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

[Gorgias]

Your scenario is limited in that you are only considering the possibility of the farmer giving up a lamb for sacrifice and that the priest is only doing the killing.

Given the following scenario:
A farmer raises the perfect lamb.
A priest pays the highest dollar for the lamb, of which the farmer feels overly compensated.
Then the priest offers the lamb as a sacrifice for spiritual growth.

Not only has the farmer gained more than the value of the sacrifice of his lamb, the priest has given up his time, money, and property.

Thoughts?

Wait – are you talking about the Jewish system of sacrifice, as described in the Mosaic covenant and the book of Leviticus? 'Cause if so, you’ve got it all wrong.

In that system, the priest offered sacrifice on behalf of the people. A person would bring an animal to him, and he would sacrifice it and offer it to God on behalf of the person who brought it. The priest wouldn’t have his own land off of which to live – instead, he would make his living from the people whom he represented to God. In fact, in the context of many of the sacrifices he offered, he wouldn’t burn up the whole animal; rather, he would set aside designated parts for himself to eat. So, there would be a sharing in the sacrifice, between the person who brought it, the priest who offered it, and God, to whom it was offered.

(Of course, there was also the notion of a holocaust offering, in which the entire animal was burned up and therefore offered to God whole.)

Like I said… if you’re talking about a different context, excuse the interruption. But, if you’re talking about the system of the ancient Israelites…

 

[PeterGStanley]

Again, how can there be sacrifice if God doesn’t give up anything?

God could have infinite human lives if He wished. He could die and resurrect daily if it pleased him to do so. He could have freed the dead at any time. How are we resurrected with Him? Why was Jesus’ death the Father’s will?

Christ suffering was the sacrifice offered - I guess your saying that there was no suffering and that it was an insufficient sacrifice because he was God.

God requires Justice for sin - Jesus suffering and death satisfied this to free the dead as you put it.

Jesus suffering and death was the fathers will because it was the sacrifice required to bring salvation (Justice) and he did as the father willed him

• if you believe it was insufficient I highly doubt anyone here is going to convince you.

 

[jochoa]

I think you are overextending the metaphor - The farmer is irrelevant in your example. He sacrifices nothing nor does the killing. He just made a business deal and gains from it. There is no sacrifice on his part at all.

Please consider the following points:
-Perhaps I am overextending the metaphor, but could it be that you are “underextending” reality? After all, God did tell us that we were bought for a price. And…in the reasonable scenario I presented, did the priest make a genuine sacrifice?
-And without consideration of an overextended metaphor, the priest still makes a sacrifice. Since there are several reasons and particular means as to which the priest must do the killing for spiritual growth, the priest has made the prior sacrifice of studying God and attempting to perfect living in oneness with His ways. Then the priest sacrifices his time, thoughts, and will to perform the sacrifice.

Wait – are you talking about the Jewish system of sacrifice, as described in the Mosaic covenant and the book of Leviticus? 'Cause if so, you’ve got it all wrong.

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and knowledge of the Law, I did not know the Jewish system of sacrifice. However, please consider the following:
I was not referring to the Jewish system of sacrifice. I was referring to a priest sacrificing his “lamb.” Many of the things we “sacrifice” for spiritual growth were not made or raised by us, instead they were earned. The example I used was intended to operate within the understandings offered by Adolphus WC:

One can sacrifice in the act of killing," the priest sacrificed the lamb." and one can give a sacrifice “the farmer gave the lamb to be sacrificed” - If the two are done by separate people (the priest on one hand and the farmer on the other), there is a cost to the farmer, He no longer has a lamb it is lost to him forever. He has given up something that can’t be regained. There is no cost for the priest. It wasn’t his lamb.

My interpretation of the scenario followed all of these givens: The priest killed the lamb. The farmer gave the lamb. The farmer no longer has his lamb. The priest did not raise the lamb, therefore on a deeper level, it was not his. And…the scenario is a realistic one which occurs daily.

There are two points I am trying to make: 1. There are multiple ways to define a word, of which all are valid from some perspective. Therefore, there are many ways to define a phrase of multiple words, and countless ways to validly interpret scenarios.
2. Given that one can easily justify something as invalid. The challenge in living is to become one with the spirit of the All-Encompassing/Catholic mindset which attempts to find the perspective which validates any understanding as operating within the Truth. In doing so, one will have removed the log in his/her eye, and can more effectively help remove the speck from the other’s eye.

Thank you for your time, consideration, and excellent food for thought.

Thoughts?

 

[tonyrey]

I do see the value in the example of sacrifice offered by Jesus but an actual sacrifice doesn’t seem possible given the nature of God.

Even though Adolphus is not permitted to reply it is worth pointing out that God gives His children free will enabling them to frustrate His Will and reject Him for all eternity.

If that isn’t a sacrifice I don’t know what is…