More Adam and Eve

So I just watched this short video on YouTube of Richard Dawkins discussing morals with Howard Conder, and it made me understand the christian position a lot more, in a sense that I feel i can argue against it even more persuasively. I understand the idea of original sin and the need for Jesus' sacrifice now to be that since adam was perfect, there had to be another perfect being sacrificed for our sins to in a sense "redeem" Adam and Eve, because they were perfect. Now, before addressing the moral issues I have with this, i want to look at what has supposedly happened; God gave his own son for the sin of humanity. Christians would argue that this shows how much God loved us, and I do imagine they feel quite deep empathy for this action. However, I find it truly disgusting because God, being omniscient as he is, does not need to play by the rules of "an eye for an eye" and say, 'Oh, well since perfects beings took humanity into sin, I must sacrifice one to absolve them of it'. He could simply, as mentioned by Dawkins, have forgiven us without having to sacrifice Jesus. Now, a Christian might respond that and eye for an eye is what justice is, and because God is just, he had to play by those rules. I find it horrifying that Christians find that that was a moral action to do, along with the whole concept of an eye for an eye. It is the most primitive logic, and I feel it adds to the obvious fact that Christianity was simply thought up by pre-medieval men! The sacrifice of Jesus is comparable to a judge presented with a murderer that is one of his sons. Now the judge loves his son so instead of punishing him he forgives him. This would be amazing, touching even! However, the story is not over there; the judge says he will forgive his son of murder, but must hang his younger, innocent son to be just. This is absolutely horrific! Why do people sympathise with this? This is the premise of the Christian faith and it frightens me. 

Another issue i have with the story of Jesus that I have yet to hear a good counter argument to is the fact that God left humanity to sin for four thousand years before intervening and sending his son down to die. This makes absolutely no sense when you consider God's character; that he 'loves' us. It makes much more sense that humans invented Christianity as they did all other religions, and that's why there's a portion of time where God apparently decided 'eh, not now, i'll let them all go to hell for a while'. Think about that. 

Finally I would like to answer one of my questions from a previous blog, reinforcing my previous arguments regarding original sin. I asked more or less why would God not just create more Adam and Eve's and just let the humans who eat from the tree die, and those who don't be in harmony with him. it's because, like I argued previously, he knew we would pick sin from the start! The only logical reason he would not simply let every human decide for him or herself whether to eat from the tree is that he realized, whether before or after Adam and Eve, that people would always choose knowledge over him. I've heard the explanation for why we must bear the burden of Adam's decision from many christians and they all have said that it's because we all would have made the same choice as they did. To which I now say, so by by nature you think humans are sinful? Even if we were perfect we would choose to stray from your God? This is a horrible outlook on people in general, and must tear at the emotions of any true Christian, as it would for me if I was also one. Why live like this? From an atheistic perspective it's absolute lunacy to live like that. Wake up.