Lukas Not Podolski@OtitoNosike
You people make me laugh. If someone sacrifices something, the sacrifice lies in the act of willingly giving it up, not in whether it is eventually restored.
By your logic, a soldier who throws himself in front of a bullet but survives made no sacrifice because he lived. A parent who gives up a career to raise a child made no sacrifice because they later found fulfilment. A man who donates his kidney made no sacrifice because he continued living afterwards. Do you see how manifestly absurd your understanding of sacrifice is?
The value of a sacrifice has never depended on whether the thing lost is recovered. It has always depended on what was willingly surrendered in the moment it was surrendered. The possibility of restoration does not retroactively erase the cost of the act.
Now to your second argument: “Who was the recipient?” By Christian theology, Christ willingly offered himself for the redemption of mankind. You can call the story a fable if you like; I would understand why. But saying that Christ, though part of the Trinity, pulled a sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul, a Mavrodi-style scheme, is just flat-out humorous.
