The fact is I still don't understand what your beliefs are regarding the atonement. Could you summarize in a paragraph or two which aspects of Christianity you believe and which you reject?
I would rather not summarize what I do and don't believe about Christianity because it's complicated and making summary statements rarely expresses what I think about something. For example, I generally reject the writings of Paul/Saul, but acknowledge that not everything he says is untrue in itself.
I do not believe in inherited or Original Sin. This contradicts free-will/free-choice and makes God a kind of sadist who predisposes man to a condition that he needs saving from, which ultimately is all God's fault, as part of some Master plan. How can a person love such a God, if deep down they believe that whatever sinful ways they have, there is some base of predisposition that was not their fault? Some may steal, some may lie, some may be unfaithful to their partner, some may murder, and whatever individual choices they make they might own, but the thing beneath it is the predisposition to take *some* sinful action, and Pauline Theology places this squarely upon God Himself. I think this is blasphemous.
When Christ walked the earth, He did not preach "wait until I am killed and resurrected, then you will have forgiveness". He preached repentance of sins. In order to repent, one must fully own their actions, without blaming God. Christ also preached that forgiveness of sins was conditional on an individual's willingness to forgive others their sins against them.
What about "eating my flesh" and "drinking my blood" - for the "remission of sins"? Doesn't that have to be done after some sort of Sacrifice? I believe these phrases (that is, the eating and drinking parts) are metaphors. The early History of the Church was that it was a kind of
Essene Judaism. Most of the new converts did not eat animal flesh and did not drink alcohol. They were strict vegetarian. Christ asking for fish post Resurrection and helping catch a lot of fish (as well as fish at the feeding of the multitudes) are, imo, very likely later additions. That would make sense, as most of the pagan world would not likely accept Christianity if they had to give up meat. So then what does it mean? If Christ was Vegetarian and Essene, then "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood" is the same thing as eating plants (and their seeds) exclusively instead of dead things, and abstaining from alcohol (as another partially dead thing). To this point, I refer to the Genesis Creation account. On what day did the waters recede and plants first come forth? The Third Day. The reference to a sort of Resurrection or Life coming forth is tied to "the Third Day".
So what about Abel (in the Cain and Abel story) offering up the fat of his flock? What does this mean if not sacrifice? If one compares Abel to Christ (both being Good Shepherds), some things become clear. Abel protects the flock. Christ protects His flock. Cain has evil intentions, but they aren't clear exactly what they are, and why Cain kills Abel. Abel is protecting the flock - from thieves and murderers that don't come through the *Door (that Abel protects)...instead trying to come in another way, and the Sheep don't know their voice, as they know Abel's. Here it is clear to me what Cain's desire and sin was. He wanted to consume the sheep and Abel stood in his way, that is why he killed him. Abel is able to "offer up" the "fat of his flock" because his sheep are protected from wolves and able to get fat. It doesn't mean he slaughters them, digs out their inward fatty bits and holds them up to God!
If we read Psalms, there is this:
Psalms 51:14
Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.
It seems clear to me that God does not delight in either sacrifice or burnt offering. What about the last verse, doesn't it seem to contradict all before it? If you consider Abel again offering the "fat of his flocks" it makes sense. Abel was not a murderer. He didn't kill his animals.
