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

[Gorgias]

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.

That’s a completely unsubstantiated argument. Christians turned away from Jewish notions of the cultural necessity of fatherhood for all men (including priests); it said that the Jewish dietary restrictions of the Mosaic covenant were no longer in force; it changed the definition of the Sabbath from the day the Creator God rested to the day the Lord was raised from the dead; it asserted that God wasn’t just the Father, but was a Trinity.

And you’re asserting that the notion of the hierarchy is an example of the Church being beholden to features of an ancient androcentric society? Yeah, right…

 

[AngryAtheist8]

That’s a completely unsubstantiated argument. Christians turned away from Jewish notions of the cultural necessity of fatherhood for all men (including priests); it said that the Jewish dietary restrictions of the Mosaic covenant were no longer in force; it changed the definition of the Sabbath from the day the Creator God rested to the day the Lord was raised from the dead; it asserted that God wasn’t just the Father, but was a Trinity.

And you’re asserting that the notion of the hierarchy is an example of the Church being beholden to features of an ancient androcentric society? Yeah, right…

Let’s look at the metaphysical hierarchy for a moment:

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit (who is usually considered male or gender neutral)
The Pope (always male)
The Bishops (always male)
The priesthood in general (all male)

In light of that…
Yes that’s right

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

And you’re asserting that the notion of the hierarchy is an example of the Church being beholden to features of an ancient androcentric society? Yeah, right…

Let’s look at the metaphysical hierarchy for a moment:

God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit (who is usually considered male or gender neutral)
The Pope (always male)
The Bishops (always male)
The priesthood in general (all male)

In light of that…
Yes that’s right

Well, let’s look at your example. I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you might suspect.

Is ‘God the Father’ a ‘Father’, or a ‘parent’?

• Clearly, God – as a spiritual being – is not gendered.
• Clearly, there are both masculine and feminine metaphors for God in the OT.
• Jesus (the incarnate person) is the child of God. As an incarnate person, Jesus either needs a natural human mother, or needs to pop into existence in a non-natural way. If God presents as a masculine type, then Jesus can have a natural human mother, an adoptive human father, and a divine father. If God presents as a feminine type, then Jesus has a divine mother, a human mother, and a human father (who must be adoptive – otherwise, he either impregnates the divine mother or the human mother, but not both). In terms of the way that is most apropos to natural generation, then, it makes more “sense” (it is “more fitting”, according to traditional language) that God is masculine; otherwise, the types just don’t “fit” well.

So, it seems that the notion of God as ‘Father’ fits particularly well, in light of the fact that the incarnation was the plan of God, given the mode of human generation.

Is ‘God the Son’ a ‘son’, or a ‘child’?
This gets more tricky, since we’re talking about the Logos (i.e., the divine second person of the Trinity) and the incarnation of the Logos (Jesus, the man).

• As the eternal second person of the Trinity, the Logos has no gender.
• On the other hand, as an incarnate human being, Jesus is a man.
• Could Jesus have been a female? Interesting question. We’ll see, later on, whether that question is in play. However, there’s no debate about the fact that Jesus was a man.
• One may consider the question of whether Jesus is necessarily a man, vis-a-vis his role as Christ, or in relation to his being as the Logos, but it’s incontrovertible that the human incarnation of the Logos is male.
• So, is the Logos a ‘son’, or a ‘child’?
• Can we say that the Logos is a son because Jesus is a son? That seems counter-intuitive: it almost makes it seem that that the Logos would have been limited, based on the fact of the incarnation of Jesus as man, and that’s clearly unsatisfactory!
• Can we say that the Logos is a son because the Christ is a son? That also seems a weak argument – why is it that we see the ‘Christ’ as a son? Because the word ‘Christ’ is grammatically male? Because the OT prophecies envision the Christ as a king? These might be pragmatic considerations, but they’re not satisfying, since they seem to say that limits have been placed on God based on human considerations.
• On the other hand, what would it mean to say that the Logos is female, but the incarnation of the Logos (i.e., Jesus) is male? The symbol value here would be hopelessly muddled.

So, it seems that there is a certain correspondence between the incarnation of Jesus as male and the identification of Logos as male – although this doesn’t mean that it’s necessary, according to this analysis; it just shows a correspondence. Inasmuch as Jesus is the son of his Father, there’s a certain resonance to say that the Logos is the Son of his Father.

So, to this point, we have at least a heuristic for understanding ‘Father-ness’ and ‘Son-ness’ that has nothing to do with human, anthrocentric societal inequities.

