Jesus) from Nazareth, who believed he was the Messiah and preached in that way (Never-mind that his lineage is not from the David line through Solomon). He believed he was the Christ, Messiah and deliverer. He knew his Jewish Theology and that of the promised Messiah. He knew the old Testament books inside out (the Bible says he was unschooled, but this is likely false.). He had read all the prophetic writings and all the predictions of the long-awaited annointed one. At one point, he also took a donkey and tried to make a Messianic approach into Jerusalem, like the scriptures. This, however, is one of the easiest of prophesies to fulfill. This was the first time that many people dared believe that he might possibly be the true Messiah. This is why they lined the streets on palm Sunday. They saw him as ushering in a powerful new kingdom. It is also highly likely this story is an invention.
The more difficult prophecy to fulfill was to die a sacrificial death, though nowhere does it specify, "on a Cross". I can’t imagine that he would take himself to the point of dying on the cross to fulfill a prophecy. He would have to either be insane, extremely delusional or the true Christ. He was also silent to his accusers to fulfill the scriptures according to the gospels. It is more likely in my view, that he was indeed crucified, but that it was not his intent. (This approach only works if we view many of the gospel words of Jesus as fabricated) He was likely crucified by the Romans because they saw him as a threat in starting an uprising or rebellion to usher in a new kingdom. At the time, religion and politics were intertwined and they saw the Jewish "kingdom of heaven" prophesies as real opposition to the Roman government. The crucifixion was later redefined to show that this was Jeshua/ Jesus’ purpose all along, and a fulfilment of God’s plan, and thus the Jesus movement was born.
He claimed that he was the "Son of Man", whatever that means. This term is used extensively in the book of Enoch, which may have been the source since it was written well before the time of Christ. There are many references in the Bible to the words, "son of God" as well. Even Adam was called a "son of God". However, he had said the father was greater than he, therefore denying that he was equal to God. Also, God had forsaken him on the Cross, according to last words, therefore, he cannot be equal or one with God. The Jews believe that God cannot die or take the form of a human. (However, the old testament God also took human form several times) The Christians also needed to make God into a 3 part Trinity even though God in the old testament says that "God is One." The doctrine of trinity is very confusing and makes it appear that there are 3 God’s or 3 parts of a God or 3 persons of God that obviously can be separated, that one can take the form of a human, die (even go to Hell) and be resurrected. The spirit part can indwell in thousands of human hearts at once.
I think it is also possible that the Gospel writers wrote the Gospel much later, after some legends arose, attributed to Jesus. There is high possibility of some pagan (meaning other religions of the day) influence in Christianity. (It was common for a newly fashioned god to be compared to other gods of the day to rival their power and influence.) He may have been a miracle worker, but likely many of these stories are mythical. Although the Gospels and Christian writings were meticulously copied, there were some early legends that had already crept in about Jesus. For instance, if Pauls letters were first, there is no mention by him about the virgin birth or angels and shepherds announcing the birth. There is very little detail about his life and his bouts with the Pharisees. Also it doesn’t mention that he was buried in a tomb which was visited by angels. Wouldn’t he at least have eluded to these events?
Given these points about legend creeping in, we cannot ignore the possibility that the entire Christ story (or the bulk of it) and his teachings are a fictional account. There is good reason for the church to form a seemingly historical account of their saviour Messiah which was predicted in the old Testament. The old Jewish doctrine was getting outdated and impossible to maintain. The people needed something new and it was not difficult to glean together many old prophesies about the forthcoming Messiah-power-figure. This was the chance they needed to spring forth a new religion out of the old. Of course, the usual response to the vanguard is extreme polemic given by the reactionary and radical groups. The radical church led the way in forging a new gospel account of their new saviour messiah. Perhaps there had been a man named Jeshua (Jesus) who was preaching the new radical ideas and was crucified by Caesar. This would have been a great opportunity (60 years later) to build up great myths around this "historical" radical. So a writer (or writers) in the early radical church, brought forth by Paul (among others), had gone through the scriptures for looking for Messianic quotes. They found Isaiah 53. The perfect building blocks for a Messiah story. The gospel writer under the name of "Mark" wrote the first account of the legendary Christ. This was the beginning story that would form the building blocks of what would later arise. The early form of the story was simple and radical, proclaiming that Jesus was the Christ and that his crucifixion was actually an atonement for our sins. His sacrifice was meant to be the perfect Old testament sacrifice, and God would then powerfully raise him from the dead. The message of Isaiah 53 of the suffering servant fit perfectly. Even though it wasn’t specifically about a crucifixion and a little ambiguous, it was just what they needed. Several factions in the church would add their reactionary view to it, that Jesus was only for the Jews, for instance. Then, the established view arose that the gospel was for jews first and then for gentiles (dogs... who could lick up the crumbs from the table), a polemic by other radicals not yet confident that gentiles had a full part in the gospel. Once the this book was written, the stage was set for others to follow. The book of Matthew was written with radical roots but with heavy reactionary influence. There was also discord about whether Jesus was a son of David or a divine son of God. The book of Luke developed after combining parables and theology from Mark and Matthew (plus an additional outside source gospel of "Q"). The book of John came up later from the church faction that preached that Jesus was the Logos, the third part of the trinity and the divine "Word become Flesh". This book is also heavy in combining elements of Greek philosophy and predestination (and perhaps has Gnostic influence). This book shifts away from the typical works-based salvation approach.
