Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Gnostic Bishop

Christianity is based on substitutionary atonement. Is it a moral religion?

Please act like you know there is more than 1 theory of atonement.

The case of substitutionary atonement that I wish to speak of is when God deemed it moral and just to punish his innocent son Jesus, --- instead of punishing the guilty sinners that God was to condemn.

The atonement theory you are speaking of is more or less specific to "penal substitution" in which it is believed that Jesus was "punished instead of sinners".

Again this is not the only theory of atonement (though it may be the only one you have heard of since it's the most common these days).

The strange part of this situation is that God had chosen to sacrifice Jesus even before the potential for sin was created, --- God had yet to create the earth, --- showing that what God was killing Jesus for, --- he had yet to create.

Not even sure how this poses a problem but okay.... Maybe you should explain your reasoning a bit better?

This was an arbitrary choice for God that was completely needless. God could have chosen to punish the guilty, --- what most call justice, --- or God could have found a moral way to forgive us. Instead, God chose to do the unjust and punish the innocent instead of the guilty.

Okay, so now we are back on track. God could have chosen to punish the guilty instead of the innocent and everything else. I agree but this is only a problem if one adopts a penal substitutionary view of atonement. Penal substitution is not the only view.

The sacrifice was to pay or bribe God to change his usual policy of punishing the guilty to immorally punishing Jesus. God could have shown mercy and justice but instead decided to use an unjust method to forgive us.

Again what you are arguing against is penal substitution. It's not the only view. I tend to agree that penal substitution doesn't adaquately describe the atonement. It's a good thing that it isn't the only view.

That means that to be a good Christian, you have to accept and embrace the immoral tenet of human sacrifice and the notion that the best form of justice, --- when one wants to forgive someone, --- is to kill an innocent party.

Sacrifice isn't typically penal in nature (which is what bothers you in the Jesus example you gave). When the old testament laws demanded the jews perform a sacrifice it wasn't typically done with the mindset that the sacrrifice was being killed in place of the jew that was sacrificing the animal. Sacrifices were mostly a way of showing humility toward God. They were typically costly to those who sacrificed.

As above so below.

At the end of days, God is to bring his law to earth.

Would you, as an innocent party, think it just if God punished you instead of the guilty?

Do you think that Jesus would ever preach such an immoral form of justice?

Regards
DL

Most all the problems you have with atonement are only present in the penal substitutionary model. Read about some others before you dismiss it all outright.

My personal view is probably a bit less mainstream than the other theories you will read about. But that's because I don't think Jesus' death was necessary to forgive our sins. God could have chosen to forgive us any way he wanted to. So why choose the death of his Son, Jesus as the way to forgive us our sins? Maybe it was the best way? Maybe it wasn't? Maybe it's just the way God decided to get our attention. Maybe it's deeper than that. I don't think anyone knows for sure how or why the atonement works, but we do know that God has elevated belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus as the primary starting point and focus of our salvation.

Everything else is just human theories as to how it all worked and those can never do justice to thoughts and intentions and heart of God almighty himself.