Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[Mudhammam]

It's freely given by God. To accept the gift involves acknowledging the sacrifice. If we don't accept the free offer, there is no other way to be forgiven. We don't deserve the gift, we cannot. But God loves us so much, he did this for us.

I can read nothing intelligible in these statements. "Freely given" by God? What was given? The sacrifice? Strange, I thought it had something to do with a mob, a Roman procurator, and the sins of the world. Is it freely given in the same manner that brain tumors are given to children? What does it mean to "accept" a gift by "acknowledging" it? I acknowledge the claim that Jesus died, hell, I even accept it as fact that he did indeed get crucified, but what does that have to do with anything outside of a conversation about ancient history? At least Mike has a decent point about following Jesus' example in humbling one's self before injustice rather than "repaying evil for evil" so as to break a cycle of hatred, but whatever you're trying to say Frodo, it'd help if you tried to articulate it more artfully using concepts that actually have meaning in a given context. What love has to do with sacrifice in your narrative is about as cogent as my stating that I gave a homeless man in Detroit a dollar so that the next victim of ebola in Africa might feel a glimmer of hope.

A generous act by God, causing his human incarnation terrible suffering, is somehow immoral because... WHY???

In context, a question of equal sensibility might be: A generous act, beating a handicap child until blood pours out from her mouth so that she learns not to question her father's wisdom on table etiquette, is somehow immoral because.... WHY???

We've just cleared up one point... If the gift was given freely then it wasn't immoral.

And that's quite obviously where you're simply (or rather horribly) dead wrong.