What about the Spirit? You claim that the Spirit is either ‘male’ or ‘gender-neutral’.

• This is a claim that is easily enough dismissed. In the Hebrew, ‘spirit’ can be either masculine or feminine. (The notion of Spirit takes on both destructive and constructive connotations. When the Spirit is seen as a destroyer, if memory serves, there’s a masculine characteristic in play; when seen as creative, it’s a feminine reference. I want to be clear, however, that I’m drawing on my memory here.)

Practical upshot: when considering the Trinity, we can provide reasonable explanations that draw on symbol and character in ways that are completely distinct from human institutions and human social deficiencies. In other words, you cannot point to the the Trinity and say “male chauvinism!!!”…

Now, let’s move on to humans:

• The Pope is, first and foremost, a priest – in particular, a successor of the apostles.
• Bishops are, likewise, priests who are successors of the apostles.
• Priests are persons who share in a portion of the ministry of the bishop under whose authority they minister.

In other words, there’s only one case to be made here; you can’t point at these and say, “1, 2, 3! There are not one, but three instances of ‘male privilege’ here, so therefore, there’s evidence of anthrocentrism!” That is, if there’s one reasonable case to be made for priests, you cannot ‘pile on’:

So, what’s the claim that the Church makes, vis-a-vis the notion of the male priesthood? I’m running out of space in this post … stay tuned; I’ll address this question presently…

 

[Gorgias]

So, what’s the claim that the Church makes, vis-a-vis the notion of the male priesthood?

Does it claim that men are ‘better’ than women, and therefore only men can be priests? Does it claim that men are priests because God is a man? Nope! The Church’s teaching can be found in the document Ordinatio sacerdotalis in which it makes the following assertions:

• “Priestly ordination… has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone.”
• “in the Sacred Scriptures Christ choos(es) his Apostles only from among men”
• "the Church ‘does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.’ "
• “other theological reasons (exist) which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision”
• “Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time.”
• It references Mulieris Dignitatem, asserting, “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”
• Recognizing that some might erroneously interpret this document as saying that Catholic women are second-class citizens, John Paul II says, “the presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable.”
• the practical upshot of the document is that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

So, all of your assertions have been met with arguments that proceed neither from a premise of male superiority over women, nor even a hermeneutic of suspicion of this assertion. So sorry…

 

[Gaber]

So, what’s the claim that the Church makes, vis-a-vis the notion of the male priesthood?

Does it claim that men are ‘better’ than women, and therefore only men can be priests? Does it claim that men are priests because God is a man? Nope! The Church’s teaching can be found in the document Ordinatio sacerdotalis in which it makes the following assertions:

• “Priestly ordination… has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone.”
• “in the Sacred Scriptures Christ choos(es) his Apostles only from among men”
• "the Church ‘does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.’ "
• “other theological reasons (exist) which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision”
• “Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time.”
• It references Mulieris Dignitatem, asserting, “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”
• Recognizing that some might erroneously interpret this document as saying that Catholic women are second-class citizens, John Paul II says, “the presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable.”
• the practical upshot of the document is that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

So, all of your assertions have been met with arguments that proceed neither from a premise of male superiority over women, nor even a hermeneutic of suspicion of this assertion. So sorry…

Let’s look at a typical ordination ceremony otday, let alone one held in the Vatican. Where in the remakably brief account of Our Lord’s ministry do we see Him doing that? How did all that come to be de rigeur in our Church? All of this only tells me, with all due respect, that our heirarchy through time has a remarkable ability to extrpolate and “prove” what it wishes to in the name of tradition and its own safety as an institution. I just don’t buy that cultural factors didn’t and heirarchical factors don’t factor in.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, let’s look at your example. I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you might suspect.

Is ‘God the Father’ a ‘Father’, or a ‘parent’?

• Clearly, God – as a spiritual being – is not gendered.
• Clearly, there are both masculine and feminine metaphors for God in the OT.
• Jesus (the incarnate person) is the child of God. As an incarnate person, Jesus either needs a natural human mother, or needs to pop into existence in a non-natural way. If God presents as a masculine type, then Jesus can have a natural human mother, an adoptive human father, and a divine father. If God presents as a feminine type, then Jesus has a divine mother, a human mother, and a human father (who must be adoptive – otherwise, he either impregnates the divine mother or the human mother, but not both). In terms of the way that is most apropos to natural generation, then, it makes more “sense” (it is “more fitting”, according to traditional language) that God is masculine; otherwise, the types just don’t “fit” well.

So, it seems that the notion of God as ‘Father’ fits particularly well, in light of the fact that the incarnation was the plan of God, given the mode of human generation.

