Religious dilemma

[Liberanosamalo]

Persuader, sometimes it’s really hard to understand why someone becomes obsessed with a particular kind of car. You can walk around it, kick the tires, look at it and comment on its apparent design flaws and anachronistic lines. And it leaves you cold. It’s a piece of metal.

But Persuader, sometimes you can only understand by getting behind the wheel yourself, taking her out on the open road and letting the engine go full throttle. The rush… the wind in your hair, the powerful engine that takes you places at speeds you never thought you’d go, to places you only dreamed of…

yeah… sometimes you have to get behind the wheel yourself before you can judge the merits of a car and understand its devotees… And when you have finished your test drive, you don’t need to understand anymore. You want a car like that too.

Read up on Malcolm Muggeridge as well. Like Waugh, there is much to be learned from him too.

 

[Persuader]

I think discussing it with her would be counterproductive, and could shake her faith. In the last thread you made you said that she became quite unhappy when she lost her faith, if she hears you detailing the reasons why you think Catholicism contradicts itself she might start doubting again and become unhappy again.

Yes, this is why I am reluctant to say anything, although I think she might’ve had a bit of a culture shock coming into a university environment, and that this compounded things for her. She went to catholic school, and I feel like her parents tried to shelter her somewhat.

What I would like to know is if it is any catholic doctrine that speak on this issue. Normally I would think it too specific, but I find myself constantly surprised at the detail of Catholic writings on behavior of all sorts.

monicatholic:

this is why the Church calls it “disparity of cult.” in ancient language, it is called “unequally yoked.” the real problem is this: you think her faith is the burden in your relationship. but your unbelief is a bigger burden. and your intellectual hubris is the biggest burden.

I don’t know if I would describe it that way. I would say that the current content of her faith has elements to it that puts restraints on her behavior, and consequently on the relationship. Chastity is an example of this. My behavior is not restricted on these issues, so I don’t think my unbelief is a burden in a practical sense. When it comes to it being a burden for her faith, you might be right. My intellectual hubris is another matter – a completely hopeless matter with no end in sight.

dulcissima:

Persuader. Listening to you reminds me of something I remember reading, something that Evelyn Waugh borrowed from GK Chesterton. Read to the bottom of this page for it…the bit about the hook and all…

Yes, so the point Waugh was making was that you had to choose between Christianity and chaos. The problem with this notion is that many of the least religious countries are also the most stable. You notice on the Failed States Index, for instance, that the most stable countries are Norway, Finland and Sweden (in order). That fact does not match well for a statement saying that lack of Christianity results in chaos.

 

[flyingfish]

Yes, this is why I am reluctant to say anything, although I think she might’ve had a bit of a culture shock coming into a university environment, and that this compounded things for her. She went to catholic school, and I feel like her parents tried to shelter her somewhat.

What I would like to know is if it is any catholic doctrine that speak on this issue. Normally I would think it too specific, but I find myself constantly surprised at the detail of Catholic writings on behavior of all sorts.

In all my time as a Catholic, I never heard of such a doctrine.

The Church permits marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics (whether they’re atheists or belong to a different faith). In order to marry, you need permission from the Bishop (which I understand you already have?), and the Catholic party has to promise to raise the children Catholic.

I have never, ever seen anything that said the non-Catholic party must describe precisely the reasons for not being Catholic, or that thinking Catholicism is self contradictory vs. false is a relevant distinction that must be communicated.

Frankly, I think if you volunteer to your girlfriend that you think her faith is self contradictory, she might feel as though you’re attacking/being hostile to her faith. This kind of thing should be discussed only if you both want to.

 

[monicatholic]

My intellectual hubris is another matter – a completely hopeless matter with no end in sight.

so long as there’s a breath left in you, persuader, there’s hope for your humility.

pride, though, is the deadliest of sins. it is the primary and gargantuan obstacle standing between a man and his potential faith in God.

if you find faith, persuader, you will also begin to find humility. but you also need to find some smidgeon of humility in order to find faith. one has to admit that his intellect, or a collective of intellects like his own, are NOT the greatest power in creation. in fact, simply accepting one’s address is somewhere IN the created universe, would generate a measure of humility in the really smart guy.

furthermore, if you find humility, persuader, so many of your troubles with your fiance (and with her faith) will dissolve into nothing.

with humility comes the astonishing freedom to stop beating one’s head against the wall.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Why do you keep starting new threads asking basically the same question differently?

