Flyer75 writes:
The "ritual" of the blood sacrifice began in the OT with Passover, Christ in the NT becomes the passover lamb.
What is it about killing something else, or something else bleeding, that forgives the transgressions of another? A sacrifice is giving up something of value to yourself, which is why you have a sacrifice of goods (including animals, as they were particularly valuable). Jesus wasn't a sacrifice in that sense because humanity didn't own him and lost nothing by giving him up. It was just needless brutality.
If someone murders your child, would you consider it justice if someone else died on behalf of the murderer? I wouldn't!
Flyer75 writes:
...he thought lustfully of the lovely 21 year 40 DD nurse attending to him.
This would be a "thought crime", a concept almost universally considered to be unjust. This is particularly relevant to moral judgments, as I will explain.
In order for someone to be held morally accountable they need to be a "moral agent", or "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong". This means that in a given situation they need to understand the difference between right and wrong, and be able to distinguish the results of their actions in that regard.
For example, in order for someone to be considered guilty of murder they would need to understand the difference between right and wrong, that murder is wrong, and that they were committing murder. If they lack any of those they would be considered either insane, wildly misinformed, or that their actions were accidental.
Moral agents must be able to conceive of immoral actions in order to really be making moral judgments. The merit of being moral lies in restraining oneself from taking immoral actions that would otherwise be pleasant or beneficial. Nobody is given much credit for avoiding immoral actions that they wouldn't want to do in the first place.
This is what makes the "sin of lust" so unjust: the restraint of preventing action based on his desire was a moral decision. Lack of desire isn't a moral decision in the same way that a rock's lack of desire to murder isn't a moral decision. God assigning punishment based on the presence of desire would simply hit everyone capable of making a moral decision, regardless of fault. There would literally be no way to be moral.