Is ‘God the Son’ a ‘son’, or a ‘child’?
This gets more tricky, since we’re talking about the Logos (i.e., the divine second person of the Trinity) and the incarnation of the Logos (Jesus, the man).

• As the eternal second person of the Trinity, the Logos has no gender.
• On the other hand, as an incarnate human being, Jesus is a man.
• Could Jesus have been a female? Interesting question. We’ll see, later on, whether that question is in play. However, there’s no debate about the fact that Jesus was a man.
• One may consider the question of whether Jesus is necessarily a man, vis-a-vis his role as Christ, or in relation to his being as the Logos, but it’s incontrovertible that the human incarnation of the Logos is male.
• So, is the Logos a ‘son’, or a ‘child’?
• Can we say that the Logos is a son because Jesus is a son? That seems counter-intuitive: it almost makes it seem that that the Logos would have been limited, based on the fact of the incarnation of Jesus as man, and that’s clearly unsatisfactory!
• Can we say that the Logos is a son because the Christ is a son? That also seems a weak argument – why is it that we see the ‘Christ’ as a son? Because the word ‘Christ’ is grammatically male? Because the OT prophecies envision the Christ as a king? These might be pragmatic considerations, but they’re not satisfying, since they seem to say that limits have been placed on God based on human considerations.
• On the other hand, what would it mean to say that the Logos is female, but the incarnation of the Logos (i.e., Jesus) is male? The symbol value here would be hopelessly muddled.

So, it seems that there is a certain correspondence between the incarnation of Jesus as male and the identification of Logos as male – although this doesn’t mean that it’s necessary, according to this analysis; it just shows a correspondence. Inasmuch as Jesus is the son of his Father, there’s a certain resonance to say that the Logos is the Son of his Father.

So, to this point, we have at least a heuristic for understanding ‘Father-ness’ and ‘Son-ness’ that has nothing to do with human, anthrocentric societal inequities.
What about the Spirit? You claim that the Spirit is either ‘male’ or ‘gender-neutral’.

• This is a claim that is easily enough dismissed. In the Hebrew, ‘spirit’ can be either masculine or feminine. (The notion of Spirit takes on both destructive and constructive connotations. When the Spirit is seen as a destroyer, if memory serves, there’s a masculine characteristic in play; when seen as creative, it’s a feminine reference. I want to be clear, however, that I’m drawing on my memory here.)

Practical upshot: when considering the Trinity, we can provide reasonable explanations that draw on symbol and character in ways that are completely distinct from human institutions and human social deficiencies. In other words, you cannot point to the the Trinity and say “male chauvinism!!!”…

Now, let’s move on to humans:

• The Pope is, first and foremost, a priest – in particular, a successor of the apostles.
• Bishops are, likewise, priests who are successors of the apostles.
• Priests are persons who share in a portion of the ministry of the bishop under whose authority they minister.

In other words, there’s only one case to be made here; you can’t point at these and say, “1, 2, 3! There are not one, but three instances of ‘male privilege’ here, so therefore, there’s evidence of anthrocentrism!” That is, if there’s one reasonable case to be made for priests, you cannot ‘pile on’:

So, what’s the claim that the Church makes, vis-a-vis the notion of the male priesthood? I’m running out of space in this post … stay tuned; I’ll address this question presently…

Of course it does.
Even Catholicism says that God assumed human form to (in a certain way) relate to humans as a human.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So, what’s the claim that the Church makes, vis-a-vis the notion of the male priesthood?

Does it claim that men are ‘better’ than women, and therefore only men can be priests? Does it claim that men are priests because God is a man? Nope! The Church’s teaching can be found in the document Ordinatio sacerdotalis in which it makes the following assertions:

• “Priestly ordination… has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone.”
• “in the Sacred Scriptures Christ choos(es) his Apostles only from among men”
• "the Church ‘does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.’ "
• “other theological reasons (exist) which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision”
• “Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time.”
• It references Mulieris Dignitatem, asserting, “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”
• Recognizing that some might erroneously interpret this document as saying that Catholic women are second-class citizens, John Paul II says, “the presence and the role of women in the life and mission of the Church, although not linked to the ministerial priesthood, remain absolutely necessary and irreplaceable.”
• the practical upshot of the document is that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

So, all of your assertions have been met with arguments that proceed neither from a premise of male superiority over women, nor even a hermeneutic of suspicion of this assertion. So sorry…

Actually plenty of Churchmen have argued that women are inferior. Including quite a few saints and Doctors of the Church, such as Saint Aquinas (link to source: aquinasonline.com/Questions/women.html).