The point I’m trying to make is that Jesus does not totally fit the bill as the promised Messiah. His acceptance by early Christians is partly due to ignorance of the real Jewish Messiah, Legend and myth that sprung up later, Jesus’ total self confidence and authority that he is the one Messiah (if he did exist, or perhaps he did not speak any of what is attributed to him), the Christians rising up and building up Theology to support Jesus’ claims that he is the Messiah, the many prophesies that were distorted out of context and applied to Jesus, and the building up of the Christian Bible and the work of interpreters that had a biassed view that Jesus was the total fulfilment of the prophecies. Also, they believed that Jesus would fulfill all his prophesied work in a second coming. This should not be necessary for the real Messiah.
So, why is it that the Saviour of the world has come, and I am sitting here debating if it actually is Jesus. All we are left with is a bunch of "extremely well preserved" ancient writings that are ambiguous and contradictory in nature. This is the only basis we have for forming our "faith". We don’t have any measurable "evidence" that we can depend on. Everything is left open to interpretation. Therefore, we have a mangled mess of Theology that we have to sift through and decide what is accurate. That is why we have different denominations that have settled on some core beliefs to maintain focus and not preach something different every Sunday. That is why I get the feeling that sermons today are very "safe", focussing on uncontroversial topics that don’t raise questions about the core of our beliefs. For instance, there will be no mention of why Jesus says, "the Father is greater than I" or that Jesus says, "How can the Messiah possibly be a descendant of David?".
The reason that I even began to question my beliefs is because of unanswered prayer, my perceived injustices I felt about original sin, and about the punishment of Hell. Why does the Church think that Jesus will live up to his promises about responding to prayer, doing seemingly impossible things like healing or giving us anything we need, when it is obvious he never does. This has hints of superstition (A widely held but irrational belief of supernatural influences.) Why do we pray for the outpouring and power of the Holy spirit, like the early Church when we haven’t seen that kind of outpouring in 2000 years. It could also be that we are delusional meaning: "a belief or impression that is not in accordance with generally accepted reality.
I speak all these things with growing frustration because it is so hard to understand the truth, and the Church has wandered so deep into these beliefs and held them so strong. It would be awful if nothing we believe about Christ is true. However, I also believe that if we are believing a lie, God is not about to enlighten us either. He certainly never has of any other "false" religion.

Two wrongs don't make a right

The theology that Christ "paid the price" for our sin isn’t plausible. For a sinless person to die for the sins of another, let alone ... the whole world, would not be justice. In fact, it would be better observed that injustice has increased. The concept of "paying the debt" of sin only makes sense because it is a metaphor related to a money debt. This metaphor implies that something is owed to God and that Jesus can pay that debt with his death and release us. However, when applied to punishment for the "crime of sin", it is misleading. Jesus’ death would not erase some alleged "sin-debt". God doesn’t need anything from us and he could offer mercy at his own good pleasure. Don’t we do the same with our children? Since God is the final authority in the universe, he doesn’t need to suffer and "die" (if that were possible) to appease some over-ruling law of divine justice.
Definition: (Oxford English Concise Dictionary)
just >adjective 1 morally right and fair. 2 appropriate or deserved.
In any possible definition of justice the punishment must be paid for by the offending person. God himself in the old testament is opposed to the concept (of an innocent atoning for sin) (Exodus 35). God wouldn’t allow Moses to bear the sins of the people. If God had said, "No Moses, you cannot, due to your sin", it would have implied that only Christ could. Instead God says, "those who have sinned are the ones who must be punished."
