Atonement
- If theologians contend that ignorance of God's atoning scheme prevents souls from being damned, isn't it then cruel and futile to spread the good news to them? For once they are no longer in ignorance, they can no longer escape damnation if they reject the teaching (as some will inevitably do). Missionary work can thus in this sense be regarded as a cruel activity, for it results in damnation for some individuals.
- 3) Another problem is in the doctrine's moral content. Is it really justice to make an innocent man suffer for the wrongdoing of others? What would we think of a judge who knowingly sentenced an innocent man for the crime of another? He'd be universally condemned and removed from his post. But this is what the doctrine says God did. Man got a reprieve from punishment based on an idea every society has abandoned as unethical. If sin must be punished, there is no justice in relieving the sinner and placing the burden upon the righteous. Of course, there is another illogical idea that follows from the doctrine - that God, angry with the sins of men and women, punished himself, since Jesus is God, before he can forgive them.
- 4) If Jesus' death paid a debt owed by man to God, how is it that a debt that is already paid needs to be further forgiven? A response that the debt is owed to Jesus seems lacking, as the doctrine of the Trinity holds that God and Jesus are one and the same. If this is the case, what you do for one you do for the other. Besides, the sacrifice was made voluntarily, without consulting man. How then is an obligation incurred?
- 5) Consider the nature of the sacrifice. Literally, the word sacrifice means the forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of something considered to have a higher value. Everyone understands the meaning. If Jesus was actually sacrificed, why isn't he still dead? If I lose one of my sons, he's gone for my lifetime. But Jesus was in fine shape to return to earth on the 3rd day, having come from heaven and a few days later ascending into heaven to reign with God the Father for all eternity. This hardly seems like meaningful sacrifice.
Besides, when you think about it, Jesus was divine and so knew in advance how long his suffering would last. He could also alleviate his own suffering by placing himself in a state of euphoria if he so chose. If he chose to suffer, it was his choice. He controlled his own destiny and experience. Thus, he cannot be regarded as some sort of sacrificial lamb, as so often depicted. In the same way, God the Father cannot be considered a grieving parent. He knew when the suffering would end and that the death would be of brief duration and in human form only. Viewed this way, the crucifixion is a sham, and the so-called "sacrifice" is one in name only.
As a result of the above logic, it appears reasonable to conclude that there is considerable doubt as to the validity and viability of the Doctrine of the Atonement.
Atonement: PAGE 1, (2)