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s look at a typical ordination ceremony otday, let alone one held in the Vatican. Where in the remakably brief account of Our Lord’s ministry do we see Him doing that? How did all that come to be de rigeur in our Church?

That’s a valid question; its typical formation goes something like this: “by what right, or on what authority, does the Church make rules? shouldn’t the Church be striving to do exactly what the apostles did, two millennia ago?”

The answer, luckily enough, is just as simple: the Church was given the authority to “bind and loose”; one of the ways to understand this statement is that it was given authority to make decisions. The Church doesn’t have the authority to do things against the will of God (and its decisions always attempt to flow back to an understanding (usually Scripturally based) of how the present question might be understood through the lens of Tradition), but that doesn’t mean that in all things, the Church is required to do exactly the same thing.

This can be a bit confusing, so let’s look at a few examples. Doctrine and dogma (e.g., “Christ truly died and rose again”) are things that the Church sees as being part of the Revelation of God; so, it doesn’t have the authority to change them. Disciplines (e.g., “no meat on Fridays”) are rules that fit both the situation of the day and the needs of the people of God, so they can validly change. Some things sit outside even these categories: Liturgy, for example, can take many forms, and we certainly see that liturgy has developed over the centuries!

So, in our context, we’re talking about the ordination liturgy. Does the Church have certain aspects that develop over time? Of course! Are these valid developments? I would argue that, since the Church has authority in matters of its own Liturgy, then yes, these are valid developments! (If you want to argue that these aren’t valid expressions, then you’d have to make a case.

All of this only tells me, with all due respect, that our heirarchy through time has a remarkable ability to extrpolate and “prove” what it wishes to in the name of tradition and its own safety as an institution. I just don’t buy that cultural factors didn’t and heirarchical factors don’t factor in.

Well, I’m not saying that cultural and other factors don’t have an influence: however, you’re asserting that these factors were determinative of Church doctrine. The ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ is characteristic of our contemporary age; so, I understand that you “just don’t buy it”. However, if you want to assert that culture and hierarchy are what determine Church policy, you’ll have to make a case for it: “I don’t buy it” isn’t really a convincing argument …

 

[Gorgias]

Actually plenty of Churchmen have argued that women are inferior. Including quite a few saints and Doctors of the Church, such as Saint Aquinas (link to source: aquinasonline.com/Questions/women.html).

This is true. However, Aquinas relied on a faulty understanding of science to inform his philosophical conclusions. No one uses Aquinas’ understanding of human generation to explain anything!

Does that mean that the Church is wrong, here? Well, you’d have to make the claim that theologians speak for the Church by virtue of their work (or by virtue of their own membership in the Church, or in a religious order, or university). Of course, that isn’t the case at all – in fact, it’s backward! Theologians do their thing, and the Church decides whether to incorporate their thought in Church teaching. If it worked the way you are asserting it does, then you could say “the U.S. should attack country X”, and by virtue of the fact that you’re American, you’re claiming that this becomes the policy of the U.S. …! (Substitute “Colin Powell” or “Rick Santorum” or “Al Gore” for you in the example, and you have the same argument: no matter who you are, unless you speak from a position of authority and responsibility, you don’t speak for the organization. Now, the organization can clearly listen to you and later decide, “you know, they’re right. we should attack country X”, but that’s a completely different scenario. as far as I can tell, you’re not asserting that this line of thought by Aquinas is official Church doctrine. Are you…?)

No one – whether saint or Doctor of the Church – automatically speaks for the Church, and no one has the charism of infallibility except the Magisterium.

So, saying that “Aquinas got it wrong”, or “Augustine’s interpretation of Christian anthropology has defects” doesn’t say “the Church’s take on women’s ordination is wrong”.

 

[jschutzm]

But my point is that there was really no sacrifice. A sacrifice implies that you give something up, and at the end of the day neither God nor Jesus had anything less than they had before. It was simply a sacrifice of a temporarily assumed body.

I think somewhere in there is an ancient heresy… Arian heresy which says that God and Jesus are separate.

The Arians had their chance at the council of Nicea and were argued under the table by the truth. Jesus IS God.

There is a 2nd heresy which says that God wasn’t truly man… just took that form. In other words his divinity and humanity were separate. That heresy has also been condemned.

But it is a subtle one… which occasionally creeps up in some people’s minds.

Just be aware of that as you articulate your points.

