I am looking at the text in Greek at the cited passage. It says nothing like what you quoted.

https://www.google.com/search?q=romans+3.23+tanlsations&rlz=1C1OKWM_enUS867US867&ei=5WRqYM-IHMartQainqTYBw&oq=romans+3.23+tanlsations&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAMyBQgAEM0CMgUIABDNAjoHCAAQRxCwA1DwGFi6G2DzJWgBcAF4AIAByQGIAdwDkgEFMC4yLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6yAEIwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz&ved=0ahUKEwiPj7mQ9-XvAhXGVc0KHSIPCXsQ4dUDCA0&uact=5

It's all saying the same thing here

(NIV) Revelations 1:8 “I am the Alpha and Omega”. God in ancient Judaism was behind everything, at the beginning of Kant's "series" and at the end, encompassing everything. To say of this system that it comes from and reflects God's nature is to say that the very reflection of God is man accepting the merits of a sacrificed man's in order to, unworthily on their own, go to heaven. How is this perfect? How is this righteous

None of those translations say what you said:

If God dies to give his merits in atonement for sin, that is unrighteous — Gregory

That's me, not the bible

I'm sorry my commentary on the verse confused you. I talk a lot about ethics and religion because I am forever questioning my relationship to the world and looking to understand it. We have so many levels. I think I have made a good case though that Christianity does not provide a good answer to the nature of To Eon ( "what is")

Flatulence.

. To say of this system that it comes from and reflects God's nature is to say that the very reflection of God is man accepting the merits of a sacrificed man's in order to, unworthily on their own, go to heaven. How is this perfect? How is this righteous — Gregory

It ain't ! It's crazy. And yet somehow barrels and barrels of such kool-aid were guzzled down.

For me it's been so much easier to let it all go as madness and confusion.

Spinoza said that we know more of how our bodies are affected by the world than the world in itself. Kant's philosophy elaborates this point to great lengths and even says we know consciousness more than our own bodies. In our present time people argue that we experience the software of the world but not the hardware. These ideas are all very Eleatic and Einstein, in rejecting the objectivity of weight and Newtonian magnetism, presented a physics (GR) in accord with these ideas. General Relativity had everyone talking about time after World War II, and Heidegger got on board. If I understand him correctly, knowing phenomenon only is knowing only in the ontic sense, and the goal of philosophy is to know ontologically. That is, to know noumena. So for him reality was not permanently veiled, but we can know and see and experience reality in the fullness of what it is. This is a philosophical position that should be taken in and considered in its own right

Addition:

Hen To On (Greek for "being is one")

Hen To Pan (" universe is one")

I seems to me belief in these ideas started for Einstein with reading Spinoza and that these ideas are how he justified motion in General Relativity. It was a very modern theory but has roots in ancient Greek thought. Even Plato thought objects lacked substance and many modern physicists accept a kind of Pythagorean Platonism wherein the truth of reality is not in matter but in mathematics