The atonement of sins is an immoral and illogical doctrine

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." A mother working 2 jobs for her children, soldiers in the fields dying for our freedom, doctors putting their own health at stake to heal the inflicted, these are true sacrifices which display the greatest love hath no god than this. "Jesus is the manifestation of Gods grace. What Jesus did manifests Gods grace to us." This is not an answer to the morality of the atonement. You must also demonstrate this statements validity. "My opponent believes the sacrifice of Jesus was not acceptable morally. But without the God of the Bible my opponent has NO foundation for objective moral value statements such as this." -" Let me ask you, what is your foundation for your moral judgement? society? yourself? if it is either of these it is merely a subjective opinion with no foundation in objective reality." This is a whole other debate, that I would be happy to debate with you later. But since you asked I shall answer. I do believe that moral objective values exsist from natural means, not supernatural means. If you base morals on say the Christian god, then all you have done is set up a theocratic totalitarian state where what ever god says goes; be that child mutilation or murder of innocent people. Like I said earlier, might does not make right. You stated earlier "cannot keep the LAW OF GOD", which I assume means this is where your foundation for morality comes from. If this is the case, I would like to point out that law is not equivalent to morality. God could impliment many laws, but they can still be morally bankrupt. We are physical beings living in a physical universe; subject to physical laws. This means we can affirm truths about how things affect us. If morality is about well-being, then there must be certain baseline things, such as, life is generally preferable to death, which come not from anything revealed by a diety, but by purely natural means. Death is obviously a violation of well-being. With these simplistic qualities we can build systems of morality. Then if we go further on with these implications, we see that in a given situation there exist a finite set of possible actions which we can compare with other actions and determine that some may be better than others. This means that there must be a set of one or more actions for any given situation that represent the pinnacle of objective morality for that situation. We make assesments with respect to values. And even if objective moral values do not exist, so what! Morality is necessarily the well-being of conscience, living creatures and bound to the physical limitations of this universe. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." For the purpose of arguement lets say that this crucifixion did take place. It is said that to obtain this gift, I am responsible for the entire event, even though I was not present and had no part or say in the matter. In addition, I am required to believe that this whole event of agony was necessary for an earlier crime that I also did not have a part in; the eating on an apple....... This compounding of the sins of the father, original sin, is entirely immoral. If a baby is born to a women who was raped, based on your "god" law, this baby is sinful. That is wrong..... Lastly the atonement's immorality is also bound to another immoral action. If I use the free will, that god has given me and choose not to believe in this act, then I am condemned to eternal punishment. - Immoral.... For he came "to seek and to save that which was lost." Luke 19:10. Really, I thought he came "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34