 

[Catchy_Username]

Hello friend,

You and I are in similar positions, though maybe to a lesser extent on my end. What types of things would you be talking about when you wonder if if you should just keep quiet about it?

 

[Rence]

Should I shut up (risking issues further down the line), or should I voice my newfound concerns now? Based on non-catholic advice and my own thinking (I don’t really know any Catholics besides my fiancée), I am leaning towards keeping my mouth shut and just see how it plays out. Would you, as a Catholic, see my concerns as important, or would it not matter that much?

No, I wouldn’t shut up. I encourage you to be honest with her so that you both can make informed decisions. If you’re not honest with her now, it might turn out really bad later.

Another poster brought up the possibility of your future wife returning to the Catholic faith. This is a very real possibility and it will be a real problem for you later unless you are willing to allow her to practice the Catholic faith without interference from you, which means you’ll have to comply with the Catholic Church’s teachings too. That’s not to say that you’ll have to attend Mass with her. But if she returns to the Church and decides to practice NFP, so will you. If she decides God has called her to have her 10th child, you’ll have to consider it too.

Really, religious matters (like all important matters) need to be discussed before marriage. It’s not fair to either of you to not be honest and up-front about your concerns, as well as your expectations. Marriage is hard enough, it takes work. It will be a disaster if you’re not on the same page.

Good luck

 

[Persuader]

Hello friend,

You and I are in similar positions, though maybe to a lesser extent on my end. What types of things would you be talking about when you wonder if if you should just keep quiet about it?

Right… so let me give you a recent example. Easter is done. Obviously, my gf and her family see this as a religious holiday and I don’t. So when she asked me about Easter as a religious thing, I am not very familiar with the religious part of the celebrations (obviously, I know the basics, but not much else). Anyway, we got to talking about it, and she talked about how Jesus sacrificed himself, was killed and raised from the dead etc.

What I want to say at this point is: what’s the point? For instance, what exactly is sacrificed by Jesus? If you take a classic example of a sacrifice, you can have a woman named Jill. Let’s say Jill pushes another person out of the way of a car, and dies in this persons place. We can assume Jill is 20 years old, so she could otherwise expect to have about 65 years left of her life. This is what is essentially sacrificed. Something that you would otherwise retain, is given up for the sake of someone or something else. This is what it means to make a sacrifice. So what exactly is it that Jesus is sacrificing? He is only dead for three days. I sort of asked my gf some questions about it, but I didn’t express the extent of my criticism. This is a good example of what I am talking about when I refer to topics of conversation where I normally limit my remarks for her sake.

 

[ContegoFides]

I can see positives in some of the cultural and social aspects of the religion, but intellectually I find it dissatisfying.

I submit you don’t understand Catholicism if you find it intellectual dissatisfying. Perhaps you don’t agree, but some of the greatest minds in all of history have demonstrated the Truth and consistency of unchanging Catholic teaching. Something tells me you haven’t read what these minds have had to say (Augustine, Acquinas, Chesterton, John Paul II, Jesus himself, etc., etc., etc.)

PM me if you don’t think so, and I will demonstrate. The Truth stands up against all challenges.

However, what is more concerning to me is the charges by some here that you keep posting on the same issues. Are you just looking for someone to agree with you to verify a decision you’ve already made? If so, then make your decision and move on.

If you are actually seeking the Truth, then really open your mind and listen.

As far as your Catholic girlfriend is concerned, if you lead her from the Faith then you are endangering her soul and heading for a lifetime of pain for yourself. Stop it.

In a time of darkness I married an anti-Catholic woman. The result has been nearly disaster, and certainly an incredible amount of pain.

Even if all you do is value your own hide, you need to get out now while the getting is good. Alternatively (and MUCH better), you should genuinely investigate converting and coming to the Tree of Life.

Any alternative in between is the path of a fool. I know, for I was such a fool. Don’t be a fool yourself.

