Since divine nature is so alien to us, many beliefs are often not questioned and simply accepted, especially if they have been taught us from childhood. If one, however, examines some beliefs and brings them to a human level, they appear completely different. Let us imagine the following:
Someone calls us and asks if we would not be the grandson of so and so:
"Yes, I am. And?"
"Your grandfather bought a car several years ago. As he drove along the main road, I went across the crosswalk. Your grandfather wanted to slow down, but the brakes of the car failed, and he hit me, and I broke my leg. "
"I'm terribly sorry to hear that. But what do I have to do with that?"
"Yes, you may feel sorry, but as a grandson you carry the guilt of your grandfather and are responsible."
"I beg your pardon?"
"Yes. But do not worry. I have already a solution, how can I forgive you. Of course, for pardoning your guilt a bloody sacrifice is required. I always held it that way. So I will kill an innocent rabbit, one of my own, of course. Yup. But I will not just cut its throat, no. I will nail it with all four feet to a cross, put spikes into its fur, flog it and sprinkle some vinegar in its mouth, and then on the third day I put a spear in its ribs to see whether it is still alive. I will call you then and tell you that I already a made the offering for your sake. All you have to do then is to believe that I have rendered the sacrifice, and this only because I love you so much and in order to be able to forgive you. If you believe, I forgive you that your grandfather has hit me with the car, along with everything else you have committed. But if you believe not, I will come and stuck you in a scorching furnace."
Well, we imagine our reaction...
I would like to ask for forgiveness here, I do not want to make fun of the Christian faith. And of course the comparison is misleading. What I like to demonstrate in an exaggerating manner is how grotesque the Christian image of God becomes when it is projected onto a human-perceptible scope. The idea of a loving and just God who demands a bloody, cruel sacrifice of an innocent person, in order to be able to forgive us something that we have not even done ourselves, is simply absurd. This grotesque image of God was never actually part of true Christianity.
As proof we can use the Bible itself:
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." [Ezekiel 18: 20]
This verse in the Bible contradicts clearly the concept of original sin, and is fully consistent with our normal sense of justice. So how could the concept of original sin find its way into Christianity?
It was Satan's plan from the beginning of time, to unite the whole earth little by little in unbelief and disobedience; a humanity that refuses its creator and worships Lucifer instead. He was worshiped in various forms around the world as sun god or god of fire. And one brought him bloody human sacrifices. Human sacrifices are diabolism.
The cross was a symbol of sun worshipers centuries before Jesus was born. As mentioned, it is found in the middle of the zodiac which divides the zodiac into its four seasons. The ruler of the zodiac in turn is the sun or the sun god. No greater insult could have done Satan to Christ than to get him crucified on this very symbol of Satan worship. But according to Islam, God preserved Jesus. In fact, Jesus was never crucified.
.they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them... [An-Nisa 157]
What assures us that this statement in the Koran is actually true? Answer: The Bible itself.
In Luke 24: 36 we read how Jesus returns after his alleged crucifixion to the disciples. They are shocked at his appearance. But why should they be scared? The natural reaction would be to feel joy when you meet again somebody you missed. They were scared because they thought he was a ghost.
Could the disciples be sure to have a ghost in front of them? The answer is a categorical no. The disciples themselves were not eyewitnesses to the crucifixion, as we learn from Mark 14: 50: "... they all forsook him and fled." Their knowledge of the alleged crucifixion they got from hearsay only. They only heard, he would have been crucified. They only heard that he had been buried. Of course they were stunned:
But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. [Luke 24: 37-40]
Which means: Touch me, so you see that I am not a ghost, not a spiritualized resurrected body, but flesh and blood. Jesus himself had said that resurrected bodies would be of spiritual nature.
...for they are equal unto the angels... [Luke 20: 36]
To make the disciples even more certain that he was not crucified, he asked:
And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them. [Luke 24: 41-43]
A spiritualized body does not need food. All these demonstrations of Jesus prove: He was not crucified. The whole foundation of Christianity is refuted by Jesus and the Bible itself.
That the crucifiction in fact is poorly documented, becomes obvious in the following verses:
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ... Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. [Matthew 27: 46 & 50]
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. [Luke 23: 46]
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. [John 19: 30]
Apparently we have three different versions from the foundation of Christianity.
That God does not require human sacrifices, confirms the Bible in the story of Abraham, who is to sacrifice his son (in the Bible Isaac, in the Koran Ismael). Human sacrifices were still prevalent at the time of Abraham. Although Abraham probably must have been amazed that God demanded something like this of him, he surrendered to God and obeyed. But when he was about to put the knife, God told him that he had already fulfilled the vision.
With this event, that Muslims commemorate every year at the time of Hajj, God made it clear to the people that He does not require bloody human sacrifices by man, but godly devotion and obedience to His commandments.
Sins are atoned for by repentance and with good deeds that outweigh the bad deeds. That's just common sense. If someone is doing something bad, but then regrets and asks for forgiveness and even gives us a generous gift, should we not forgive him then? Probably we would not only forgive him, but even embosom him. And that's what God does as He confirms in the Koran: God loves those who turn to Him in repentance.
Where do actually human sacrifices come from?
Human sacrifices are as old as humanity itself, and found almost anywhere in the world. They served a variety of purposes such as dealing with an emergency situation, when other people directly served as food (cannibalism) or indirectly to restore the favour of a deity, from which one expected remedial of a shortcoming.