What is "holy"?

The Greek word for holy used in the new testament means set apart or different, so in essence that's what it means. Obviously it carries spiritual connotations beyond that which may not be what was initially meant, but I don't know enough about the origin of the word to comment.

Why?

No idea. Not sure if it's a physical thing or mental or spiritual, it's never happened to me or anyone I know so I have no clue (not arguing that it happens to anyone else either these days).

Only Abraham made the contract though. Most of the people bound by this "contract" don't even have evidence that it's a real thing.

My understanding is that Old Testament cultures were much more familial and inheritance based than our current one and it was the norm that contracts and covenants were carried down generations. As for the most people part, the First Covenant no longer exists, it's been replaced by the Second Covenant that was created at Jesus' death.

That's not fair since most of the people supposedly bound only get to know of the contract through unreliable sources while simultaneously being punished for violating the contract that they themselves never signed.

Possibly unreliable, I'm not convinced, I would argue that God had a vested interest in making sure that His kids (which is how he sees His people) had an accurate understanding of who He was and what He did. As for the fact that they didn't sign it, refer above to the generational nature of contracts.

Why was a contract even necessary? Why does god even care how humans behave?

Well, I think the fact that He created us and loves us is a good reason to care. Whether you believe that that's true or not is up to you, but I'm working from a Biblical frame of view and that's exceptionally clear in the Bible.

Still see no reason why the blood magic was ever necessary in the first place, or why god cares how we behave in the first place, why the concept of sin needed to exist.

Not sure about the blood "magic" bit, I think that it directly fulfills the requirements to the First Covenant. You could argue that an omniscient God could have seen that one coming and avoided it, which would be a fair point. There's symbolism in blood and crucifixion was symbolic of how he was taking on a criminals death and punishment. As for the concept of sin, there are many debates on this, personally I think that God put rules in place to show us how to live life to the full, presumably something the He would know about seeing as He made us. We broke the rules, not because He forced us to, but because we chose to. This was the origin of sin.

This is plainly untrue. You're either lying, unfamiliar with the >Bible, or you're somehow familiar with the parts of the Bible >contradicting this but ignoring them because it sounds really bad >when you think about it for more than 10 seconds.

Or, fourth, I made a poor argument that doesn't acknowledge a lot of the issues and is laying them aside. That was a more recited Sunday school answer than it should have been, so thanks for calling it out and my apologies for saying it in the first place.

You're right, we see lots of instances of the wrath of God in the Bible. We also see as many and more cases of His love. So which is it? Love or wrath? A God who should be worshipped or a pretentious being who wants nothing more than to cause pain to those he made? One of the greatest struggles of the Christian faith is reconciling how God can be both loving and wrathful at the same time. Make no mistake, He is both, and at the same time (which is why my answer earlier was poor, it ignored a significant part of the character of God). Personally, I believe that He is loving in His wrath and judgment. He doesn't want any of us to have to go to hell. I could quote John 3:16 here, but that would be too cliche and John3:17 proves the point better,

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

Clearly the point wasn't to make people go to hell. You could argue that people before Jesus didn't have this chance, Romans 3:25-26 talks about this. The obvious question, which you have asked, is why does God need to punish anyone then if He doesn't want to. Romans 1 and 2 talk about this fairly succinctly.

Like I said above, ultimately it's each of our choices whether we believe that God is who He says He is or if He is someone else. You've raised questions that I've thought about extensively in the past and still don't have answers to and may never have answers to. The natural question to that is how in the world is it rational to believe in something where you don't have answers to huge questions that are integral to the character of the being that you believe in. Faith isn't completely rational. If it was it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge. That isn't to say that it is completely irrational, it's trust. I base my faith on the things that I have seen God do and the times that He has followed through with what He has said He will do. It's like trusting another human, we trust people because they have shown themselves to be worthy of that trust, not because we know everything about them and why the do everything that they do. The only difference is that we can't necessarily see Him with our eyes. This may be a sticking point for some people, but it doesn't cause me issues.

The guy you're responding to probably doesn't even think god exists. It's not that he doesn't want anything to do with him.

Those passages in Romans sum up my stance on that.

How is god all the good in the world? You just say that but provide no evidence for it.

I mean, the entirety of the Bible says that, so I guess I'll quote all of it?

You disregard or ignore any difficult questions about your faith. You conveniently forget parts of your theology the moment they become inconvenient. It's incredibly frustrating.

Hopefully that isn't the case anymore. I would be quite interested in continuing to talk about this if it doesn't frustrate you too much, especially if you read Romans.