I don’t quite follow your question.

As best I can make out, you are asking if, given that God apparently can’t just forgive people but has to engage in a bizarre, elaborate, magical blood ritual in order to do that, God is therefore subservient to some higher power taking away his omniscience, crippling him, and thereby forcing him to only be able to forgive people by deploying a bizarre, elaborate, magical blood ritual.

My answer in that case is yes. Christian theology and soteriology is incoherent. It posits an all powerful God whose powers are extraordinarily suppressed and limited by some other, more mysterious higher power that God apparently cannot do away with or control, compelling God to be its slave, and thus obey strange laws of physics that therefore cannot have been created or caused to exist by God. As otherwise, he just wouldn’t create them, or would just remove them at will, and thus would never have to obey such a strange scheme, but would simply forgive people, like the rest of us have the power to do…somehow, ordinary humans are thus more powerful than God himself.

Since according to them, punishing a sinner cannot satisfy law of justice.

Does this mean that the god of christians is morally obligated to satisfy his own law?

if he doesn’t punish himself, he would have no choice but to punish the sinners ,but punishing the sinners does not satisfy the law of justice, then doesn’t this mean he would be obligated to appease his own law otherwise he himself would become sinner?

i am asking, doesn’t this mean law of justice is stronger than god?

If you cannot tolerate yourself being a certain kind of person, then you will not regard that sort of person as good either. This is the difference between a person being good and a person being useful.

See my discussion in the linked article Your Own Moral Reasoning about self-loathing etc. for context (e.g. “Nor would we like ourselves if we became the sort of person we loathe” etc.).

Or is it, “a person that can tolerate others and themselves being without a net…” that makes a little more sense, but I want to be sure I’m getting this.

How on Earth could you correct this natural bias?

No such thing exists in reality. So you are again talking about a non-existent species.

It’s also impossible even to build such a thing, for the reasons I already explained. Nor would such a thing naturally survive long enough to build a civilization.

As to Bloom and empathy: he is ignoring scientific facts; I am basing my beliefs on scientific facts. As in, the actual facts (psychology, neurology, sociology, and phenomenology) of empathy in the species Homo sapiens. Philosophers who ignore science are just writing pseudoscience.

Nevertheless, properly constructed (as in, on actually true scientific premises and not armchair assumptions and wishes), the basic notion that compassion must be moderated by reasonableness is demonstrably true. Game Theoretic models have well proved this; just as I cite and discuss in The Real Basis of a Moral World.

The study’s conclusion put the compassionate concern motive as counter to the selfish need to relieve one’s own stress.

You don’t understand the difference between doing things because they make you happy and doing them solely to avoid being made unhappy?

Wow. I can’t help you here. Until you figure that out, you won’t understand anything being said on this.

Richard, c’mon. The study’s conclusion put the compassionate concern motive as counter to the selfish need to relieve one’s own stress. They concluded that these sacrificial acts were selfless not selfish (syn. Self-interest). They don’t agree with the assertion you had hyperlinked it with.

While it may be true that compassionate concern MAY make one happy the study determined that it WAS NOT the motive of the study participants. Your proposed moral framework is about self-interest motivation and the study’s findings are counter to that.

You can say that I don’t know how to read science, as you have said to others, but it is all out there for anyone to read that wants to look at it. I’ll just leave it at that.

“Which is why, once corrected, the effect goes away.”

I’ve actually responded to this comment.

I wrote that you “you cannot force empathy. And even if you intelectually know these people can suffer like you, you’ll have more empathy for the more similar.”

How on Earth could you correct this natural bias?

Regarding your last point, I completely agree. But do they care about extinction? We value those things, but that does not imply they also must value the continuity of human species.

But you did not address my strongest point. The argument by Paul Bloom regarding empathy. He seems to reject empathy and favor ‘rational compassion’. Could you please give a short comment on that? If that’s not going to take much of your time. Thanks.

You don’t know how to read a science study then. See below.

Yeah. Compassionate concern makes you happy and satisfied. Thus proving my point: people act according to what satisfies them as a person.

You are confusing pain avoidance with pleasure seeking. Both can increase satisfaction state. What they found is that satisfaction seeking in altruism tends usually to be pleasure seeking. Though note the effect size: still a great many people do it for pain avoidance as well. Both are seeking self-satisfaction.