Why do we consider God's sending his son to be such a great act of love?

[Tantum_ergo]

Your forgetting that in this world pain often serves no purpose.
What about those with phantom-limb pain?
What about those with chronic pain due to injuries that they can do nothing about?
What about those with psychological pain that cannot be cured?

How do you mean, no purpose?

Phantom limb pain is a consequence of amputation. It sounds strange to the lay person but there is a definite reason that the pain occurs.

Chronic and psychological pain are certainly problematic but just because you don’t know the purpose yourself (or don’t accept possible reasons) doesn’t mean there IS no purpose.

How many people would have gone out in Ice Age days to look for plants that were no ‘use’ for eating, if they hadn’t had members of their family or tribe fall ill, and had discovered, or themselves made the discovery, that certain leaves, bark, etc. could alleviate or cure that pain?

For psychological pain, how many people do you think would have searched out various therapies and made trials of how to help people suffering with various psychological ills if the ills never occurred?

And even if we don’t see the reason for autism or schizophrenia, there is a PHYSICAL reason these conditions occur and the pain is a physical CONSEQUENCE of these.

You just aren’t taking a long range view. You can’t isolate humanity and pain to the 21st century as if God had somehow not taken into account how sophistimacated we are today and should have planned something different as to how we would get to understand our physical universe outside of pain and needs.

 

[Gaber]

The unconscious is not so easy to rule…

No, not without knowledge and technique. And certainly not from the standpoint of belief and the normal multiple personality syndrome we are all heir to as a “normal” mode of functioning. But that is the point of overcoming “the adversary,” the mind, or “the world.” Few consciously understand or deliberatly expereince the side of awareness that is, to the subject/object side, blank or empty. But once that is known to be a reality, the world changes in an instant for that person. The “unconscious” is then not so much the hidden mystery that blindsides the average person, because the underlying integrity of what allows us to experience the mind as a projector is known. The mind is re=ordered on a single premise as distinct from a cobbling of impressions and beleifs.

Much of what we can learn from Jesus is not what he said but what what He did. For example, in a patriarchal society He treated men and women as equals, children and Gentiles as members of God’s family and condemned those who virtually enslaved the poor - thereby instituting the principles of liberty, equality and (above all) fraternity, even today ignored or rejected by many people.

Yes, I was just conversiong with a man whose daughter is a junior in college and she is the “general” of the ROTC program there. She had to fight for it, despite being clearly the best qualified. I knew that the man was a Bible student of great skill, so I reminded him: “Jesus had female desciples, we ought to take a clue from the top, yes?” He smiled.

But what Jesus said is also imprtant, for sure, as well as the idea that actions are louder than words. I say this because some of His statements point way beyond the ordinary public folk understanding of religion and salvation that is de rigeur with even most of the upper heirarchy of Christianities and religion in general. It is as if we have taken the Cream of His Teaching and tossed it aside in ignorance, and reviel those few who remind us of its intrinsic and extrinsic value.

By addiction to ourselves I mean our inclination to put ourselves first rather than consider the interests of others. Like the lust for power it becomes a deep-rooted habit…

Yes, and it goes farther than that. Ifyou have seen the rather wonderful party sequence in the movie Down the Rabbit Hole, onecan get the smattering of the beginning of an undestanding of how little of what we do is not addiction in some form, even and especially belief. That is why the loss and the ignorance of the portion of the teaching of Jesus that is vilfied as being “not according to dogma” is such a tragedy. In the effort to make Christianity a public and popular religion, especially in the third century, much was lost or cast aside. Fortunately, it is yet available from other sources, and even from a few within the Church who have discovered it for themselves through hard work. And mayn oof those see fit to excuse themselves from the arms oof the Church because of this one factor, as, for them, I understand, it is too painful to be around such an omisssion.

Please remember, that while religion is about God, God knows nothing of religion, only of His own Allness, We cover that with the mechinations of the divisive nature of our mentality in a way that blinds us to the actuality of things and call it “faith,” until we see through even that. But it is how things work. Though the terrain is the same, somone on a hill, as high as it might be, does not see what the person on a mountain sees. They are not intrinsically different, and both see the same landscape.