---

However, regardless…

Think of the ultimate injustices…

1. THEE God lowering himself to be man. - that right there IS a big deal and shows LOVE because God truly becomes man and experiences things from our perspective in a very real and meaningful way. That alone should be awe inspiring.
2. God allows his lowly creations to torture, abuse and KILL him in one of the most brutal ways possible. God has done nothing wrong and is in fact perfect. We on the other hand have rebelled against him, curse him and in a most unjust way… do our worst to him. That ALONE should put us in awe. The lop-sided situation where he allows us to kill HIM?
   That’s amazing right there
3. God takes on the SINS OF THE WORLD - not just then… not just the sin of Crucifying him… but all sin, for all ages… Hitler’s holocaust, etc. He takes THEE punishment for ALL of it. That is like an infinite amount of suffering. One can not put even an estimate on that. From little Bobby’s white lie about doing his homework to Stalin putting people to death in Siberia - every sin of mankind. From 1 guy lusting after a women’s body - to serial rapists.
   You can’t put limits on that and it went WAY beyond mere physical torture.
4. He ultimately RECONCILED humanity back to himself - repaired a rift and made it possible for us to be forgiven and re-united with him. That alone is amazing.

Maybe he could have done it other ways… who knows. But he chose THAT way… and so for that… we should be appreciative.

Some say that had he NOT let us kill him… then it would have shown us, at least in theory, that there are ENDS or Limits to his love. Like he’d do anything for us… “but not THAT”

As the famous Meatloaf song goes: “I will do anything for love… but I won’t do that”
Well by letting us kill him… God proved THAT wrong. As if God said to us… “Literally, do your worse…and I’ll still love you”

I don’t know… it is pretty amazing to me. I kinda half feel like you have to be pretty dead inside to not be emotionally moved by that idea. - But that’s me, I don’t mean to judge.

 

[PeterGStanley]

Ultimately he gave the gift of salvation and eternal life through his son our Lord Jesus Christ - which shows Gods great love for us - so yes everything changed - No Jesus no salvation no eternal life.Only Jesus could do this no one else in heaven or on earth.He who did not have to suffer - suffered for us.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Ultimately he gave the gift of salvation and eternal life through his son our Lord Jesus Christ - which shows Gods great love for us - so yes everything changed - No Jesus no salvation no eternal life.Only Jesus could do this no one else in heaven or on earth.He who did not have to suffer - suffered for us.

Interesting that God’s plan required us to do evil in order for us to be saved. If we just gave Jesus candy and otherwise ignored him, we would not have been saved. Instead our salvation required some people to be evil. Judas could have thwarted God’s plan by being good.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

I think somewhere in there is an ancient heresy… Arian heresy which says that God and Jesus are separate.

The Arians had their chance at the council of Nicea and were argued under the table by the truth. Jesus IS God.

There is a 2nd heresy which says that God wasn’t truly man… just took that form. In other words his divinity and humanity were separate. That heresy has also been condemned.

But it is a subtle one… which occasionally creeps up in some people’s minds.

Just be aware of that as you articulate your points.

---

However, regardless…

Think of the ultimate injustices…

1. THEE God lowering himself to be man. - that right there IS a big deal and shows LOVE because God truly becomes man and experiences things from our perspective in a very real and meaningful way. That alone should be awe inspiring.
2. God allows his lowly creations to torture, abuse and KILL him in one of the most brutal ways possible. God has done nothing wrong and is in fact perfect. We on the other hand have rebelled against him, curse him and in a most unjust way… do our worst to him. That ALONE should put us in awe. The lop-sided situation where he allows us to kill HIM?
   That’s amazing right there
3. God takes on the SINS OF THE WORLD - not just then… not just the sin of Crucifying him… but all sin, for all ages… Hitler’s holocaust, etc. He takes THEE punishment for ALL of it. That is like an infinite amount of suffering. One can not put even an estimate on that. From little Bobby’s white lie about doing his homework to Stalin putting people to death in Siberia - every sin of mankind. From 1 guy lusting after a women’s body - to serial rapists.
   You can’t put limits on that and it went WAY beyond mere physical torture.
4. He ultimately RECONCILED humanity back to himself - repaired a rift and made it possible for us to be forgiven and re-united with him. That alone is amazing.

Maybe he could have done it other ways… who knows. But he chose THAT way… and so for that… we should be appreciative.

Some say that had he NOT let us kill him… then it would have shown us, at least in theory, that there are ENDS or Limits to his love. Like he’d do anything for us… “but not THAT”

As the famous Meatloaf song goes: “I will do anything for love… but I won’t do that”
Well by letting us kill him… God proved THAT wrong. As if God said to us… “Literally, do your worse…and I’ll still love you”

I don’t know… it is pretty amazing to me. I kinda half feel like you have to be pretty dead inside to not be emotionally moved by that idea. - But that’s me, I don’t mean to judge.

