Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable

Con says "Second, you characterize my use of the word Metaphysics incorrectly. You state that it is simply me using a word to allow for contradiction, which is untrue. 8000 Characters is not a lot of space. I am a graduate student that regularly writes 25-30 page papers on these kinds of topics, to summarize it in 40,000 characters would be doing injustice to a complex topic, so I am refraining from doing so." In a debate, its the arguments that matter, not whether some one is a graduate student who regularly writes papers. In other words your own personal life is not a substitute for a good argument. You made a claim, I made an objection to it, you don't want to defend YOUR claim, that's your problem not mine. Con says "Your argument that "Jesus Christ dying for our sins is objectionable" is based entirely on you refuting substitutionary atonement" Yes, I elaborate on this in round 1 where I had said......... "Elaboration on what it means that "Jesus died for our/your sins" I don't want to give a detailed atonement theory, so hopefully the basics will suffice which are........ 1) Everyone is a sinner 2) Sinners deserve punishment (usually refereed to as eternity in hell, either burning in fire and or separation from God in darkness 3) Jesus wrongful death by crucifixion is necessary for God to forgive sinners" Con says in the previous rounds "However, I would like to point out that Pro still has not fulfilled his burden of proof in showing that the Penal Substitution Atonement that he is objecting to is actually the way the Bible presents the function of the death of Christ on the Cross." I ask Con to explain why they think that I need to prove the bible presents penal atonement theory or ANY atonement theory for that matter, in order for me to object to penal atonement. My objections are based on a moral ground and reasoning, not on what the bible says, or the quran, or an episode of the simpsons. Con says "Was Con able to show these objections ere false and or unwarranted? Yes, Con showed that a system where the guilty are pardoned by the executive officer of the jurisdiction is not rejected out of hand, which is the second part of your argument. Does this support your claim that Jesus for our sins is objectionable?" Con left out a very important component of my argument against his illustration, and that was that the the claim is made that Jesus death by crucifixion is NECESSARY for the forgiveness of sins, and thus their illustration of people being forgiven just because the state choose too doesn't help defend penal atonement. Con says "So... are you traveling in time to witness the events? How do you have knowledge of said events? What is your source of evidence that Jesus ever died for our sins? You cannot base an argument merely on your own ideas... especially an argument about a historic event... without referencing historic documents." Oh ok, I'll answer the questions, No I am not a time traveler, and no I did not witness the events that are claimed to have taken place in the new testament. My objections are based on reasoning, not on whether certain events did or did not occur. So with that in mind, what is your argument here ? Why does Con think I need to prove or assume that the new testament is historically accurate for me to objection to penal atonement theory ? I remind Con of the two questions I asked in this round which are......... 1) Why does Con think that I need to prove or assume the bible presents penal atonement theory or ANY atonement theory for that matter, in order for me to object to penal atonement ? 2) Why does Con think I need to prove or assume that the new testament is historically accurate for me to object to penal atonement theory ? I look forward to Cons response.