I think that the notion that punishing the innocent instead of the guilty perpetrator is immoral. Be it a willing sacrifice as some believe with Jesus or unwilling victim.
I also think that God, who has a plethora of other options, would have come up with a moral way instead of an immoral and barbaric human sacrifice.
I agree with scriptures say that we are all responsible for our own righteousness as well as our own iniquity and that God cannot be bribed by sacrifice.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
I believe as I do because I believe that the first rule of morality is harm/care of children.
Do you agree that the notion of substitutionary atonement is immoral and that Gods first principle of morality is hare/harm and that this would prevent him from demanding the death of his son?
This lack of opposition to the premise given tells me that Christians may actually be more moral than what I give them credit for. They do not walk their talk in these cases and that is a plus.
Seems Christians actually recognize good morals even if they do not preach them.
I thank Christians for confirming my view that they are just following tradition, dogma and culture while not really following their God. Thank God for that. Any sane man would reject the bible God.