The nature of God can’t be diminished and is Eternal. That is how Jesus can be True God and True man. Becoming man didn’t diminish God.

The things I don’t understand are:

How can God sacrifice anything? He can’t give up anything because He can’t be diminished. You have to give something up to sacrifice.

Also since God is Eternal - Jesus was always True God and True Man so there is no sacrifice in incarnating. He was always incarnate. He was Man before He created Man.

 

[davidv]

Interesting that God’s plan required us to do evil in order for us to be saved. If we just gave Jesus candy and otherwise ignored him, we would not have been saved. Instead our salvation required some people to be evil. Judas could have thwarted God’s plan by being good.

Not at all interesting. You have it exactly backwords. Man’s evil necessitated his need for salvation. That is, no evil, no salvation required.

 

[Gaber]

That’s a valid question; its typical formation goes something like this: “by what right, or on what authority, does the Church make rules? shouldn’t the Church be striving to do exactly what the apostles did, two millennia ago?”

…~~~…

So, in our context, we’re talking about the ordination liturgy. Does the Church have certain aspects that develop over time? Of course! Are these valid developments? I would argue that, since the Church has authority in matters of its own Liturgy, then yes, these are valid developments! (If you want to argue that these aren’t valid expressions, then you’d have to make a case.

Well, I’m not saying that cultural and other factors don’t have an influence: however, you’re asserting that these factors were determinative of Church doctrine. The ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ is characteristic of our contemporary age; so, I understand that you “just don’t buy it”. However, if you want to assert that culture and hierarchy are what determine Church policy, you’ll have to make a case for it: “I don’t buy it” isn’t really a convincing argument …

I do understand the difference between doctrine dogma and the embellishment of liturgy, else I would not have got highest marks all those years in catechism and later in RC theology. And I am saying that not only did culture determine what happened in its form, if not its meaning. but later determined its “meaning” as well. And my case has been made many times by more learned than me, and you won’t accept it no matter what I or anyone puts before you because you are not yet ready to do so. And that may never happen and it may not be necessary anyway.

The whole idea is to see how deftly we accept what we grow up with and don’t deeply question. I certainly didn’t, until shocked out of all my beliefs pertinent to anything. This is only in appearance about this question, It is infact about how we understand our very being. So ultimately it doesn’t matter what you believe, you will discover something else. Belief is mental, and we are much more thatn that. We just don’t see it yet as an experience, and so need stories to explain how to find out. And there is nothing wrong with that unless you get stuck at one stage of the story unnecessarily.

 

[jochoa]

The nature of God can’t be diminished and is Eternal. That is how Jesus can be True God and True man. Becoming man didn’t diminish God.

The things I don’t understand are:

How can God sacrifice anything? He can’t give up anything because He can’t be diminished. You have to give something up to sacrifice.

Also since God is Eternal - Jesus was always True God and True Man so there is no sacrifice in incarnating. He was always incarnate. He was Man before He created Man.

Excellent points, my friend! Please consider the following concepts:
How can God sacrifice anything?

1. Jesus can initially do anything because He has free will. He has all-power. Since He chose to bring men to freely love as He loves and promises to us that He will not change from this goal, He has essentially sacrificed all-power.
2. The sacrifice is also revealed in the paradox of: Since God caused creation, and will never choose to destroy His creation, does this mean He cannot destroy it, therefore does not have all-power? Both yes and no are valid. He can destroy it, but He won’t. He cannot destroy it, because He is sacrificing all-power for the sake of Love.

Regarding Incarnation
Incarnation can be defined by dictionary.com as the assumption of human nature. Though God is True Human, God is not true human nature. He is assumed human nature. The difference between Godly nature and human nature can be found in the greatest commandments, because if God is asking us to perfect living according to these commandments, He must be perfect at them. The Godly Nature or the Greatest Commandments can be defined as: Always be and spread the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the unbreakable peace and happiness of all your relationships and self. Therefore, acting outside of this in any form is human nature.
Essentially, Jesus had to pretend to be angered in the temple (ie. assumed human nature) in order to fulfill the requirement of allowing us to freely choose to follow Him.

Thoughts?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Excellent points, my friend! Please consider the following concepts:
How can God sacrifice anything?