The "original sin" concept is also implausible since God himself in the Bible states in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel that the sons will not be punished for the sins of the father. The one who sins is the one who must die. This is a "sensible" reasoning that is closer to our concept of justice. Would God then also punish all of man-kind for the sins of Adam? Would he then send a saviour to save only those who "repent and believe"? Would he then also have ordained it all from the very beginning? Would he use an obscure book such as the Bible to relay this message? It doesn’t add up.
Then there is the irrationality of a loving God punishing humans "eternally" for unbelief. A "just" God would have worked out a reasonably "just" punishment.
Punishment serves 3 purposes:
1) To deter, or to keep others from committing the act being punished.2) To remove threats to society so that they do not put others in danger.3) To rehabilitate, or change destructive behaviours.
Hell accomplishes none of these.
In order for us to call God "just, loving and merciful", we are forced to re-define all of these concepts to make them consistent with the character of the Bible God, the actions of which are "anything but" our current definition of these qualities. If we are honest with ourselves, and we allow ourselves, for a moment, to think "the unthinkable" (lest we are punished by God) then we can objectively analyse who the Christian God really is.

discussion of justice v.s. forgiveness

These are my thoughts about why Christianity distorts the meaning of justice and forgiveness in order to make sense of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. My view is that the crucifixion atonement was not the idea of the old testament God but rather a Christian interpretation of Jesus' untimely death at the hands of the Romans. At least, that's my present theory.

Forgiveness:
True forgiveness can only be offered by the person who is affected by the hurtful action. All offences must be hurtful towards for God in order for him to forgive them. Also, God could choose to forgive those offences that were hurtful to him, without inflicting punishment on a type of "scapegoat".
It is kind of odd when the person who is victim to an offence does not forgive, and God who is not directly affected "does". To me, every evil action offends humans and God separately. Think of a Jewish mother who watches her husband and children get murdered during the Holocaust. God may forgive the Nazi officer who repents of his sin and therefore inflict the punishment he deserved on Jesus, but the horrified mother who is the true victim may never forgive him. Therefore he will not have received forgiveness from the person most affected.
It is difficult to imagine how God is actually offended or affected by our crimes on this planet. I know he made us as image-bearers, but that doesn’t fully explain his offence to all our petty deeds or even evil crimes.
Justice:
True justice must be inflicted on the offender who is responsible for the sinful actions. As the divine law-giver, he could also punish offences that men inflict upon each other. The idea that sin could be punished independent of the perpetrator is very odd. My view of the cross, is that God is diverting his wrath onto a willing substitute, namely a part of himself. A more appropriate term for this is "propitiation", which means "to win or regain the favour of" or "appeasement", which means "placating someone by agreeing to their demands". This definition is more in line with the "satisfaction theory" of atonement. Call it "God’s justice" if you will, but it does not fully fit the human definition of justice. In fact, the word "placation" is not a word that you would prefer to use for a loving God. It is reminiscent of the ancient volcano gods who required a virgin sacrifice to appease them.
Therefore, I am not disputing that God couldn’t work his reconciliation and justification through the cross but why it was necessary that Christ suffer a painful, brutal violent death in order for God to offer "forgiveness" is difficult to understand.
Additional thoughts:
God is very much like our law and legal system. He is not directly affected by our violent sinful deeds; other humans are. Unless God personally feels the pain of each person who is a victim, and surely God couldn’t feel the pain, or understand and feel hopelessness, or frustration or anger, and so could not actually be in a position to forgive.
Just like the human justice system, he can only punish based on violation of established laws, decrees and ordinances he has set. The only person acceptable to God is the one who obeys the laws perfectly. The old law, the ten commandments were not out of reach to obey, although some of them were likely to be broken occasionally (ie. Honor your father and mother). When Jesus arrived on the scene, however, he changed the interpretation of the laws by showing that God judged the heart more than outward actions. In this way, it became impossible to fully obey each law since it raised it to an "internal purity" standard. Also, the law was summarized by Jesus as these 2 commandments:
1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.