God Bless,

 

[ContegoFides]

What I want to say at this point is: what’s the point? For instance, what exactly is sacrificed by Jesus? If you take a classic example of a sacrifice, you can have a woman named Jill. Let’s say Jill pushes another person out of the way of a car, and dies in this persons place. We can assume Jill is 20 years old, so she could otherwise expect to have about 65 years left of her life. This is what is essentially sacrificed. Something that you would otherwise retain, is given up for the sake of someone or something else. This is what it means to make a sacrifice. So what exactly is it that Jesus is sacrificing? He is only dead for three days. I sort of asked my gf some questions about it, but I didn’t express the extent of my criticism. This is a good example of what I am talking about when I refer to topics of conversation where I normally limit my remarks for her sake.

You proceed from a false premise. Jill, who sacrifices herself to save another, does not give up 45 years of life (as you have implied). From her perspective, she has given up everything. Her perspective is the one that matters here, because when she makes the decision to sacrifice her life, she is the one who is losing everything. Seeing her sacrifice as a mere “45 years of life” cheapens and demeans the greatness of her deed. It is for this reason that Jesus said that no greater love has a man for a friend than to lay down his life for his friend.

Likewise, Jesus gave up everything when he died for his sins. He also endured horrific torture when he had no reason to, and even enduring that torture is a sacrifice that he did not have to make.

The fact that he rose again on the third day does not change the fact that he offered everything for us - his whole earthly life. In his divine nature he did rise from the dead, thereby breaking the chains of death and allowing us to be reunited with Him in Heaven.

There’s something else Jesus sacrificed - his incarnation. The same God that created 150 billion galaxies humbled himself to become a frail, flesh and blood man on a tiny planet in a dark corner of the cosmos. That is also a sacrifice.

Remember also that God is not only good, but just. Our sins demand punishment of an eternal nature. But God is also infinitely good and loves us, His created children.

A dilemma.

So, God’s solution was to incarnate himself and send his Son to suffer the punishment we deserved, thereby satisfying justice. It’s like you got sentenced to death for actually committing murder, and the Judge asked his son to voluntarily take your place to pay for the crime.

That is love. That is sacrifice.

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe it is because I just cannot relate to that kind of element in a life. I understand it intellectually. I can see, understand, and know that she thinks it is important, but in some way it still feels alien to me. It’s a bit like a friend of mine, who has an avid interest in special types of cars. I can see, understand, and know that he thinks it is important, but it still feels kind of alien because I don’t share it or really understand it.

Okay.

Now - imagine that you make a commitment to live with that guy for the rest of your life, and agree to raise his children to share his enthusiasm about cars. You have to agree that your garage will be continually full of spare car parts and half-built cars - your plan to keep gardening tools in there has to go by the wayside. You are going to be required to raise his children as mechanics, and any criticism of the lifestyle of a mechanic, or any suggestions about law school or medicine, will be forbidden. Furthermore, you must pay to send him and his children to every car show that comes to town, and to take the kids out to tour car lots and junk yards every Sunday.

My enthusiasm can only come by encouragement and a sense of obligation. I don’t think this is a problem that I cannot overcome. Certainly, I can be friends with the car-guy without sharing his interest.

I’m quite sure that you don’t anticipate living with him, or having to share garage space with him, though.

Similarly, I think I can be with my fiancée without sharing her faith.

Her faith is not just a hobby. It’s part of who she is, and it will influence every choice she makes in life. If you don’t see the logic in her faith, then the choices she makes in life are ultimately going to drive you crazy.

Ask yourself, can she live with that?

 

[Monica4316]

I think that it is really important that you respect your fiance’s faith. Don’t mock it, and if you disagree, don’t try to convince her of your view. This also builds humility

we should respect other people’s faith because it is important to them. Think of something that defines your whole life… how would you feel if someone close to you criticized it?

Maybe instead of trying to explain your views to your fiance, why not ask her why she believes as she does ask her questions about her faith, try to learn, without saying anything in return. This might help you as well as the relationship.

It is difficult for a Christian to be in a relationship with a non believer. The Catholic view of marriage is that the spouses help each other attain eternal life. Faith in God is also something that’s very personal and it is really painful to have someone criticize it. It is also difficult when a person close to you doesn’t share that important aspect of your life, - it’s like you’re living for different things, different purposes… I suggest learning more about your fiance’s faith by listening to her, rather than talking.