It is just that one sees a bit more, farther, and around because of acheiving a position by work and grace. It is not even a value judgement; it is just a notation of difference in position, and can be an ivitation to go through the intervening valley and up the mountain.

 

[tonyrey]

No, not without knowledge and technique. And certainly not from the standpoint of belief and the normal multiple personality syndrome we are all heir to as a “normal” mode of functioning. But that is the point of overcoming “the adversary,” the mind, or “the world.” Few consciously understand or deliberatly expereince the side of awareness that is, to the subject/object side, blank or empty. But once that is known to be a reality, the world changes in an instant for that person. The “unconscious” is then not so much the hidden mystery that blindsides the average person, because the underlying integrity of what allows us to experience the mind as a projector is known. The mind is re=ordered on a single premise as distinct from a cobbling of impressions and beleifs.
Yes, I was just conversiong with a man whose daughter is a junior in college and she is the “general” of the ROTC program there. She had to fight for it, despite being clearly the best qualified. I knew that the man was a Bible student of great skill, so I reminded him: “Jesus had female desciples, we ought to take a clue from the top, yes?” He smiled.

But what Jesus said is also imprtant, for sure, as well as the idea that actions are louder than words. I say this because some of His statements point way beyond the ordinary public folk understanding of religion and salvation that is de rigeur with even most of the upper heirarchy of Christianities and religion in general. It is as if we have taken the Cream of His Teaching and tossed it aside in ignorance, and reviel those few who remind us of its intrinsic and extrinsic value.
Yes, and it goes farther than that. Ifyou have seen the rather wonderful party sequence in the movie Down the Rabbit Hole, onecan get the smattering of the beginning of an undestanding of how little of what we do is not addiction in some form, even and especially belief. That is why the loss and the ignorance of the portion of the teaching of Jesus that is vilfied as being “not according to dogma” is such a tragedy. In the effort to make Christianity a public and popular religion, especially in the third century, much was lost or cast aside. Fortunately, it is yet available from other sources, and even from a few within the Church who have discovered it for themselves through hard work. And mayn oof those see fit to excuse themselves from the arms oof the Church because of this one factor, as, for them, I understand, it is too painful to be around such an omisssion.

Please remember, that while religion is about God, God knows nothing of religion, only of His own Allness, We cover that with the mechinations of the divisive nature of our mentality in a way that blinds us to the actuality of things and call it “faith,” until we see through even that. But it is how things work. Though the terrain is the same, somone on a hill, as high as it might be, does not see what the person on a mountain sees. They are not intrinsically different, and both see the same landscape.

It is just that one sees a bit more, farther, and around because of acheiving a position by work and grace. It is not even a value judgement; it is just a notation of difference in position, and can be an ivitation to go through the intervening valley and up the mountain.

I agree with much of what you say but I don’t share your elitist attitude towards “the ordinary public folk understanding of religion and salvation that is de rigeur with even most of the upper hierarchy of Christianities and religion in general”.

 

[Gaber]

I agree with much of what you say but I don’t share your elitist attitude towards “the ordinary public folk understanding of religion and salvation that is de rigeur with even most of the upper hierarchy of Christianities and religion in general”.

Of course not. But my statement is not elitist as a judgement. It simply reflects what happens in any distribution of competence over a group. It was stated the way it was because that which is a unique descent of grace happens to an individual. It cannot successfully be institutionalized other than as a hope or a promise, which the institution has in an intelectualized form, as a belief structure. A belief is not the expereince, though it may be a pointer. A beleif is also void of content other than whatmight be called hope. It is a place holder for something greater, which imho, is inevitable in proportion to the resistance to it. And at some point the faith itself may be that resistance nd for a very simple reason. I was merely distinguishing between those who maintain the institution by learned habits and rationalizing, and those who have a particular kind of descent of grace and reaso afterwards from that premise as to what the structure of their/the soul is, whatever their previous status vis a vis faith or lack of it.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course not. But my statement is not elitist as a judgement. It simply reflects what happens in any distribution of competence over a group. It was stated the way it was because that which is a unique descent of grace happens to an individual. It cannot successfully be institutionalized other than as a hope or a promise, which the institution has in an intelectualized form, as a belief structure. A belief is not the expereince, though it may be a pointer. A beleif is also void of content other than whatmight be called hope. It is a place holder for something greater, which imho, is inevitable in proportion to the resistance to it. And at some point the faith itself may be that resistance nd for a very simple reason. I was merely distinguishing between those who maintain the institution by learned habits and rationalizing, and those who have a particular kind of descent of grace and reaso afterwards from that premise as to what the structure of their/the soul is, whatever their previous status vis a vis faith or lack of it.

