My Current Opinion on the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ

Does this mean I reject "Christ"? By some people's standard it may mean that, however, I hope that most people will understand that I have the absolute highest respect for him and his teachings and put him as the example on how to live a prosperous life. My reasons for a lack of belief in the atonement are also not because of things like the crucifixion, virgin birth or any of that. While I am not entirely convinced these things are what most Christians think they are, I also have no problem if they really did unfold as most Christians define them. My problems come from more logical, historical and emotional grounds. I have thought this through for a good number of years now and I think now would be a good time to present what I've found.

The Practice of Sacrifice

Lets start at a predecessor for Christianity, the Jews. They had many different types of sacrifices for different purposes. Scripturally and traditionally speaking Jews did not require blood for all atonements. There are examples of them not needing the shedding of blood for atonement, one being: Lev 5:11-13.

Jews used to do sacrifices but suddenly with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD it no longer became a requirement for atonement. Now they don't have to do it anymore, they just practice Teshuvah, which allows them to sidestep sacrifices completely by simply acknowledging the sin and ceasing to commit it. I find it funny how easily the Jews are able to be like, yep no more sacrifices, it was all just a joke anyway, it didn't really matter - because it didn't really matter. They grew up. But to think that the Christians built their system of Christ's atonement off of these guys really makes me wonder.

Original Sin

It is interesting to note that original sin is not practiced by Judaism, Islam or Hinduism. It seems as though only later did Roman Catholic Christians think it would be a fun little game to control people through original sin. Let's start them off on the wrong foot and force them into this belief.

Fall of Man

We are told we have original sin because of the fall that Adam/Eve took. What was this fall? Most likely either this Adamic race of beings being forced into genetic hybridization or them choosing to have genetic hybridization done on them or their offspring. I am not sure whether Adam had this forced on him because he was less intelligent and tricked by the "serpent", or if he actually was much brighter than the "serpent" and knew better and did this as a bad (or maybe good) decision. This in itself is a big topic.

I mean, was Adam from a higher race than those native to the Earth at this time? Was he from a higher race than the serpent that manipulated him? Either he consciously made a decision to alter the DNA or he had no choice about it. Either way I don't think it matters. If you do something "bad" there may be "sin" involved, but it's nothing that you can't learn from and grow from.

Where this gets a bit technical is that this altering of DNA is tied into the physical bodies of actual later generations which also inherit this "sin" which is not really a sin but a circumstance. It is most likely a lesser physical body than the original physical body Adam had, although again, it could indeed be a better body. I don't know, and I don't think it matters. Either way this body is just a new vehicle for the spirit to enter into and experience 3rd density from.

I feel almost positive that the Church has taken this concept and manipulated it into being a "sin" when that is a sneaky way of putting it. Yes, it does have "sin" nature in that it is a body that will have greater tests to face and be more inclined to do evil perhaps. But why the need for being atoned for through a blood sacrifice? The real atonement will be overcoming this physical body and gaining complete mastery over ego, self and all these other circumstances created by it.

This whole thing the Church has pulled fits in so well I can see how it misleads most people. The idea that this "sin nature" will lead to hell is somewhat true. If you keep giving into your body and wordly desires you will slowly lose consciousness and create turmoil for yourself. But this doesn't mean you need a blood sacrifice atonement. It means you need a fruit of the spirit / wise teacher / raising of awareness atonement - an atonement which I think "Christ" really represents - not the replacement of this welfare concept of "Jesus", but the actual real message taught by "Jesus". Jesus was hijacked into this Christ term as a way to serve this really sneaky purpose of the Church. I am in no way bashing Jesus - he was trying to teach this same message. That's my opinion.

Scripturally speaking

Some interesting scriptural notes on this is that "Many" (polys) (Romans 5:19) being saved is used in some scriptures whiles "All" (pas) (Romans 3:23) being saved is used in others. On such an important topic I find it absurd that these different cases would be presented. And yes, the words are different in the Greek. And I'm not just taking one verse or one instance. There are other versus also with this mix up like 1 John 2:2. This kind of sloppiness I find entirely inappropriate on such a serious issue. And sure, I'm sure there are ways to argue around this and say that the context matters and he really meant all and blah blah blah. No, that's not the word used or context used, and he wrote this word, whether he meant to or not. Perhaps these people writing the scriptures weren't as perfect as "many" make them out to be.

To further elaborate on this "Many" thing now...

I find it interesting how Romans 5:19 says:

"For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.".

Wait... what? Many were made sinners, not all? I thought everyone had sin nature? Who are these people that don't have sin nature? Well first of all, I don't know if this is just Paul making a mistake or if he is talking about something deeper, but maybe he is.

Side topic on the fall and bloodlines

Perhaps this is a reference to the ones with "sin" nature being the descendants of the hybridized Adamic seed. Now I know most Christians think that every person on this planet came from Adam and Eve, but that may not be the case exactly.

Without getting into a huge amount of details, it is my view that there were definitely other people on the earth during the time of Adam and Eve. This is even mentioned in the Bible with Cain needing a mark to protect him from these other people.

