“…It must be known as a truth that the salvation of human beings, or their soul progress toward at-Onement with God is an individual matter solely. Humans as aggregations, or in church communities, are not redeemed from sin, nor as such can they have any relationship with the Father or receive God’s Divine Love – which is the only true salvation.
“Let’s consider for a moment what possible connection there can be between these soul qualities of God and the death and blood of Jesus. God is the creator of life and death, and also of blood and flesh, God can destroy as well as create. Had the sins of man called for the sacrifice of that which was mere flesh and blood, then a God who demanded such a payment – and this implies that such a God was ‘wrathful’ and could only be appeased by something that he could not of and by himself obtain – would not possibly be satisfied with that which he had created, and over which he still had absolute control, and which he could destroy and make nonexistent at any time he pleased.
“Jesus’ life was already a possession of God’s, and when he surrendered that life, he did not give to God anything that he did not already own. And when his blood flowed on the cross, it was not that which God could have made flow at any time and in any manner. So the absurdity of such doctrine is too apparent for serious consideration; its logical meaning is that God was demanding a debt that had long been unpaid, and he would be satisfied only with the death of a living creature (that of his best beloved son) and the flowing of his blood. And yet, with all this demand that had been sounding down the ages, he became satisfied and his wrath was assuaged by the trickling of that blood and seeing that creature die.
“The simple deduction of such a proposition is that God, in order to settle a debt which was owing to him, accepted in payment thereof that which was already his, and which no power or being in all the universe could have taken from him.
“Now I say all this reverently, but the fact is that the mere assertion of such doctrine is so blasphemous that no treatment of it, showing its falsity, could possibly be irreverent.”
To be continued…