All atonement doctrine is an erroneous teaching.  Jesus did not bestow himself to reconcile an angry God.  God certainly would never be satisfied with the childish scheme of substituting an innocent sufferer for a guilty offender.  Father had nothing to do with Jesus’ torture.  Father’s justice not influenced by acts of his creatures.  Father’s love not dependent on bestowals of Avonal and Michael Sons.  The heavenly Father is never torn by conflicting attitudes towards his universe children; God is never a victim of attitudinal antagonisms.  Never necessary to influence Father to be merciful. 
All this concept of atonement and sacrificial salvation is rooted and grounded in selfishness. The believer’s chief concern should not be the selfish desire for personal salvation but rather the unselfish urge to love and, therefore, serve one’s fellows. 
The erroneous supposition that the righteousness of God was irreconcilable with the selfless love of the heavenly Father, presupposed absence of unity in the nature of Deity and led directly to the elaboration of the atonement doctrine, which is a philosophic assault upon both the unity and the free-willness of God. 
The evolution of religious observances progressed from placation, avoidance, exorcism, coercion, conciliation, and propitiation to sacrifice, atonement, and redemption.  According to Paul, Christ became the last and all-sufficient human sacrifice; the divine Judge is now fully and forever satisfied.  These teachings originated in a praiseworthy effort to make the gospel of the kingdom more acceptable to disbelieving Jews.  These ideas of atonement introduced by Paul have a Mithraic origin. 
Paul’s theory of original sin, the doctrines of hereditary guilt and innate evil and redemption therefrom, was partially Mithraic in origin, having little in common with Hebrew theology, Philo’s philosophy, or Jesus’ teachings. Some phases of Paul’s teachings regarding original sin and the atonement were original with himself.  In this Paul fail to keep pace with Philo. Philo taught deliverance from the doctrine of forgiveness only by the shedding of blood. 
There was an effort to connect the gospel teaching directly onto the Jewish theology, the teaching that Jesus was the sacrificed Son who would satisfy the Father’s stern justice and appease the divine wrath. 
The barbarous idea of appeasing an angry God, of propitiating an offended Lord, of winning the favor of Deity through sacrifices and penance and even by the shedding of blood, represents a religion wholly puerile and primitive, a philosophy unworthy of an enlightened age of science and truth. Such beliefs are utterly repulsive to the celestial beings and the divine rulers who serve and reign in the universes. It is an affront to God to believe, hold, or teach that innocent blood must be shed in order to win his favor or to divert the fictitious divine wrath. 
See also: UB 186:5.