Pete, "Substitutionary Atonement" is a theological term, something that looks at reality from one perspective. It is a perfectly valid perspective, but it tends to have a legalistic tone to it. It's too easy to take the legal metaphor too far, and to begin to see moral action as a legal system - which it isn't. Moral conduct is above and beyond the law, as Jesus said many times.

Same with seeing Jesus as a sacrificial lamb - it's a very good metaphor that can be taken too far, and then our thinking becomes all about the metaphor and separated from the reality. Jesus was a person who embodied the divine, totally innocent and most likely totally courageous. He faced death in innocence and courage and nonviolence (thereby surpassing Joan of Arc and Nathan Hale), and conquered death through his innocence and courage and nonviolence and integrity.

Metaphors can be valuable tools, but we can get lost in them and lose sight of the reality. The reality is that this world is full of sin, and this is something we know whether or not we believe in God. But sin is real hatefulness that causes great harm, not just a violation of a code of laws that chalks up a debt on some eternal balance sheet. And we as humans, believers or not, are obliged to confront that sin with integrity and love - and so atone for sin and make this world a better place.

Whether we believe in God or not, we do face evil - and we are obliged to do something about it, or suffer the consequences. Evil has its own consequences. And hell may be another metaphor, meant to help us understand those consequences.

So, Pete, I think you've tied yourself to perfectly valid doctrines and metaphors, but your literalism has blinded you to the reality behind them. "Substitutionary Atonement" is an attempt to understand and explain a reality - it is not the reality itself.

-Joe-