 

[Persuader]

You proceed from a false premise. Jill, who sacrifices herself to save another, does not give up 45 years of life (as you have implied). From her perspective, she has given up everything. Her perspective is the one that matters here, because when she makes the decision to sacrifice her life, she is the one who is losing everything. Seeing her sacrifice as a mere “45 years of life” cheapens and demeans the greatness of her deed. It is for this reason that Jesus said that no greater love has a man for a friend than to lay down his life for his friend.

Likewise, Jesus gave up everything when he died for his sins. He also endured horrific torture when he had no reason to, and even enduring that torture is a sacrifice that he did not have to make.

The fact that he rose again on the third day does not change the fact that he offered everything for us - his whole earthly life. In his divine nature he did rise from the dead, thereby breaking the chains of death and allowing us to be reunited with Him in Heaven.

There’s something else Jesus sacrificed - his incarnation. The same God that created 150 billion galaxies humbled himself to become a frail, flesh and blood man on a tiny planet in a dark corner of the cosmos. That is also a sacrifice.

I did not imply she is giving up 45 years, but 65. Now, you are quite right in saying she is giving up everything. To give up everything implies losing consciousness, general ability to experience life, and personal identity, forever. Since a random woman in the west could expect to become 80-85 years old, I said Jill could expect 65 years of life. She is sacrificing the remainder of her years of life (statistically around 65 years).

Now, if she regained her life with consciousness, abilities of experience, and personal identity, a few hours after dying, she would no longer be dead, and her sacrifice would not be her death. From Jill’s perspective, this loss of consciousness, ability of experience and personal identity, would presumably be identical to what happens when you go to sleep. The whole point of sacrificing life, is that you actually give up your ability to experience (and that entails giving up your personal identity and consciousness) forever - not that you give it up for a short time (like a few hours or a few days).

So let’s take a look at your explanation. First, you say he offered everything (ps: offering to make a sacrifice, and making a sacrifice is not the same), which might be true if he didn’t know he would arise in three days. Now, you also seem to insinuate that he gave up his earthly life. From what I’ve read, the claim is that he arose physically, so I am not sure of the significance of this. Second, you say simply taking on a physical shape is a sacrifice for him. So, presumably, this physical existence is subpar for Jesus.

Let’s say he is actually giving up his earthly life (I don’t know what significance this would hold, seen as I am not sure what kind of abilities Jesus is ridding himself of). If this is to be viewed as a sacrifice, you cannot simultaneously say this physical existence is a sacrifice in and of itself. If Jesus prefers not having a physical incarnation and an earthly life, how could it be a sacrifice for him to leave this existence? If you get to chose between two modes of existence, and you prefer A to B - whilst staying in B - it would be strange to say it is a sacrifice to change modes from B to A.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Persuader, the devil is in the details, as we say.

It’s also the manner in which he gave up his life.

When he took on humanity, he was both True God and True Man. At the same time. There was no lack in his physicality. His senses were not dulled by sin or human imperfection. So he felt pain in a way you never could or I never could.

And that giving up his life entailed a lot of pain… a beating at the hands of the guards that should have killed him. Being forced to walk up hills carrying a heavy cross as guards whipped him. Being nailed to the cross on a place called The Place of the Skull which was probably littered with rotting remains of past crucifixion victims. Imagine the stench. And for three hours he had to alternate between putting all his body weight on the nails through his bleeding feet in order to straighten up to take a breath, only to sink back and have all his body weight on his nails through his wrists as he suffocated. Meanwhile, he bled out and suffered parching thirst as the crowd jeered at him. A cruel death so horrifying in the hot sun that it was not something the Roman Empire would inflict on its own citizens. Roman citizens were mercifully beheaded.

Would YOU endure such a death in order to atone for the sins of others? If a heinous criminal in your country or any country was to be put to death for serial murder, perhaps, would you step in and say you would be punished in his place and endure that death? THAT is what it means to sacrifice.

 

[agapewolf]

As Mark Hart of Lifeteen says:

f Jesus didn’t rise, an even greater miracle happened…12 relatively uneducated guys changed the world & were martryed to protect a lie.

