Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.

[Mudhammam]

Yes pickup. Freely given. Jesus knew it was going to happen and willingly entered into it. Why? Because this was the point of his life. That's the point extra to the historical event.
You don't understand why making a once and for all way for humans to overcome their fallibility is a loving act?

Lol. A "once and for all way for humans to overcome their fallibility," boy, that does sound nice! And you've got the discount on that!? Please tell us how that was accomplished by one of the billions of people who's life had to come to an untimely end (sad but you know, we all die). And no, it was not a loving act for you or for me any more so than the countless who have sacrificed themselves willingly for all sorts of causes. Nothing renders Jesus' death any more noble or special than the common soldier. Your attachment of grandiose metaphysical claims to it, without even an inkling of external or internal cogent, sufficient reasons to support them, doesn't make it loving and most definitely doesn't render it moral.

Giving someone else something though they didn't deserve it seems the very definition of loving to me. You're giving the homeless man the ability to feed himself.

Yes. That is an example of one cause directly having an effect through a process of meaningful concepts related in a given context. That's what I'm suggesting you try to apply to this horrible story you're postulating.

The handicapped child? Really? I'm sorry but that's just disgusting and totally inappropriate. Nobody caused a third party to suffer. One person chose to sacrifice themselves for a greater good. So that no one had to suffer any longer. You could try just just a little to make an accurate example. Is the suffering depicted abhorrent? YES! That's the point! You can't make a sacrifice of nothing. Something has to be exchanged. Something valuable has to be offered in exchange.

Not by your logic. The third parties would include us and God "the Father," as in the sins of the world that God (Jesus and not Jesus at the same time though--right!) demanded must be paid in blood. In fact, the father in my example was offering "a gift," a lesson and a means for the poor child to "overcome their fallibility" by causing them (or maybe an innocent sibling would satisfy the analogy better) "terrible suffering." See, something is getting exchanged, and something valuable is offered, since in your mind the only qualification for both (to the good Lord's satisfaction) is the gruesome shedding of blood.

You say I'm simply 'wrong', but don't even attempt to say why.

As you said, "I'm sorry but that's just disgusting and totally inappropriate."