I think it's meant to be "justice", in the sense that all transgressions need to be punished. Not to deter others, or to deter the transgressor from further transgressions, but just because every wrong needs to be avenged.
Which is a consistent morality system, I guess. It's also primitive, and ineffectual when it comes to rehabilitating and unifying people. It leads directly to vicious cycles of violence.
That's my understanding of why God couldn't just forgive everyone. Someone had to be punished for the sin, because... That's how sin and punishment work in this system. That's why the animal sacrifices were necessary for the ancient Jews, and why the divine human sacrifice was necessary for all believers thereafter.
I thought he was supposedly omnipotent though. If he cannot bypass that rule than he is not omnipotent.
It's not a question of power. He could just not punish people, but they'd still be guilty (under his concept of justice). Basically the punishment is necessary because those are the arbitrary rules he made.
Now, this idea that every sin must be paid for in blood gets somewhat challenged by Jesus, who preached that we should forgive each other. It makes sense to forgive other believers, though, because he already paid the blood debt for them. Every sin retroactively accounts for some of Christ's suffering, so Christians should try to avoid it, but it's all forgivable.
The weirdest part to me is that the sacrifice only counts for believers. I kinda feel like that was tacked on to gain converts, because nobody would feel compelled to join a group that says everyone is fine unconditionally. "None can reach heaven except through me" (paraphrased) doesn't mean nonbelievers can't be pardoned, just that they wouldn't have without his sacrifice... But the Apostles make it clear that only believers get the benefit.
It's also weird that punishment in hell is eternal, despite mortal sin being finite. It'd make far more sense for a soul to atone for its sin until "justice" is done, then either go to heaven or cease to exist or something. Eternal damnation exists to scare people into converting.
I suppose the old problem of an omnipotent and omniscient deity combined with free will has been brought up here at some point? (It's a lot of pages to read.)
I haven't heard a good answer to that one yet, tbh.
This is what Epicurus said:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
The answer which contradicts the least amount of scripture is that God is "bound" by his own rules (like the concept of revenge-based justice). Which essentially means he's choosing to allow evil, making him malevolent. Which is giving the Old Testament God a lot of credit... He does a lot more than *allow* evil.
Edit: Made it clear who I was replying to.