I understand.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Um, Jesus didn’t have a TEMPORARY body, you know? He has that same body right now. Glorified, but not completely different. He didn’t suffer with a ‘temporary’ body and then throw it away to be pure Spirit.

This has troubling implications for the Catholic conception of God as “outside” of time and eternally unchanging. If Jesus went from “Spirit → material body on earth → material body in heaven” then I don’t think we can maintain either.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This has troubling implications for the Catholic conception of God as “outside” of time and eternally unchanging. If Jesus went from “Spirit → material body on earth → material body in heaven” then I don’t think we can maintain either.

No, it has no troubling implications. Jesus is true God and true man, not 'true God of spirit alone who took on a temporary body for 33 years and then went back to Spirit."

God is outside of time and that means that He not only can create it but that He can interact with it.

Unchanging doesn’t mean God is static.

The Church, BTW, has never taught that Christ was ‘spirit alone’ after His resurrection.

 

[Gaber]

This has troubling implications for the Catholic conception of God as “outside” of time and eternally unchanging. If Jesus went from “Spirit → material body on earth → material body in heaven” then I don’t think we can maintain either.

For me this is a very important question. And of course this is no question for someone who has the kind of faith that will ease them past something that is rather remarkable as an idea from any other perspective. But in such cases it is beleived, and not thought about in other than faith based terms and the accepted premises that go along with it. But even accepting some of those premises, especially that God is, I can see why many others don’t buy it, or at least understand it differently.

It all hinges on the idea of completely God and completely man. The idea of a glorified body is another issue, one I personally consider to be even more misunderstood than the “completely” issue. I won’t bother with that here.

I wont’t bother much with the other one, either, save to point out that if one considers the writings of many Catholic mystics and theologians, and very certainly the stance of the non dualist stream, one can arrive at a substantially different conclusion than what is ordinarliy put forth by the Church, at least commonly, about this point.

Of interest to me about what can be easily intepreted as the hypostatic union as far as the non dualist standpoiint is that non dualism has been arrived at independently by a great number of individuals throughout history. And while there certainly has been contact between some of the proponents of it, many had no contact with each other, nor with scriptures, and, if that, not necessarily the same ones. And yet they have all, over time. cultures, locations, backgrounds and other differing factors, arrived at the identical conclusion. They don’t make extrapolations or institutions from their discovery, though of course many have people asking them what happened to make them see so differently. Happened to Jesus, too. I mean, here we are.

But in Jesus’ case somehow it got institutionalized after Paul and Peter had that contention, and Paul won out, though he never mentions, as far as I remember, Jesus as a person with a history. Please check me on that. But that as well tends, in my mind, to conclude that somehow the institutization of what was originally meant as a direct transmition, at least by example and Q&A, was to a large degree overlayed by popularization and formalization by the means used largely in the third century. Similar things happened, imo, to Buddhism and Islam. In fact the study of how original revelations change bears this out. And then in our case, I’m not all that familiar save superficially with the others, it kept changing by extrapolation while claiming not to change. At any rate, all that gives me pause to think a bit about all this.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Poseidon:

You’re forgetting something - the scourging and crucifixion. God not only converted and placed an aspect of his very Being into the mortal realm, but also, put that aspect of his Being through the ultimate intensity of human pain and trauma. Pain such that it only took about 12 hours for the effects of it to render the mortal aspect of him, dead. Pain such that his mortal aspect asked if He could be relieved from its foreseen grisliness. Pain such that his mortal aspect cried out, “Abba, why have you forsaken me?” And, finally, enduring all that, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” (A real “man” in every sense of the word!)

