The substitutionary death was required for justice. It allows God to be both just and merciful to the sinner. Without it, God would have to forgo justice in order to be merciful.

Substitutionary death is not justice. How is it just for one being to take the punishment of another? To me, that is the ultimate injustice.

Only in the most small minded way could that be considered just.

You quote Stephen Crane as saying a universe without God doesn't care about our rage, let alone the suffering of the innocents. All I can say is apparently God doesn't care either because he chooses not to stop it. And apparently the best solution he can come up with is to send down his son to die a cruel and painful death which simply adds to the suffering.

We all experience suffering because that seems to be part of the human experience. The results of suffering don't have to be all bad if something can be learned from it. The point of suffering is that it is painful to everyone, including those who become aware of it. Read Viktor Frankl's book on Man's Search for Meaning. There were those who were guards that were suffering because they were witnessing their own involvement with inhumanity. Many of them pleaded for forgiveness with their captives when the Americans came.

Suffering can change us into more compassionate beings. It is the basis of empathy.

To me, this idea that Jesus came down to die for all this suffering seems counter productive and cheapens what it means to be human. Christianity seems to have to make us all demons and keep us in shame so we never think to question the lunacy of some of its ideas. It has used shame to keep people ignorant.

So, no, I don't think Jesus coming down to die is better than nothing.

Let me remind you that atheism has NO beliefs. Atheists may have opinions, but there is no central gospel of atheism, other than the observation of the lack of evidence for any gods.

There are a number of "solutions" for the problem of suffering, but I doubt any are really satisfying, including Christianity. Christianity does not solve the problem of suffering. All Neithzsche or Marx do is observe the fact that there is no solution for suffering. They do recognize that suffering is disturbing and are willing to face this head on, without using myths of eternal life as a crutch. It is an attempt to be as honest as possible. They are following a deep tradition of honoring truth above all else.

And many who face the fact of suffering head on are inspired to try and make a difference. This, unlike the placid acceptance that the world is going to hell, often awakens compassion for the human condition and has inspired many secularists to reach out to reduce suffering in the world.

cardw,Substitutionary death is not justice for the substitution,but it is merciful to the one being substituted for. What other saving option is left to the offender?

You say that God doesn't care about suffering in the universe because He doesn't stop it. I believe He proved He cares, by becoming one of us and suffering along with us and dying. That would be about like my becoming an insect forever in order to save the insects. If I did that, wouldn't that prove that I must love insects and care about their situation? Similarly, I think God's coming here proves He loves us and cares about our situation.

Consider a few questions:

Why is there suffering and death?

What if God were today to stop all suffering and death? Would that mean people would be forced to change against their will, or that murderers, etc., would go on living forever?

Would putting an end to suffering right now really solve the problem of evil in the world?

Yes, you are right-- except when that innocent person is God Himself, the Creator of the universe, the One who makes all natural as well as moral laws.

If He says that He has taken the punishment that is due to us for our wrongs, and that when we accept and believe what He's done, He can keep the punishment from falling on us and destroying us forever, why would we refuse and say God is wrong to do it? By what moral law in the universe is God shown to be wrong to do this?

Once we assume that He is the Supreme Being, I think it becomes clear that He would have a right to decide how to save mankind, wouldn't He? That would be far better than humans refusing His offer, taking the punishment on ourselves, and dying without any more hope than a dog.

Doug,

So, if substitutionary death is not for justice, but mercy then why not simply pardon the sinner.

In our justice system there is no requirement for someone to finish the sentence of a pardoned prisoner. Or if we are going to be dramatic, the Governor doesn't have to crucify his son to gain the ability to give a pardon.

A simple pardon seems to be a more rational option to me.

John,

God proving that he cares doesn't solve the problem of suffering. It only proves he cares.

Christianity has no solution for the problem of suffering because God simply changes the people who choose him. They become different people. I see no difference since many of those people are murders or within the theology of Christianity we all murdered Christ on the cross.

I know there is the issue of choice, but what choice is choose or die? Again the motivation is fear.

I think the solution to suffering is the provision of equal power and resources and learning how to live without fear. I think fear is the source of evil apart from insanity.

Maturity is what I observe happening in people who learn how to love. And maturity often involves suffering. So suffering may be a part of the natural order of things. I think our survival as a species is going to be dependent on our ability to move past our fears and learn how to love each other in a way that provides a network of co-operation. This is not only good, but it is rational.

John,

If god makes the rules, then why not simply pardon us without all the torture and fear mongering?

It basically boils down to this.

God speaking, "I have to sacrifice myself to myself for rules I made myself so that I can stop myself from killing everyone."

And, for me, since this god could not possibly exist, there is no offer to refuse.

This is iron age eye for an eye justice thinking based on tribalism and revenge. I would hope that we can perceive a much more mature system of dealing with each other than requiring our pound of flesh.

You make a good point cardw. That's why I said that there may be a different meaning to that word. And it might even have more than one meaning. Do not know for sure myself. But know of a few other words that mean one thing here and one thing there. Someone with more knowledge of Hebrew than me would have to address this.

pk