It’s easy to understand how we are supposed to treat others or our neighbor next door. Our conduct toward them and what we say about them that is permissible or lawful isn’t hard to figure out. It certainly doesn’t take 20 years of greek exegesis to discover that you should not slander your neighbor or to know what legal standards your neighbor must follow in order to be lawful. I am speaking of course about the basics of right and wrong. You should expect your neighbor not to punish the innocent. Isn’t this correct? The ideal way you are supposed to treat your neighbor is also the way you should expect them to treat you and others. There is a standard of lawfulness and proper conduct among men. This same basic standard that is expected of yourself and others in a civil society, is completely neglected and is totally absent in ascribing a standard of conduct to God. Why is this? Why is it that the standard of lawfulness and proper conduct suddenly takes a turn toward “lala land” when God, His conduct, and sense of justice and lawfulness is the subject? Are you allowed to punish an innocent neighbor and then declare that the sins of another criminal neighbor has been punished, and if not, why not? If the only reason why you state that you cannot, and God can punish an innocent party, is because He is God and you are not… What you are doing is declaring that God has different standards of justice, and that God has a different standard than you of how to treat your neighbors. Even He can violate your standard of justice. What is included in a statement that God can because He is God, is that God can punish an innocent without any cause for it by the innocent or the law, and therefore God can act without justification (legal justification that is). Legal justification is acting lawfully toward others within the bounds of the dictates of the law. We know it is wrong to steal from our neighbors and to lie about them, or to punish them for something that they are completely innocent of. Why is it that these simple policies and legal standards of how to properly treat your neighbor, even if you are a judge presiding over a court, are completely discarded when the subject is how God treats the guilty and the innocent? Christ said they hated Him without any cause or justification for doing so. He also said they sought to murder Him, also without any justification. And they even had Him put to death without any cause or justification according to the standards law. Why is it that a person who claims they have been studying the doctrines of God to get to know Him and His standard of justice, claim that God is able to do the very same things as Caiaphas, Pilate and the Pharisees, in violating the entirety of the standard of justice, and call the violation of the most basic prohibitions of jurisprudence, a superior justice? The laws for the lower courts come down from the higher courts, and the lower courts must conform to the higher courts same standard of law and justice. This is why appeals are taken to the higher courts, because the lower courts must be in conformity with the higher court’s standard of law. In this way, the higher courts keep the lower courts in line with the standards of law, to overturn or put right any unjust judgments made by the lower courts. It is not as though the higher court is allowed to violate the standard of law followed by the lower courts. For both higher and lower courts are held to the same legal standards of lawfulness. The lower court cannot punish the innocent and the higher court cannot either. The idea or philosophy that the higher courts can be looser with the standards of law, and even have the privilege to violate from the least to the entirety of the legal standards of jurisprudence, did not come from God. So, in a hypothetical situation if you, God and others resided on the same city block, is God allowed to punish the innocent and you are not, just because He is God and is allowed to violate the law? Where do you think this view comes from, God or Satan? God did not just give man a standard to follow that He does not follow Himself. There is only one standard for righteousness and lawfulness, and there is only one standard for litigating legal issues and criminal cases. The exact same standards of jurisprudence must be followed by all, in order for all to judge righteously and treat their neighbors lawfully. Why are your religious doctrines or beliefs allowing God to violate the most basic standards of legality? Why is it that you know without having to deliberate, that allowing your neighbor to operate by those violations of law that you ascribe to God, will result in evil doing with justification by your neighbor? I ask again, why is it? Or do you not want your testimony about God to be cross examined? Do you have something in your testimony that you want remain hidden from exposure to the standards of law? To those who this applies, are to those who this applies. Does this apply to you?