Do not confuse what I am asking here: this is not to be construed as a rationale. God, by doing this, directly participated in the trials and tribulations, and the pains and sufferings of any mortal - taken to their limits. The important thing to come away with is that he proved that physical life’s pains and traumas provide no more than a mortal can bear. Christ asked his Father for relief from what was about to happen to him, and for relief from what was happening to him. It only took him a moment or two though, to accept the inexorability of it and sublimely endure it. Remember, this is known as the Passion, which comes from the Latin passio, and means, “passivity.” Christ passively endured it. (Imagine what he could have done to those guys! But, he even Loved them!!))
**
I have always found it strange that those who are undergoing real** pain or trauma, for which only endurance is the answer, rarely complain about, or, to God. It is always the wimpy, less theistically inclined who wallow in the discovery that whining to, or about, God makes them feel less guilty, and thereby better, about themselves. Since it is not they who experience the pain and trauma, that can be the only explanation. Either that, or they watch way too much television.

God bless,
jd

Do you have any evidence to back up that insult?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The unconscious is not so easy to rule…

Much of what we can learn from Jesus is not what he said but what what He did. For example, in a patriarchal society He treated men and women as equals, children and Gentiles as members of God’s family and condemned those who virtually enslaved the poor - thereby instituting the principles of liberty, equality and (above all) fraternity, even today ignored or rejected by many people.

By addiction to ourselves I mean our inclination to put ourselves first rather than consider the interests of others. Like the lust for power it becomes a deep-rooted habit…

Actually according to Catholicism Jesus did not treat men and women as equals.
Since he judged only men (the apostles and their successors) fit to lead his Church:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

How do you mean, no purpose?

Phantom limb pain is a consequence of amputation. It sounds strange to the lay person but there is a definite reason that the pain occurs.

Chronic and psychological pain are certainly problematic but just because you don’t know the purpose yourself (or don’t accept possible reasons) doesn’t mean there IS no purpose.

How many people would have gone out in Ice Age days to look for plants that were no ‘use’ for eating, if they hadn’t had members of their family or tribe fall ill, and had discovered, or themselves made the discovery, that certain leaves, bark, etc. could alleviate or cure that pain?

For psychological pain, how many people do you think would have searched out various therapies and made trials of how to help people suffering with various psychological ills if the ills never occurred?

And even if we don’t see the reason for autism or schizophrenia, there is a PHYSICAL reason these conditions occur and the pain is a physical CONSEQUENCE of these.

You just aren’t taking a long range view. You can’t isolate humanity and pain to the 21st century as if God had somehow not taken into account how sophistimacated we are today and should have planned something different as to how we would get to understand our physical universe outside of pain and needs.

So (according to you) suffering is good in of itself.

If that’s true, then aren’t sadists simply virtuous people who fully embrace their role to morally uplift everyone?

 

[Gaber]

Actually according to Catholicism Jesus did not treat men and women as equals.
Since he judged only men (the apostles and their successors) fit to lead his Church:shrug:

How do you know that? Did He tell you? Or was the group who followed Him severly restricted, in that time and place, in overt statements and practices surrounding the roles of women? If I am not mistaken, and if that BrbaSianedrrect about the rolesf men in religious matters in that culture, things would have gotten pretty severe. He most certailnly had them as active desciples; I would guess that they were, until later when Jesus had left, highly regarded by those whom they worked with. Now there’s a cultural hangover, if you ak me. And remeber, Paul and Peter had a big fight as to whether or not the Teaching was for gentiles at all. Yes folks, ours is an Eastern religion.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Actually according to Catholicism Jesus did not treat men and women as equals.
Since he judged only men (the apostles and their successors) fit to lead his Church

How do you know that? Did He tell you? Or was the group who followed Him severly restricted, in that time and place, in overt statements and practices surrounding the roles of women? If I am not mistaken, and if that BrbaSianedrrect about the rolesf men in religious matters in that culture, things would have gotten pretty severe. He most certailnly had them as active desciples; I would guess that they were, until later when Jesus had left, highly regarded by those whom they worked with. Now there’s a cultural hangover, if you ak me. And remeber, Paul and Peter had a big fight as to whether or not the Teaching was for gentiles at all. Yes folks, ours is an Eastern religion.

