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.