Anyhow, let's get a bit technical now. Is it not safe to assume that if somebody on this Earth was never a son of Adam or mixed into his seed that they would be without sin nature? And to what degree of sin nature do those have who maybe mixed in at a much later time with a much more reduced "sin nature" body?

For instance, lets say Adamites were 100% sin nature (even though that most certainly can not be the case). And let's say these non-Adamites were 0% sin nature. We would have a scenario such as:

Generation 1 (G1) would be: Adam (100%) + Non-Adam (0%) = 50% sin nature body
Generation 2 (G2) would be: G1 (50%) + Non-Adam (0%) = 25% sin nature body
Generation 3 (G3) would be: G2 (25%) + Non-Adam (0%) = 12.5% sin nature body
... and so on

This is just another side topic that I've never heard anyone talk about and seems fairly logical. The more you mix with non-sin beings the less sin you would have. But the whole thing is completely silly anyway. How do you measure the amount of sin in a physical body? How can you quantify how much sin a person has based off their body? Does the spirit in the body throw this number off? None of this makes any sense and the idea that non-sin beings can dilute the "sin gene" with time is something in itself worthy of consideration. And further, do these non-Adamic beings not need to be saved? Are they okay because they didn't inherit Adam's sin?

Going even further... or is this whole thing a spiritual sin? If the case is that atonement is only for these Adamic sin bodies and that perhaps sinful spirits are only put into these sinful Adamic bodies then what's still to make of the understanding that these bodies will be diluted of the physical DNA sin commands with time? I don't think anyone could argue that the vast majority of bodies these days are highly mixed DNA from different races. The spirits are not going to get an equal test as bodies will have different percentages of sin involved in them. Or perhaps are the bodies just containers for "sinful" spirits to enter into and atone for their sin by living through a body that has just the right amount of sin that they are required to overcome / be punished by?

So it seems that if original sin starts with the physical body it is pretty hard to support. And if original sin starts with the spirit, it becomes fairly nebulous and a lot more abstract, but here is something I would add. Can there be sin in the "spirit world"? Can a spirit be sinful before taking on the material? If Adam sinned spiritually then I would have to be connected to him somehow spiritually to inherit that sin spiritually, right? Well this could be the case, but it is never talked about or defined as it is pretty hard to find information on. But to be ordered by the same measures as the belief in Christ it would require that by free will I somehow choose to take part in Adam's sin in the spiritual world, as I choose to un-take part of it in the physical through Christ. This whole thing gets way out there and seems to be lacking scripture for it anyway. Since this is only a side topic I'll just move on.

Out of Sync with Laws of Universe

Every spiritual / universal law that I can think of relates to this physical realm as well. The two are in sync and make sense. Hard work, forgiveness, love, rewards based on effort, etc are all things that work in both the spiritual realm and the physical realm. But then all of a sudden this one law of believing in a 3rd party figure to come in and make things okay for you totally throws everything off. You don't learn your lessons when somebody does it for you. If I was the Elohim or whoever this "judge" is and was looking for people to come live in this much more holy heaven with me, the last thing I would want would be the welfare Christians. I don't want people who are lazy, selfish, materialistic and greedy. I want the absolute cream of the crop - people who have suffered, dedicated everything towards truth and love of one another, one who will serve others as they serve themselves, the pinnacle of discipline and love - that's who I as an Elohim would want.

But I'm not God... how do I know what he wants, right? That's my point. This is the one law that doesn't fit into both the spiritual and physical sense. With every other law of God it makes sense in both the physical and spiritual world. Why would this one law not make sense in the physical world but be perfectly okay in the spiritual world?

Selfish in a way

Furthermore, the idea itself of hanging on to your spirit soooo much, as people absolutely love to do, is selfish in a way. Wouldn't it be more selfless and spiritual to help and teach as many people here as possible and leave of what happens to "you" later for God to decide? It seems totally human and entirely selfish to focus on me, me, me rather than the greater good of others and the universe.

1 of many Examples

What follows is just a simple argument that Christians will probably say could never happen or is up to God to decide:

Let's say there is a teacher who tries his best to be as humble, loving and helpful to others as possible. He doesn't believe in the Jesus blood atonement, however, technically speaking he has moved well over 1,000 people to believe in this Jesus blood atonement (a "non-saved" person has "saved" over 1,000 people). Furthermore these people he has saved, with the help they have had from this new found belief (for the positive mind you), still don't quite measure up to the level of their non-atoned teacher in regards to the fruit of the spirit. But since they hold this belief of atonement and their teacher doesn't they pass the test and their teacher does not.

Now sure, this is completely hypothetical and most likely wouldn't happen, but technically speaking the teacher would be removed from the group of qualified atoned for Christians as he doesn't hold this belief, according to this Christian belief / law. Seems totally silly to me.

The moment you die

Also, what's with this being based on where you're at the moment you die? As if that is where you are currently at or is an appropriate measure. How do you know you're not evolving on other timelines? Isn't it weird that you can go from non-believing to believing and be saved, but not from believing to non-believing? It seems all that matters is this small, small snapshot of where you're at at "death" rather than your whole life. That doesn't make sense to me. It is almost saying, your whole life doesn't matter, what matters is that you have this belief when you die. You can add up everything you've done with your life, but your snapshot at death is more important than your snapshot in the middle of your life, 5 minutes before death, at your birth or any of these all added together. Just weird.

