Biggest Problem of Christianity (Vicarious Redemption)

[Rational Agnostic]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

 

[Rival]

Early Christians needed a way to be able to justify their messiah's early death without abandoning their belief in him.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

God set up a system of laws. Law breaking must be punished or God would not be a just God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

I learned its a roman thang nrear the byzatine era and othorodox rome. Jesus and god wasnt seen as a punisher till later.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

I love Jesus' parables, I really do - there are many invaluable things in there.

But the death, resurrection, redemption, acceptance, salvation narrative is complete nonsense to me - even when I was a Christian it seemed very off to me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The lamb one late antiquity and the mean one later greece (around the romans). The roman art was influenced by the greeks. I have to come back but so far I learned its the "vengeful" christ was later.

 

[Nakosis]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

Someone claiming to be the Son of God with all the miracles that was claimed he performed you'd expect there to be more record of.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Early Christians needed a way to be ale to justify their messiah's early death without abandoning their belief in him.

Is the god seen by the jews seen as vengeful?

 

[Rival]

Is the god seen by the jews seen as vengeful?

If you mean has He firebombed places and put people to death, then yes, I suppose.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

God set up a system of laws. Law breaking must be punished or God would not be a just God.

How not? Is he defined by his anger or his love?

 

[Twilight Hue]

God set up a system of laws. Law breaking must be punished or God would not be a just God.

Then all the angels must follow in kind if that's the case. They can be considered as lawbreakers as well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you mean has He firebombed places and put people to death, then yes, I suppose.

I mean is that how judaism sees it? (Im not a god-hated..just curious the differences in the two views of the same god)

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How not? Is he defined by his anger or his love?

By His justice.

 

[Rival]

I mean is that how judaism sees it? (Im not a god-hated..just curious the differences in the two views of the same god)

Yes.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Then all the angels must follow in kind if that's the case. They can be considered as lawbreakers as well.

I'm unaware of any laws governing angels that are mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There are many criticisms I could make of Christianity, but to me the biggest problem is also the central, most fundamental doctrine of Christianity, namely, Christ's supposed substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. The idea is that since humankind sinned by rebelling against God, that God must punish humanity for their sins, however, instead of punishing mankind, the story goes that God literally tortures and kills his own innocent son in man's place. This is the probably the most profoundly stupid and immoral doctrine anyone could come up with. Why would God torture and kill an entirely innocent person for the sins of others? Why could he not just forgive the sins of humankind without having to torture and kill his own son (who, paradoxically, also happens to be himself, but that's another issue for another post). I can anticipate that the response is that justice has to be delivered, and someone must receive a punishment, and Jesus willingly chose to take the punishment for mankind. But there is obviously a problem with this, since Jesus receiving man's punishment is not justice at all, in fact, it is simply indiscriminate vengeance on God's part. Basically, Christians are saying that God is so angry that he has to violently punish someone. It doesn't matter who he punishes, as long as someone gets punished. He can't just forgive humankind, he has to vicariously sacrifice himself to himself and punish himself to save humankind from his own indiscriminate anger. How can anyone think this doctrine makes the least bit of sense, from a moral or rational perspective? Do y'all actually think the guy who created the whole universe is this twisted and convoluted?

Excellent question.

Here's another one: If god is All Powerful? Why is it seemingly impossible for god to forgive people after they are dead, and now in possession (presumably) of all the Information?

That is the attitude of a very Spiteful being-- something I'd expect from a toddler, in fact.

Not an Ultimate Creator who is supposed to be OmniLoving....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God set up a system of laws. Law breaking must be punished or God would not be a just God.

So. God is not all powerful?

Because he can create Laws that he cannot break?

hmmmmm....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

By His justice.

Thats not love. Love doesnt involve the death of people but the life.

Where is gods love in justice?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, Christianity's salvation theology never made any sense to me even as a Christian. None of the different ways of viewing it make sense. It's really just excusing human sacrifice and makes God look nasty.

 

[Truthseeker]

Christ sacrificed Himself so He could bring grace and mercy to others. But this doesn't mean that He sacrifice was substitionary. Christians have misunderstood this. There was no original sin, that is a false understanding of the story of Adam and Eve. I don't even believe that Paul proposed this.