So, I've been arguing religion and I've come to some very interesting reinterpretations of the christian faith. First we must plow through a little doctrine and come to a few shared (and generally stupid) conclusions. These conclusions are generally in line with SOME christian teachings, not all.
1. Children have untainted souls, i.e. there isn't such a thing as original sin. If there was such a thing as original sin then an aborted fetus would go to hell to be tortured eternally without ever having a chance to redeem itself. That's pretty much morally repulsive, and if you can accept that as being "justice" or "ok" then you're just fucked up anyway and my new interpretations are pretty in line with what you consider OK.
2. Animal sacrifice cleanses sin, but only temporarily. In order to attone for sin a soul must be destroyed. Only a soul that is without sin can be a proper offering because a tainted soul is just being destroyed for it's own sin. Jesus had an untained soul and could therefore be the sacrifice for all sins.
3. The importance of Jesus is that he took on the burden of hell, he gave up his soul, so others could go to heaven.
4. A fetus has a soul
Christianity's new views on abortion...
Christ went to hell so others could go to heaven. The only way to go to hell so another can go to heaven is by killing a child who's not yet capable of sinning. In doing so you commit a sin, but the child goes to heaven because the child is without sin. The word christian means christ-like. The most important thing christ did was go to hell so others could go to heaven. The only way to follow that is to kill children. The ultimate way to be a christian is to kill children. The most true christian course of action any individual can take is to become an "abortionist" because by doing so one accepts the burden of hell and in doing so sends hundreds of souls to heaven.
Christianity's new view on child sacrifice...
Jesus claims that he is the only way into heaven, but given 1 & 2 it seems there's another way. By following the traditional jewish practices for animal sacrifice one could transfer his own sins to an infant (since the infant has no sins of his/her own to attone for) then sacrifice this infant and cleanse himself of sins. In doing so even the anti-christ could enter heaven without the help of Jesus.
...and if you don't want to believe that
In order to make the above untrue (given our assumptions) it would be necessary to accept that children don't have souls until they're capable of committing sins. The thing that seperates animals from humans is the soul. If a child doesn't have a soul, that child isn't human. Murder only applies to killing people. If kids aren't people then it's ok to kill them until they have souls. Since a mentally retarded person doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong, that person is incapable of sin since sin relies on the ability to tell right from wrong. So severly retarded people, according to our new christianity, aren't people so it's ok to kill them.
So now we understand how George Bush rationalized it when he ordered the execution of retarded people.
so in conclusion
HAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH christianity is evil. Ok, so these aren't generally shared assumptions. These assumptions rely on something called the age of accountability which isn't accepted by more fundimentalist religions. Catholocism, for example, states clearly that all human kind was tainted by the sin of adam and therefore an aborted fetus would go to hell. However, if Catholocism chose to accept the age of accountability doctrine without denying the souls of children, given the rules of dogma (that which is true for the church on earth is true in heaven) and the fact that god's existance is dependant on god never being wrong, it would be possible to kill god by poisioning yourself then sacrificing a child thereby entering heaven without the help of the church, jesus, or god, proving god wrong and anihiliating him. Now THAT's some shit.
- Reinterpreting Christianity