(Obey each of his commands perfectly all the time with proper heart motivations)
2. Love your neighbour as yourself.
(Treat fellow mankind in a moral, decent way, according to God’s law)
Therefore, God’s punishment is based on trespassing his laws and decrees, and therefore he must punish the sinner to be perfect in his justice. However, since God’s justice requires death, eternal separation from God and/or hell-fire (according to Christian dogma), he would have to throw every single living person into the flames. We’d deserve it too, so they say, because we violated God’s perfect standard. So for God to be perfect in justice, he would have to punish us, and since we require the due penalty, we’d be on the hook for hell. Therefore, in order to save us, God must slacken off, or outright alter, his standard of justice in order to set us free or release us. God clearly stated that "the soul who sins, it shall die". This leaves no room for a substitute.
In the same way that the human justice system cannot forgive the criminal for his deeds to the victim. Neither can God forgive the sinner for the crimes the person committed against a human victim. He can only forgive the trespass concerning his moral laws and commands. This is a profound difficulty, since the sinner cannot receive complete forgiveness from God alone. This means that God really doesn’t avenge or judge every misdeed, nor can he truly forgive. For instance, how could God forgive a Islamic terrorist who participated in Sept. 11, even if he became Christian and repented? This forgiveness won’t erase the hurt, heal the pain or lessen the anger that the families feel. God could simply forgive him for disobeying his command and committing murder. Ultimately, it wouldn’t make much difference if he killed 1 person or 3,000, he is only breaking 1 command and God is not in the business of tallying up sins or measuring the gravity of each offence. God is willing to forgive a multitude of sins for the same package deal that comes with faith in Christ.
We’re told that He punished Jesus for our sins, but we don’t know if it was for the cumulative sins of mankind or simply the weight of God’s anger against sin in general. Did he punish Jesus in a measured amount of wrath, proportionate to the seriousness, and equal to the number of total offences? If he did, he would need to punish Jesus for an eternity, like he had in mind for us. It’s true that Jesus was innocent before God, and that he had the divine power to defeat Satan and overcome the grave, but if God was pouring out his wrath of sin on Jesus, then Jesus’ sacrifice could not possibly have accounted for the enduring force of God’s anger. Or would we say that since Jesus was God, he alone could carry the full weight of God’s anger at collective mankind and somehow could absorb an "eternal" punishment in one afternoon. If Jesus’ innocence alone is what acquitted us, then God wouldn’t have needed to punish Jesus at all, since he is the mediator who represents mankind, and lived a perfect life for us. We could then be justified by accepting Jesus’ life as our perfect moral example. How does the death and sacrifice of an innocent human-being bring about reconciliation anyhow? It certainly is not accomplishing justice in any sense. Once again, the only way we can account for the cross death and suffering as atonement, is to see God as a raging "volcano god" whose needs appeasement and placation.
Another problem is that the old testament has several views of God, each of which has ample mention throughout the books. There is the God who demands sacrifice and atonement through animal offerings and there is also the view of God which does not demand sacrifice and can forgive through repentance alone. It appears that one view of God is concerned with authoritative obedience to direct orders and instructions. The other view shows God concerned with the state of the heart as much as perfect obedience. One God view is concerned with healing the people and being reasonable, the other about glorifying himself and displaying his power and wrath. Are these truly one and the same God? Or are there different opinions in the Bible about what God is like? Which is more likely?

Thoughts about Old Testament judgement and justice

Preserved source material
The cool thing about the Old testament and even the New testament, is that much of the original meanings have been preserved from antiquity. Even with some scribal editing and manipulation in the ancient days, the Old testament Bible has never been (or could be) re-edited to serve the purposes of a biassed Christian agenda. In other words, the Christians couldn't modify the old texts to suit their needs and get away with it.
The only changes that have been made are minor wording changes that can often be detected by comparing different versions. The editors of ancient times didn’t have the tools necessary for quick and tidy revision, and could only revise through copying or total removal of verses. It was done through tedious writing processes on ancient scrolls and parchments which also stifled attempts at editing. The translators today are skilled at glazing over contradictory and controversial verses to make them mean something more appeasable. Having said that:

God's justice
The old testament appears to not be consistent with the new testament with its insane "Hell doctrine" or even an afterlife. I read through the first 4 books of the Torah and there is nary a mention of a supposed afterlife with a fiery Hell for the disobedient or faithless. It appears that the wicked receive quick and terrible destruction and those in God’s favour (ie. The covenant people) receive innumerable blessings.