 

[ContegoFides]

…I said Jill could expect 65 years of life. She is sacrificing the remainder of her years of life …

You proceed from the assumption that a person is the sum total of consciousness, experience, identify, etc. However, a person is much more; an immortal soul. It is the soul that gives all people a sense of “self” that is beyond mere experiences. When a person offers up their “self” for another, they offer up a total giving of self for the sake of another. That total giving has a value that cannot be evaulated quantitatively in terms of “days” or “experiences,” as you are attempting to do. In essence, you appear to believe that people are simply machines that have quantifiable values; when in fact they are much more.

Now, if she regained her life …her sacrifice would not be her death …The whole point of sacrificing life, is that you actually give up your ability to experience …

It is not correct to say that the point of sacrificing life is that you give up everything forever. The whole point of sacrificing one’s life is the total giving of self out of love, which is not quantifiable. Again, your argument rests on the incorrect premise that the sacrifice is quantifiable in terms of time.

For example, Jill still offered up her whole self to save another becasue she didn’t know she would live (I’ll address Jesus’ knowledge below, in response to your 4th paragraph). The fact that she did not actually die, but recovered, does not change this fact. Accordingly, her act of sacrifice - even if she recovers - is as qualitatively meritorious as if she had not recovered.

So let’s take a look at your explanation…

In response to statement 1, Jesus did give everything; he did give his entire self in his human nature. The fact that he knew he would physically rise again on the third day does not change the fact that he fully gave himself in his human nature. Your conclusion to the contrary again relies on a quantitative vision of the person, which is objectively incorrect. He didn’t “give up 3 days;” he gave “everything” in his human nature and then in his divine nature He “took it back” when he physically rose from the dead. Thus, your assessment that he only gave up 3 days of experiences misses the mark.

In response to statement 2, the incarnation is indeed “subpar” for God. God is infinitely powerful, and the example of the creation of 150 billion galaxies is a paltry offering to convey a sense of what the incarnation means. Given the limitations of taking our form (without hurting us) this is a sacrifice (see my response to “modes” below).

Furthermore, your response ignores the torture He endured for others. If that is not a sacrifice, I don’t know what is.

In addition, you are judging God by human standards. We are all limited, and thus cannot judge God. In other words, you (and all other humans) are in no position to guage the true value of the sacrifice made by God.

It’s possible to turn that argument around and try to say that I can’t judge God either, and therefore I can’t say he gave up his total self. In a vacuum, you’d be right. However, we do know that Jesus (God) revealed to us that he intentionally “sacrificed” himself and also “lowered himself” to take our form. We may rely on God’s revealed Truth that He actually did make a sacrifice, at least as far as we are able to understand it.

…If this is to be viewed as a sacrifice, you cannot simultaneously say this physical existence is a sacrifice in and of itself … If you get to chose between two modes of existence, and you prefer A to B - whilst staying in B - it would be strange to say it is a sacrifice to change modes from B to A.

Your argument is flawed because it ignores the reason why you are changing from B to A and it also ignores the nature of the states B and A. Without these factors you cannot draw any logical moral conclusions based on a choice between B and A.

Let me show this by example. I am a wizard that can assume the form of a man or the form of a rock. I prefer the form of a man because I am limited when I am in the shape of a rock. While I can still change back into a man or use other magic, there are certain things I can’t as a rock do without undesirably hurting people around me. Further assume that unless I take the form of a rock, people will be hurt.

In this circumstance, voluntarily maintaining the form of a rock and not using my full powers are sacrifices because I have given something up. The sacrifice is meritorious because I have given something up in order to avoid doing something immoral. If I am infinite and enter a finite body, the sacrifice is infinitely meritorious.

We can also see this same effect in real life, though the analogy is not as strong. As a father, I give up the “single” mode of existence in order to care for my child - the “father” mode of existence. Whereas I’m an adult and can choose to abandon my child for any reason (assume for the sake of argument no legal consequence for doing so), I choose for the sake of my child to maintain the father mode of existence.

According to your logic, there is no sacrifice for doing so. However, clearly there is a sacrifice as I give up freedom in order to fulfill the “father” mode out of love for my child.

My ultimate point is this: Jesus made at least three sacrifices. In dying Jesus totally gave of himself in his human nature. This is a sacrifice, both according to right reason and His divine revelation. He also sacrificed by taking human form. He also sacrificed by enduring torture that He did not have to endure.

