Here's what I hear you saying over and over with different approaches:
I asked you clearly: Is this not logical?
You and I did this very same routine a couple of years ago. You are still stuck in the same place as you were then. Your main complaint then, as is now... is the LOGIC OF GRACE.
Let's try to thread that needle together. I know that you understand the effect of a premise on logic because you cautioned a poster here thusly:
My point is the question about "which is the true religion" already assumes there is such a thing as a true religion! You can't start with that premise and get anywhere.
Just to point out a side fallacy of yours in this particular instance; you are already conceding the existence of God for the purposes of this discussion are you not?
Fact #1 You assume God exists
Fact # 2 Religion is innate to man since there has never been a society found that did not have one. EVER.
God has the authority to decide which religion is acceptable by virture of the commonly accepted definition of the word God, which you have already conceded..... even if you have a problem with Fact # 2. If you are going to chastise someone for assuming a correct way to approach God, then you must deny that God exists! (at least in the Judeo/Christian form)
Here's your basic circle of darkness:
There is no right religion. How do I know this? Because there is no God. How do I know this? Because there is no right religion.
This is total darkness.
So, notwithstanding the error....premise is the entire argument as you point out, and determines a whole chain of reasoning and questioning. You know this. Yet you pull this here:
On what basis could a Just God abandon Justice without self-repudiating every previous judgement against mankind from the destruction of Noah's day to the holocaust against Sodom and Gomorrah? That's the question worth asking.
Here you offfer two premises that are already at conflict before you even start to judge God.
1. God is Just
2. God Abandons Justice
Do you see a problem with your two premises here? First, on what possible basis could you assume God's Justice? Could it be perhaps your own sense of Justice that is at times arbitrary and subjective in areas of influence that are lawful for you? Think about that for a while ...will you?
Secondly, please explain further exactly how God abandoned Justice?
If you say his mercy abandons justice, then you are forced to deny the cross where Christ died, took the believers' punishment and paid their debt. If you say God isn't just in his methods, then you deny your first precept above in this instance where you declare "God is Just". In that case, your reasoning is simply circular unfalsifiable tautology.
Here's the deal for the common guy on the street. Justice is what ever God says it is....or else you are forced to deny God's existence.
Yet, that Justice will not be so foreign to us, so as to vilolate our own subjective experience, else we would display a total disconnect from being in God's image (though fallen) . Now I ask, do we have experience with the kind of Justice that God purports to offer in the NT? You decide.
If a theif stands before a judge and his relative stands up on his behalf and asks the Judge for mercy stating that he will pay the offended party 10 times the amount stolen if he will release the thief into his custody.... the Judge is NOW faced with TWO POSSIBLE REMEDIES.
(1) He can accept the payment. In that case, the offended party pockets the cash and ALL go home satisfied.
(2) He can reject the offer & pass prison sentence. In this case only the offended party goes home somewhat satisfied.
In either case, Justice is served no? It is the Judges' call.
There was no relative with a ten time payment for Sodom and Gomorrah, hence the Judgment was just then as it is now.
Is it hypocritical to critize God for showing mercy when we enjoy receiving it and at times enjoy giving it?
Well, is it?