1. Jesus can initially do anything because He has free will. He has all-power. Since He chose to bring men to freely love as He loves and promises to us that He will not change from this goal, He has essentially sacrificed all-power.
2. The sacrifice is also revealed in the paradox of: Since God caused creation, and will never choose to destroy His creation, does this mean He cannot destroy it, therefore does not have all-power? Both yes and no are valid. He can destroy it, but He won’t. He cannot destroy it, because He is sacrificing all-power for the sake of Love.

Regarding Incarnation
Incarnation can be defined by dictionary.com as the assumption of human nature. Though God is True Human, God is not true human nature. He is assumed human nature. The difference between Godly nature and human nature can be found in the greatest commandments, because if God is asking us to perfect living according to these commandments, He must be perfect at them. The Godly Nature or the Greatest Commandments can be defined as: Always be and spread the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the unbreakable peace and happiness of all your relationships and self. Therefore, acting outside of this in any form is human nature.
Essentially, Jesus had to pretend to be angered in the temple (ie. assumed human nature) in order to fulfill the requirement of allowing us to freely choose to follow Him.

Thoughts?

If the United States chooses not to use a nuclear weapon it doesn’t mean we cease to have them. We still have the power. Just not using it.

To sacrifice you have to give something up. If the USA destroyed our nuclear weapons we would be sacrificing the nuclear option. Something would be lost forever.

God can’t be diminished. If God has 5 apples and gives you 2 God still has 5 apples. Nothing is lost.

He will destroy His creation according to Apocalypse.

You are misrepresenting Catholic theology. Jesus is True God and True Man, not just God in a man suit.

Sorry none of it is any clearer.

 

[Gorgias]

Gaber,

This is quite a response. Let’s see what you’ve told me:

I do understand the difference between doctrine dogma and the embellishment of liturgy, else I would not have got highest marks all those years in catechism and later in RC theology.

OK… so you got good grades…

And my case has been made many times by more learned than me, and you won’t accept it no matter what I or anyone puts before you because you are not yet ready to do so.

And you’re more intellectually advanced than me (since I’m “not ready” to “accept” a case that you were apparently ready to accept)…

And that may never happen

And I may be intrinsically less capable than you…

The whole idea is to see how deftly we accept what we grow up with and don’t deeply question.

And, not only do I not “deeply question”, I’m not “deft” enough to recognize my lack of deep questioning!

And there is nothing wrong with that unless you get stuck at one stage of the story unnecessarily.

And there’s something “wrong” with me because I’m “unnecessarily” “stuck”.

Umm… are you for real? Your whole defense boils down to: “I believe things (vague hand waving) and since you’re not ready to handle them, I don’t need to justify them to you; maybe someday, you’ll be able to be able to handle addressing the question.”

Seriously?

Perhaps you’ll be deft enough, someday, to recognize that it’s possible to “deeply question” issues and still disagree with “those more learned” in a way that’s valid and able to be explained more eloquently than “I just don’t buy it”…

Blessings,

G.

 

[jochoa]

God can’t be diminished. If God has 5 apples and gives you 2 God still has 5 apples. Nothing is lost.

Please consider the following: I try to find the perspectives which validate the paradoxes of Faith. In consideration of your example, you are referring to God as the Father, which is valid. However, if you consider the perspective of God as the Son, you will get the following: If Jesus is wearing 1 cloak, and we take it away from Him, He has been stripped of His garment, and therefore has no cloak while on the cross.
Another concept to consider: Since Jesus is God, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, therefore as the Son Catholicism knows: The Father is All-Knowing, and the Son does not know everything because Matthew 24:36. Which means as the Son, He gave up all-knowledge, as well as all-power.
Now back to the question: How can God sacrifice anything? Try to consider His perspective: If you were all alone with absolutely nothing else in existence (consider yourself as the single-celled being you initially came into existence as), and the only way to create something is to think of it in full detail. Now set your goal as wanting to experience a limitless happiness without anyone ever losing any peace. How do you make that happen?

He will destroy His creation according to Apocalypse.