Because Jesus is also divine His sacrifice is infinitely meritorious. He purposefully earned this merit in order to save us when we didn’t deserve it; in fact, to save us from our offenses against Him! This shows a profound love for His created beings (us).

 

[ContegoFides]

Persuader,

I humbly submit that your real issue here is that you do not believe in God and you do not believe that people have souls (but rather are defined merely by the agglomeration of their physical attributes and experiences; i.e., machines).

If so, then I also humbly submit that I can objectively prove that faith in God, as revealed through the Catholic Church, is reasonable. I didn’t say “absolutely prove,” I said that I can prove that my statement is reasonable.

If that faith is reasonable, then it is reasonable to believe in this God and join His church, given the “potential” benefits of eternal life.

If that is so, and if the Church is a divine institution rather than a human one, then all of your objections should be resolved over time. Of course, you should ask questions.

You will also find a great deal of peace and joy here. The Church is NOT about rules and regulations; the Church is all about bringing us to the incredible peace and joy of being with God, who made us to love and serve Him. All of the Church’s rules and regulations are directed towards getting us there. In contrast, believing in no god - or in a God that doesn’t care - or believing that people are machines leads only to unhappiness out of a lack of meaning and a hopelessness in view of the inevitable death of the body.

At least give me a an open shot.

 

[newbetx]

Right… so let me give you a recent example. Easter is done. Obviously, my gf and her family see this as a religious holiday and I don’t. So when she asked me about Easter as a religious thing, I am not very familiar with the religious part of the celebrations (obviously, I know the basics, but not much else). Anyway, we got to talking about it, and she talked about how Jesus sacrificed himself, was killed and raised from the dead etc.

What I want to say at this point is: what’s the point? For instance, what exactly is sacrificed by Jesus? If you take a classic example of a sacrifice, you can have a woman named Jill. Let’s say Jill pushes another person out of the way of a car, and dies in this persons place. We can assume Jill is 20 years old, so she could otherwise expect to have about 65 years left of her life. This is what is essentially sacrificed. Something that you would otherwise retain, is given up for the sake of someone or something else. This is what it means to make a sacrifice. So what exactly is it that Jesus is sacrificing? He is only dead for three days. I sort of asked my gf some questions about it, but I didn’t express the extent of my criticism. This is a good example of what I am talking about when I refer to topics of conversation where I normally limit my remarks for her sake.

I thought you said you understood sacrifice enough to get married. Sounds like you don’t realize how significant it is. Giving up something… to get something else? Christ gave up his life, which he could have kept if he wanted, to get what? He got nothing. It’s us who got something. Now that is sacrifice.

Your example may be “classic” but true sacrifice can not be measured in numbers. You are showing a very poor value of life. Maybe that’s where you are, but friend, you undervalue living.

Let me ask you this… would you give up your life so that your girlfriend can live? Yes? No? Maybe?

Would you give up your life so your parents could live?

Would you give up your life so the teacher you most dislike could live?

Would you give up your life so that someone who absolutely hates you could live?

Would you give up your life so the drug addict sleeping down the block could live?

You say that Jesus was only dead for three days… so do you believe he was dead and is now alive? Would you go through all that pain and suffering to be dead only three days? Maybe you need to watch The Passion of the Christ once.

It’s of course more complex than “just dying for 3 days” but you are a long way from understanding that.

 

[joandarc2008]

This is something that may help as a reference point:

Jesus substitutes his obedience for our disobedience

615 "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."443 By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who “makes himself an offering for sin”, when “he bore the sin of many”, and who “shall make many to be accounted righteous”, for “he shall bear their iniquities”.444 Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.445

Jesus consummates his sacrifice on the cross

616 It is love "to the end"446 that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life.447 Now "the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died."448 No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

617 The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ’s sacrifice as "the source of eternal salvation"449 and teaches that "his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us."450 And the Church venerates his cross as she sings: "Hail, O Cross, our only hope."451

Our participation in Christ’s sacrifice

618 The cross is the unique sacrifice of Christ, the “one mediator between God and men”.452 But because in his incarnate divine person he has in some way united himself to every man, “the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” is offered to all men.453 He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”,454 for "Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps."455 In fact Jesus desires to associate with his redeeming sacrifice those who were to be its first beneficiaries.456 This is achieved supremely in the case of his mother, who was associated more intimately than any other person in the mystery of his redemptive suffering.457

