Sorry to butt in ‘AUniversalist’ - we don’t know when kimmykimko will reply (but she will pick up your questions when she does). I just wanted to share some relevant thoughts as they occur to me.
Hi Kimmykimko. I’d agree that we Christian’s believe that Christ died for our sins – but not all Christians at all times have believed that this means Christ died to pay a debt of wrath owed by us to God the Father. This view of the atonement was not the view of the Eastern Fathers of the Church and has never been the view of the Eastern Church - and they were reading the same Bible (but had the advantage of reading it in the original language).
Even amongst the more legalistic Latin Fathers the idea of Christ as substitute for God’s just vengeance is not found in exactly the form that some – but not all – Christians nurtured in the Western tradition believe today. We first find it in the writings of St Anslem (10th century) and it is not until the 16th century, in the writings of John Calvin, that we find it in its modern form.
One lesson I draw from this is we need to be tolerant of each other and give each other space to disagree . 
I agree with you completely here Sonia – but I also think there is some continuity between ‘an eye for an eye’ and 'turning the other cheek:
As I understand it the ‘eye for an eye’ philosophy is actually an improvement upon other ancient Near Eastern Codes of law. For example, in the Babylonian Code Of Hammurabi the equivalent law states that if a nobleman takes out the eye of a nobleman he should pay with his own eye, and if he takes out the eye of a peasant he should pay a fine; however, if a peasant takes out the eye of a nobleman he should pay with his life. So the law as stated in the Pentateuch is an improvement on Hammurabi since it introduces the concept of equality before the law. (It strikes me as notable that forms of substitutionary atonement theory that argue that an infinite God being infinitely good and infinitely just, takes infinite offence at our finite sins etc, have more in common with the Code Of Hammurabi than Biblical principles of Justice.
Also ‘an eye for an eye’ introduces the principle of proportionality into law (‘no more than an eye for an eye’) and curbs the excesses of vengeance as it escalates into vendetta. We see this escalation in Genesis where Lamech, Cain’s descendant says: “I have slain a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy sevenfold” (Genesis 4: 23 – 24 RSV). Jesus words that Peter should forgive his brother not seven times but seventy times seven (Matthew 18: 22 ) must be alluding to Lamech. Therefore they are a fulfilment of the spirit of the law of ‘an eye for an eye’ - going even further to resolv
e the problem for vengeance - rather than its abolition. It seems to me that if this is the law of God then something has lost balance when we speak of Divine justice that needs to be satisfied through substitute or retributive punishment.
Thanks for that Cindy. I read it when the sky was grey and it cheered me up 
Good wishes to all
Dick
)
There are other ways of understanding the Cross & Substitutionary Atonement, which might be better e.g. Christus Victor