That is what the Church teaches:shrug:

 

[Gorgias]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Actually according to Catholicism Jesus did not treat men and women as equals.
Since he judged only men (the apostles and their successors) fit to lead his Church

That is what the Church teaches:shrug:

Jesus treated men and women as equal in human dignity. No reasonable person concludes that men and women are identical. However, they are equal in dignity and they are complementary with respect to one another in various ways.

The exclusively male priesthood of the Catholic Church is no more evidence of inequality of dignity than the biological fact that only women may conceive and bear children in their wombs. Equal dignity; complementarity of actions.

 

[Sair]

Jesus treated men and women as equal in human dignity. No reasonable person concludes that men and women are identical. However, they are equal in dignity and they are complementary with respect to one another in various ways.

The exclusively male priesthood of the Catholic Church is no more evidence of inequality of dignity than the biological fact that only women may conceive and bear children in their wombs. Equal dignity; complementarity of actions.

But the leaders of the Catholic church aren’t even supposed to father children, let alone actually carry them. Nuns forego the role of motherhood in order to pursue a life of religion. Why the judgement that only men are specifically suitable for leadership, when it is quite clear that men can be suited for devoted parenthood and women suited for celibacy? Where is the allowance made for individual abilities, as opposed to generic suppositions about the appropriate social functions of men and women? You don’t even imagine that Jesus’ decision to appoint men as leaders might have had something to do with the repressive social structures of his historical moment?

 

[domandcarols]

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So (according to you) suffering is good in of itself.

If that’s true, then aren’t sadists simply virtuous people who fully embrace their role to morally uplift everyone?

You know, I asked this of you before, but I will ask again. Would you kindly NOT put words into my mouth?

I noted that there are physical REASONS or CONSEQUENCES of actions that produce suffering. Some of the consequences can be positive, some negative, for various reasons related to the suffering OR NOT. But that does not mean that I am stating that the suffering itself is good in and of itself.

Since I didn’t say what you thought I said, your further statement just comes off as a rather snarky remark based, once again, on your strawman and not on what I actually posted. Sigh.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Jesus treated men and women as equal in human dignity. No reasonable person concludes that men and women are identical. However, they are equal in dignity and they are complementary with respect to one another in various ways.

The exclusively male priesthood of the Catholic Church is no more evidence of inequality of dignity than the biological fact that only women may conceive and bear children in their wombs. Equal dignity; complementarity of actions.

The uterus is not a human institution

And women have certainly not gotten an increase in status or power due to being mothers (in relation to men).

The head priest (i.e. the Pope) is the non-hereditary monarch of the Vatican, how can anyone say with a straight face that that is not about power and prestige?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

But the leaders of the Catholic church aren’t even supposed to father children, let alone actually carry them. Nuns forego the role of motherhood in order to pursue a life of religion. Why the judgement that only men are specifically suitable for leadership, when it is quite clear that men can be suited for devoted parenthood and women suited for celibacy? Where is the allowance made for individual abilities, as opposed to generic suppositions about the appropriate social functions of men and women? You don’t even imagine that Jesus’ decision to appoint men as leaders might have had something to do with the repressive social structures of his historical moment?

The ancient Israelites were extremely patriarchal (to a misogynistic extent).
Realistically speaking, that’s probably why Christianity (which could be regarded as the child of Judaism) is still so patriarchal now.

 

[Gorgias]

But the leaders of the Catholic church aren’t even supposed to father children, let alone actually carry them. Nuns forego the role of motherhood in order to pursue a life of religion. Why the judgement that only men are specifically suitable for leadership, when it is quite clear that men can be suited for devoted parenthood and women suited for celibacy?