Please consider the following concept:
Once again, you are correct in that there must exist a perspective which validates that God will destroy His creation, but at the same time, since Catholicism knows “World without end,” the destruction must not be of God’s creation, the world. So the question becomes what creation will be destroyed?
The title of the book is: “The Apocalypse of Saint John” (DRB)
Apocalypse, as defined by Google, is: An event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.
Therefore, the title can be understood as: “The Awesome Destruction of God’s creation, Saint John”
The first statement of the book is: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ…”
Revelation, as defined by Google, is: The making known of a secret or the unknown.
Therefore, the question becomes how does the destruction of Saint John make known the secrets of Jesus Christ?
Please consider the following:
Catholicism knows God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Catholicism knows God has written His Laws on every person’s heart.
Therefore, inside every person there is the Holy Spirit. However, since none of us are perfect, there is also the unholy spirit inside each of us. To understand the Holy Spirit in each of us, recognize that a spirit that is united with the Spirit of God is Holy. Just as a spirit that is not united with the Spirit of God is unholy. When we are living out of unity with the Spirit of God, our unholy spirit is a distinct person. When we are living in unity with the Spirit of God, our Holy Spirit is a distinct person.
Therefore, the title can be interpreted as referring to the destruction of the unholy spirit/person within John for the life of the Holy Spirit/person within John, which in turn reveals the unknown facts of Jesus Christ to John.

You are misrepresenting Catholic theology. Jesus is True God and True Man, not just God in a man suit.

Please consider a couple of concepts:
I am stating that Jesus is True God and True Man. And although essentially He had to pretend to be angered in the temple (ie. assumed human nature) in order to fulfill the requirement of allowing us to freely choose to follow Him, He was genuinely angry when He did it.
Also, can you please tell me where and why you perceive me as misrepresenting Catholic Theology?

Thank you very much, my friend, for your time and consideration. I look forward to further discussion.

Thoughts?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Please consider the following: I try to find the perspectives which validate the paradoxes of Faith. In consideration of your example, you are referring to God as the Father, which is valid. However, if you consider the perspective of God as the Son, you will get the following: If Jesus is wearing 1 cloak, and we take it away from Him, He has been stripped of His garment, and therefore has no cloak while on the cross.
Another concept to consider: Since Jesus is God, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, therefore as the Son Catholicism knows: The Father is All-Knowing, and the Son does not know everything because Matthew 24:36. Which means as the Son, He gave up all-knowledge, as well as all-power.
Now back to the question: How can God sacrifice anything? Try to consider His perspective: If you were all alone with absolutely nothing else in existence (consider yourself as the single-celled being you initially came into existence as), and the only way to create something is to think of it in full detail. Now set your goal as wanting to experience a limitless happiness without anyone ever losing any peace. How do you make that happen?

Please consider the following concept:
Once again, you are correct in that there must exist a perspective which validates that God will destroy His creation, but at the same time, since Catholicism knows “World without end,” the destruction must not be of God’s creation, the world. So the question becomes what creation will be destroyed?
The title of the book is: “The Apocalypse of Saint John” (DRB)
Apocalypse, as defined by Google, is: An event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale.
Therefore, the title can be understood as: “The Awesome Destruction of God’s creation, Saint John”
The first statement of the book is: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ…”
Revelation, as defined by Google, is: The making known of a secret or the unknown.
Therefore, the question becomes how does the destruction of Saint John make known the secrets of Jesus Christ?
Please consider the following:
Catholicism knows God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Catholicism knows God has written His Laws on every person’s heart.
Therefore, inside every person there is the Holy Spirit. However, since none of us are perfect, there is also the unholy spirit inside each of us. To understand the Holy Spirit in each of us, recognize that a spirit that is united with the Spirit of God is Holy. Just as a spirit that is not united with the Spirit of God is unholy. When we are living out of unity with the Spirit of God, our unholy spirit is a distinct person. When we are living in unity with the Spirit of God, our Holy Spirit is a distinct person.
Therefore, the title can be interpreted as referring to the destruction of the unholy spirit/person within John for the life of the Holy Spirit/person within John, which in turn reveals the unknown facts of Jesus Christ to John.

Please consider a couple of concepts:
I am stating that Jesus is True God and True Man. And although essentially He had to pretend to be angered in the temple (ie. assumed human nature) in order to fulfill the requirement of allowing us to freely choose to follow Him, He was genuinely angry when He did it.
Also, can you please tell me where and why you perceive me as misrepresenting Catholic Theology?

Thank you very much, my friend, for your time and consideration. I look forward to further discussion.

Thoughts?

Because Jesus doesn’t utilize God’s omniscient nature doesn’t mean God isn’t omniscient. Nothing is given up. God the Father didn’t cease to be omniscient.

We are of one spirit, not 2. God does destroy the world. I’m not sure what your point is.

You are misrepresenting Catholic teaching in saying that Jesus had to pretend to be angry. As humans we get angry and have other emotions. It is part of being Human. If Jesus had to pretend to have emotions then He wasn’t fully human.

So to go back to Jesus’ sacrifice - God can’t be diminished. To Sacrifice one needs to give up something. How can God loose part of Himself if He can’t be diminished?