Apart from the cross there is no other ladder by which we may get to heaven.458

 

[Persuader]

You proceed from the assumption that a person is the sum total of consciousness, experience, identify, etc. However, a person is much more; an immortal soul. It is the soul that gives all people a sense of “self” that is beyond mere experiences. When a person offers up their “self” for another, they offer up a total giving of self for the sake of another. That total giving has a value that cannot be evaulated quantitatively in terms of “days” or “experiences,” as you are attempting to do. In essence, you appear to believe that people are simply machines that have quantifiable values; when in fact they are much more.

I will say that you are right, I do not believe in souls. However, unless Jesus lost his soul by dying on the cross, this is irrelevant. And even if he did lose his soul, he presumably regained it three days later, so I am not sure what this would mean. PS: I would not say that not believing in souls automatically results in viewing people as machines. Also, what functions are performed by souls if consciousness and personal identity are not?

For example, Jill still offered up her whole self to save another becasue she didn’t know she would live (I’ll address Jesus’ knowledge below, in response to your 4th paragraph). The fact that she did not actually die, but recovered, does not change this fact. Accordingly, her act of sacrifice - even if she recovers - is as qualitatively meritorious as if she had not recovered.

It does change the nature of the sacrifice, because Jill didn’t lose her life. You are trying to separate the element of consequences or loss from the concept of sacrifice . To say that sacrifice is simply intending to lose something, and acting to lose something, is the same as saying murder is the same as attempted murder. But it is clearly not the same. The actual consequences of your intentions and actions matters in both cases. Of course, I would not say that Jill didn’t do something admirable or that she didn’t sacrifice anything at all.

Your argument is flawed because it ignores the reason why you are changing from B to A and it also ignores the nature of the states B and A. Without these factors you cannot draw any logical moral conclusions based on a choice between B and A.

Let me show this by example. I am a wizard that can assume the form of a man or the form of a rock. I prefer the form of a man because I am limited when I am in the shape of a rock. While I can still change back into a man or use other magic, there are certain things I can’t as a rock do without undesirably hurting people around me. Further assume that unless I take the form of a rock, people will be hurt… According to your logic, there is no sacrifice for doing so. However, clearly there is a sacrifice as I give up freedom in order to fulfill the “father” mode out of love for my child.

You seem to be missing the point. I didn’t say that it isn’t a sacrifice for Jesus to incarnate himself in a human body. I said that you couldn’t say this is a sacrifice while simultaneously saying it is a sacrifice for Jesus to leave this incarnation. That would be like the wizard returning to his human body, and complaining that it was a sacrifice for him to do so.

Furthermore, your response ignores the torture He endured for others. If that is not a sacrifice, I don’t know what is.

Well, I did not actually claim that Jesus didn’t sacrifice anything in this scenario. I am happy to give you that the torture in and of itself can be seen as a sacrifice. Even so, I do not see that there is a point to this sacrifice. Of course, I do understand it literally, but I don’t think it makes much sense.

Liberanosamalo:

Would YOU endure such a death in order to atone for the sins of others? If a heinous criminal in your country or any country was to be put to death for serial murder, perhaps, would you step in and say you would be punished in his place and endure that death? THAT is what it means to sacrifice.

No, I would not endure torture for the sins of others, but I don’t see it as a virtue to do so. If a person was convicted of being a serial killer, I would hope that he was put in jail (I oppose the death penalty). Even if I believed in retributivism or revenge as a good argument for punishment (which I, like most modern systems of law, do not), I don’t see the sense in stepping in to take the punishment in the serial killers place. This would be a classic example of miscarriage of justice. Why don’t you explain to me how taking the punishment for somebody else makes any sense. If God does not want to punish us, then he can pardon us. To punish somebody else (his own son) sounds like a miscarriage of justice. It seems like you (not you specifically) see our wrongdoings as an abstract or supernatural set that is separable from ourselves (thereby enabling someone else to deal with them), and that the punishment of Jesus in some way negates the set. I don’t see the sense in this strange abstraction of justice-related concepts.