Divine Anger and the Atonement. I've always thought that the idea that Jesus had to die on the cross to propitate God for Man's sins was a mystery-- something that we had no way of understanding. There is no logical connection between Eric Rasmusen sinning against God and God having to die on the cross so Eric could be forgiven. Why not just forgive Eric outright? There could well be a reason, but we are not told it. (Click here to read more.)

It is not enough to say that every wrong requires a punishment. I don't accept that as an axiom.

On the other hand, it is true that humans feel innately that every wrong requires a punishment. That feeling is part of human nature. It is closely related to reciprocity. It is a useful feeling for humans to have, even if it can't be justified on more fundamental grounds, just as a taste for sweet things is a useful feeling for humans in pre- industrial societies.

My new thought of today is this. Maybe the Atonement is for our sake in adifferent way than we usually think. Suppose it was unnecessary for Jesus to die in order for our sins to be forgiven, and God simply forgave some people's sins. We humans would be left with a feeling that the sins and the forgiveness were not serious-- it is too easy. We would only feel forgiven, and only feel that justice had been done, if someone were punished. So God died not so we could avoid massive direct punishment, but so we could avoid the punishmnet of feeling that we had done injustice.

Part of this is that we humans think justice has been done if someone is punished even if it is not the culprit who is punished, so long as it is someone who is punished on behalf of the culprit (and not, say, accidentally). If George Junior is to jailed for murder, and George Senior offers to take his place, I think people are satisfied to let him do so.