I did explain. Go back a couple of posts. You must just have missed seeing it or something.
What you’re saying, though, is theology. It’s been worked out as a particular construct that systematizes what appears in the biblical record. But let’s just take the bit about sacrifice.
We can either look at the sacrifice as the act that removes sin, or as an act that displays a level of prevailing love.
We can look at it as either being a necessary component of sin-removal, or as a component that is unnecessary, but adds some level of meaning to the process of sin-removal.
How you look at it determines the shape of your theological point of view.
So, how do you look at it?
Does the sacrifice rove the sin, or does it do something else?
Do you think it’s necessary to the process, or not?
I looked for other alternatives. You've only mentioned that you disagree that jesus sacrifice comes by compassion, what I said was Substitutionary Atonement, and no other alternatives to what you disagree with.
This post context wasn't mentioned in your former posts. So, I have other questions (I know this is theology-I agree; but I'm not familiar with the jargon to speak of it as such).
I never saw it as an either or scenario.
"We can either look at the sacrifice as the act that removes sin, or as an act that displays a level of prevailing love."
The act that removes sin is the act that prevails love. When you sacrifice yourself (say a mother) for her child its an act of sacrifice (her dying) and an act of love (giving her own life because she loves her child). I understand it as a combination not an either/or.
I'm not christian so I don't have a theological viewpoint, just what I've learned and experience in the Church. Outside of conversation, I really don't think of it near at all to form a "personal" theological viewpoint.
From how I learned it, if a christian doesn't believe in jesus, his or her sin puts that her at a distance between her and the creator. Sin is the wall between the christian and her creator. Since she can't get rid of sin on her own, and they can't be align with god like jesus, they need jesus to be a scapegoat (like an animal in the OT) to their sin so they are forgiven just as the Jews gave the animal to god so god would forgive them. Same concept, just in this case it's a human not an animal.
As for hell, anger, and all of that, I know nothing about that. I wasn't raised in a christian household to where hellfire and any of that nonsense was taught.
Do I think it necessary? Depends on the christian. I only speak from what I've experienced in the Church and learned reading the bible. I see no love in a stranger I have never met in person sacrificing himself for me. It's just not how I see reality.
But in my understanding, disregarding hell and anger, it just means jesus is the scapegoat for christian's sins.
But you haven't told me other ways to see it just told me that this is just one way to do so.