The Atonement Doctrine never made sense to me.
In the eyes of the most just, merciful and loving personality ever, how could all humanity be held guilty of a crime they did not commit? Especially when the proof of their innocence was incontrovertible?
It may have made sense to the minds that thought it up, but today such a proposal would not stand up even in our flawed and imperfect courts. Yet it remains as the bedrock for modern Christian thought.
Here and there the Papers comment on the atonement doctrine, and when they do, they always highlight its errors. Here’s one from Paper 2, Section 6, The Goodness of God:
The erroneous supposition that the righteousness of God was irreconcilable with the selfless love of the heavenly Father, presupposed absence of unity in the nature of Deity and led directly to the elaboration of the atonement doctrine, which is a philosophic assault upon both the unity and the free-willness of God. (41.3) 2:6.5
The affectionate heavenly Father, whose spirit indwells his children on earth, is not a divided personality — one of justice and one of mercy — neither does it require a mediator to secure the Father’s favor or forgiveness. Divine righteousness is not dominated by strict retributive justice; God as a father transcends God as a judge. (41.3) 2:6.6
My Urantia Book Index 