Hmm… I’m not certain where you’re going with this argument. You seem to be asserting that celibacy and priesthood aren’t intrinsically related. In that, you would be correct: the Catholic Church doesn’t say that all Catholic priests must be celibate – after all, there are former Anglican priests who are married and who are now Catholic priests, and there are a variety of Eastern Rite Catholic priests who are married. However, the normative situation, especially for Latin Rite Catholics, is the celibate priesthood. This is a discipline, which means that it isn’t on the same level as doctrine or dogma – that is, the Church doesn’t declare that this must be held in all times; it admits the possibility of change.

Are you going somewhere else with this notion? Yes, men may be wonderful parents, and yes, women may have value and purpose in their lives outside of the experience of childbirth. However, the notion of the all-male priesthood isn’t in service of celibacy – it doesn’t depend on celibacy, as you seem to be implying…

Where is the allowance made for individual abilities, as opposed to generic suppositions about the appropriate social functions of men and women?

This idea is worth talking about: if there are Catholic women who are natural leaders, or charismatic preachers or teacher, or spiritual powerhouses, why shouldn’t they use their God-given talents as Catholic priests?

Certainly, we’re called to use our talents in the service of God. Yet, does a specific talent cry out for a use in a particular function? Do talents lead to one particular necessary use? Clearly, this isn’t the case. A person who is a natural leader can share their talent as an administrator, or a diocesan leader, or a parish pastoral leader. A talented preacher or teacher can teach in adult faith formation, or CCD, or in Bible study. A person with a strong spirituality can lead a variety of ministries. So, it’s clear that a talent doesn’t require one particular application.

Yet, is there an injustice in saying that, for a certain person or class of persons, one set of ministries is proper and another is not? Well, the Church looks to Scripture, and in 1 Corinthians 12, we see Paul talking about gifts, and their source, and their proper use. He argues that to every person, some manifestation of the Spirit is given; and this manifestation isn’t given arbitrarily, but in order to bring about a particular benefit (1 Cor 12:7). So, when we look at what the Spirit has given, should we presume that what’s in operation is the way in which the world is broken and injustice exists here? Should we presume that the Spirit is held hostage by sexism and racism and all forms of discrimination? Paul answers “no”: the gifts of the Spirit are distributed by the Spirit, and this distribution fulfills the wish that the Spirit has for each person.

You don’t even imagine that Jesus’ decision to appoint men as leaders might have had something to do with the repressive social structures of his historical moment?

That’s a pretty unsatisfying explanation, don’t you think? Let’s look at Jesus, and think about whether his actions are characteristic of someone who cowered in the face of repressive social structures:

• The Jewish structures of the day dictated that one should keep sin and sinners at arm’s length. The notion of ‘ritual impurity’ meant that, even if you brushed up against someone who was unsavory, you were ritually impure (and therefore, were unable to share in religious ceremonies). Yet, Jesus went out and visited with prostitutes, people who cheated fellow Jews (tax collectors), and actually went into their houses and sat down and ate with them!
• The cultural structures of the day said that men weren’t allowed to associate with women who weren’t in their own family. Yet, women were among Jesus’ closest associates: Mary and Martha were almost like family, and Mary Magdalene followed Jesus’ ministry and provided financial support.
• Jews were expected to keep a certain group of neighbors – those who lived in Samaria – in complete disdain: they weren’t supposed to talk to them, spend time with them, and when they had to travel from Galilee to Jerusalem (a trip that put Samaria smack dab in the most convenient route), they were expected to literally go all around Samaria, rather than even set foot in Samaria! Yet, Jesus went through Samaria… and while he was there, he walked up to a Samaritan woman and asked her for water. He engaged her in conversation, and demonstrated to her that he recognized her inherent worth, even if Jews or her own people shunned her.

Having painted that portrait of Jesus… am I to agree with you that Jesus might have feared cultural structures, to the point of doing something he didn’t want to, just 'cause it was people expected him to do?