Then you don't have a good grasp on the concept.
Regardless, He's real.
Assertion without Proof, Contradiction in Terms. You have no evidence for the assertion. The 'supernatural' isn't 'real' by definition.
Actually, It's sacrificing Himself.
Then it isn't a 'sacrifice' since there is no substitution and no loss. One can't lose oneself. There was no death, God cannot die. There was no atonement, God cannot separate from Himself.
It matters quite a bit. Why do you think burning witches is wrong?
I don't think burning witches is wrong because there are no witches. I think burning innocent people is wrong because they are innocent of being witches.
I do, most certainly.
here, let me introduce you. this is donh
(your turn, if you care to be consistent)
:-)
Assertion without Proof, Contradiction in Terms.
No, it's not a contradiction in terms. "Assertion" means one thing, "proof" means another. They in no way contradict.
The 'supernatural' isn't 'real' by definition.
That's incorrect. Use a dictionary when making claims about definitions.
Actually, It's sacrificing Himself . . .Then it isn't a 'sacrifice'
Are you claiming one can't sacrifice himself, or are you claiming that God can't sacrifice Himself? If the latter, scripture claims He did. I believe it.
I don't think burning witches is wrong because there are no witches.
Again, it's a matter of definition. There are people who claim to be witches and practice rituals with the intent to acquire supernatural powers, regardless of how successful they are.
I think burning innocent people is wrong because they are innocent of being witches.
If they are guilty of being witches is it OK to burn them by your standards?