Originally Posted by alias235
A guy on another forum brought this up. What can be said to defend Christianity for the following?
"The major Christian flaw is that they believe that "God sacrificed his son for our sins" but if he knew that upon his son's death he would instantly return to Heaven and inherit a kingdom on Earth he didn't sacrifice anything. It's like sending your child to school knowing that he would learn and come home safely to you at the end of the day to inherit a corporate empire and consider that a sacrifice. Sacrifice means that you give up something important to you with the knowledge that you would not get it back - that is true sacrifice. He did not sacrifice anything. Moreover I think it is immoral to forgive everything anybody has ever done just because they worship a man who was crucified in some meaningless act of "sacrifice" whether it was genuine or not."
In other words, he set up a strawman argument and then tears it down. Not too hard to do.
But seriously, why does he get to define what is means to sacrifice? And why does he think that Jesus' resurrection was only for him and not also redemptive? These are the questions his objections do not answer, but which must be answered before anything more can be said.
He is accusing God of selfishness and being disengenuous. As if Jesus' death on the cross meant nothing to the Father and was only a ploy. I ask you, who would undergo such pain and torture for the fun of it? This is just plain silly. This person is trying to find excuses for his unbelief, but they don't fly in the light of reason or common sense.