The people seem to have a certain amount of free-will in choosing God, but God does appear to be able to affect behaviour and harden hearts at will. This hardening of the heart does not yet indicate that those same people are "damned to Hell". There are several verses that perhaps indicate some sort of "Christian afterlife" like "blot out under heaven " (under the sky?) or "blot out of your book" (book of covenant blessing/favour?) but these can easily be understood as God killing a person in the physical realm, here on earth. There is no presupposition to a fiery hell for disobedience or unbelief. This notion is strengthened by observing the described punishment for the disobedient. They are all in the form of earthly suffering, calamity, sickness, oppression, disorder, even crop failure and erratic weather. There is not even a hint of there being a sadistic, gratuitous suffering in an eternal lake-of-fire we call Hell. Now that raging, vengeful deity of the old testament doesn’t appear half as bad as that "Believe-in-me or go-to-hell" God described in the New testament.
The blessings of the "old" covenant always appear to be in the form of innumerable descendants, many possessions of cattle, riches and beautiful wives, the best pastures and land, freedom of oppression and victory over enemies, power and influence, wisdom and strength. There is no mention of a glorious heaven and of storing up treasures for heaven. There is a definite spiritual kingdom realm which has power and reigning influence on earth, but that does not translate into the immortality theories of the Greek philosophers (Isn’t this a case of us trying to be like God?). The blessings and favour of God appears to live on through the children of the faithful, hence, the generational connections. Obviously, there had to be some later revision to allow for wicked or righteous children who didn’t follow suit. These blessings or curses did not translate into heaven or hell, salvation or damnation.
This difference in theology is striking since you would think such a concept would at least deserve a mention in the Torah. However, the silence on this issue is extensive and profound and has caused large-scale difficulty in reconciling the two testaments in any logistical/believable fashion. The question of the day being, "What happened to the disobedient, before Christ and the new testament, in terms of the afterlife?" The answer is extremely obscure. There is no doubt that there were people of the covenant saved, but what about the rest? Were all those in the covenant saved? These questions throw all of Christian theology into disarray and led to all these confusing discussions in the Epistles (such as Romans).
Then in Exodus, God makes a statement that seems to contradict the whole Christian redemption concept. Moses asks God if he can die in the place of the people and take their punishment. God says, "Noone can carry the sins of another, each person must die for his own sin." (Ex. 32:32-33) Moses was not only unable himself to atone for the peoples sins, but God asserted that each must die for his own sin, removing the possibility of any innocent dying in place of a sinner. "Excuse me, Christian God. Aren’t you forgetting your big kahoona plan about sending your son to die for the sins of everybody, (or even of just the elect)? Are you saying that concept is unreasonable? Why don’t you tell Moses right now that you’ve already got a saviour-sacrifice lined up?" The fact that God (old testament scribe theologians) didn’t allude to this makes clear that Christian theology was not yet thought up at this time. Even "God" doesn’t yet appear to be aware of this plan. "Hello God, check your planner/ schedule. Remember your Messiah- Christ plan of salvation??? That thing all of history hinges on, starting in the garden of Eden? The people you elected to salvation or damnation before the earth was formed? That was dependant on that concept you just dismissed as being "out of the question".
It seems in the Old Testament, sin was always dealt with swiftly. There was either a large scale slaughter, a plague, or execution or, in the case of God’s beloved Moses, he couldn’t enter the promised land as punishment. Apparently, God still had a use for him and couldn’t wipe him out just yet. In any event, sinners were the disobedient or the ungrateful, and God was angry with them. These people had to be wiped out unless there was some counter-action taken (usually a sacrifice, or other appeasing act) to stop a slaughter or plague. If an atoning sacrifice was made, usually God would forgive them, but sometimes he would still unleash his fury (even after forgiving them).
Today, the church would have us believe that God is tallying up our sins to convict us on judgement day, but if we are washed with the blood of Jesus, we can skip the punishment. If we have faith in Jesus, all our sins will be erased and God will accept us as holy. Is this the same God as the old Testament? How does this God suddenly put aside his anger and decide to sacrifice himself for the sins of others? Is that within the old testament God's character? Why is it that only a part of his trinity-self could still his anger against sin? Is it not within God’s own power to forgive apart from a brutal sacrifice? How is it that he could essentially "punish himself" to avoid punishing us? Is that like me biting my finger when I’m angry instead of striking my child who deserved punishment? Wouldn’t it be smarter to simply forgive by forgetting your anger? The Christian apologetic says that this would contradict God's divine justice. Wait, that sounds like the God of the old testament... but, no. He wouldn't punish an innocent substitute and release the sinner! That doesn't sound like "justice" to me.