Near death experiences

Do I even need to mention the countless NDE's where absolutely every NDE I have ever read does not talk about a formal judgment by some external being? NDE's all agree that if anything, we are the judge, we judge ourselves. It's up to us what we learn, where we go, and how we have fallen short of loving each other.

What about children?

So we're told the age of accountability is when you are accountable to this "belief". The obvious question would be at what age is this and how do you measure that? And I highly doubt we have a way to know. We can't measure at what age people mature. It varies completely on the DNA commands, the spirit, the environment and many other things. In most cases, in my opinion, people never really grow up. They change very little and choose not to mature. How do you know that you can't have an unaccountable child who is much more spiritually and mentally accountable than some 30 year old person who has hardly matured at all?

So let's say Jesus does make you perfect

The idea that if you believe Jesus you will be made perfect upon entering heaven also seems odd. What types of changes will this involve and what part of yourself will be lost? It seems fairly reasonable that by becoming perfected we would lose a great amount of ourselves as we are so unperfect upon death. So who are we really upon entering heaven? Are we ourselves or are we Jesus? Do we really hold our personalities at this point? It could be the case, however, personality allows for sin. After all, it was the personality of Satan that cast him out of heaven. His wide range of free-will which we are also entitled to in heaven.

Being cast out of heaven

Which brings up another point. Since Satan was cast out of heaven, is it not possible then that anybody can lose this heavenly ticket? Was he a believer in Jesus? Did he get saved and then get un-saved? How can a perfect heavenly being become unperfect? And sure, there are many mansions in heaven, but wasn't Satan among one of the highest and greatest in heaven, much greater than most of us will achieve after this life? That's just another thing that doesn't quite make sense to me, especially considering the Bible was most likely talking about 3rd density "heaven"/space and not 4th density and beyond, which most would consider heaven.

Changes people

To say that atonement helps us change can be true or false. It is quite clear that believing in atonement through Jesus can make people more loving, more driven, more into living a purposeful life, etc. But it could also cause people to become complacent and apathetic because they know they got a free ride into heaven. They both have their pros and cons.

Who Created Christianity?

This, in my opinion, is the real question that I have avoided simply because most people care about what the Church says rather than how they became the authority and what's really going on. But from what I've researched in history it becomes pretty clear that there is definitely some manipulation going on with these different religions. I just find it funny how all these religions are able to know the bits and pieces and the buttons to push on other religions to get each other worked up. They all have 1 or 2 things that all the other religions completely disagree with, but then these other religions have 1 or 2 things that the other religions disagree with. I think there's much more to this.

And then some random thoughts

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Hosea 6:6

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.
Ezekiel 18:20

For reasons which they doubtless considered sufficient, those who chronicled the life and acts of Jesus found it advisable to metamorphose him into a solar deity. The historical Jesus was forgotten; nearly all the salient incidents recorded in the four Gospels have their correlations in the movements, phases, or functions of the heavenly bodies.
Manly P Hall

The ideas and concepts injected by the being known as Jesus deteriorated very quickly due to custodial influence, and in 325AD the Council of Nicea began defining and interpreting religious concepts having to do with the Jesus Ministry. Thus, what began as an attempt by an advanced being deteriorated into the fifth SOS. The Nicene Creed redefined the entity Jesus as the “son of God", and banned the concept of pre-existence of human beings in other lives.
Val Valerian

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
Thomas Jefferson

Conclusion

I feel like I have beaten a dead horse from many different angles with this. Please understand that it is in no way my intention to tell Christians not to believe in Jesus. If you are a Christian and believe in Jesus I think that's absolutely terrific. My intention is to show those who are perhaps having trouble in finding the sense of it all an additional way to look at it.

With a lot of these Christians I get the same feeling that I do with Mormons saying that you will feel a burning in your bosom and if you don't, you're wrong. It's all or nothing with them as with most people. At the end of the day, people believe what they want to believe. There's no such thing as finding 2 people of the same church who believe the same thing. They're going to believe what they want to believe. It's totally possible for a non-Christian to be more "Christian" than a Christian, and for a Christian to be less Christian than a non-Christian. Everything about this atonement concept smells like human, and not God.

I am just guessing, but I bet pretty much every Christian who holds this belief of atonement through Jesus Christ doesn't hold it on technical, logical grounds anyway (how could you?). They most likely go, well I believe the things this Jesus guy says, what he says has helped me and I consider myself saved because of it. Great, I agree 100% with this. The problem comes in when people say if you don't believe in Jesus you are not saved and are missing something. Christians are so quick to get pissed when Mormons pull this with them, but do the exact same thing as they, themselves pull it on non-Christians. I mean, these are all semantics and word games. Define your terms, define how these principles are really acting on one another and let's move on. Everyone is pretty much saying change your life for the better, help each other and you and we will all be saved. These seem like tribal beliefs that were developed in ignorance rather than patient beliefs that were developed in the fruit of the spirit.