I found in science that a narrative is more convincing than an accumulation of concepts; so I am applying this technique to the most important question in modern Christianity, which is the purpose of Christ's crucifixion. Was it a good deed which pleased God and caused him to forgive sin; or was it murder of God by humans for teaching morality and doing good deeds? A narrative description is a method of presenting the evidence.

For almost two thousand years, pre-Vatican II Catholicism was nearly unchanged. Christ said almost nothing about a church, except that it would contain wolves in sheep's clothing (Mat 7:15), and Peter would be the head. This is because all humanly developed structures become outlets for power mongering, particularly with satan controlling the world (John 12:31)(Luke 4:6). As a result, Catholicism was a complex mixture of persons with various motives. Believers would produce some important moral truth, and it would be buried under mountains of nonsense or corruption. But the meaning of Christianity was stabilized in the rituals and symbols of Catholicism. The crucifix was the most important.

Catholics showed a body on the cross and put it on the front wall of the church as the most visible symbol in the religion. With just the common knowledge about Christianity, the crucifix with a body on it summarized the most important elements of Christianity. It showed that humans murdered Christ in the most brutal way possible.

Protestants took the body off the cross which they used promoting Paul's version of theology, which said killing Christ was an act of atonement which pleased God and caused him to forgive sins.

The difference is in the significance of sin. Catholics taught that sin was something each person had to overcome. The ritual called confession clarified the subject. Catholics would go to confession about once every week or month and tell their recent sins to the priest, who would forgive them. It may not be a necessary method of overcoming sin, but it clarified the theology unlike any words could. It said sin is something humans do repeatedly, and they needed to overcome that problem. Any amount of study could then be added to that foundation of awareness.

Therefore, when I say that the purpose of material life is to overcome sin, a pre-Vatican II Catholic could at least understand what I'm saying. A Protestant fundamentalist could not. If sin were overcome on the cross, why would material life be needed at all? So Protestant fundamentalists look for some other purpose in life related to restoring God's kingdom on Earth.

Another ritual of pre-Vatican II Catholicism was very informative. It was called "Stations of the Cross". On each side of the church, there would be plaques representing events in Christ's crucifixion. The priest and his servers would stop at each one describing it and saying some prayers. The first station represented Christ being whipped. Then he would have to carry the cross, falling three times due to being nearly beaten to death. When getting to the hill called Calvary, he was stripped of his clothes and nailed to the cross to die.

Is that what atonement was? Did accusers beat the animal to a bloody pulp for blasphemy before killing it to have their sins forgiven? Atonement grew out of the demonic religion of using murder as a test of allegiance to the demons; and then the Jews watered it down for a more timid God and used it as an animal offering for appeasement.

Christ was hated and accused. Are hate and accusation related to atonement? Is there no relevance to Christ being hated and accused? Christ was whipped nearly to death? Was God appeased by Christ's brutalization? Who offered Christ to God? The persons who hated him? His apostles?

Atonement says there is no relevance to the fact that Christ was hated, falsely accused before the Roman authorities and brutalized. It says sin is God's concern, not man's. Atonement erases moral philosophy which says sin is caused by something and needs to be overcome through human responsibilities.