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

[Gaber]

Gaber,

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?

It’s not about whether or not I’m personally for real. And I’m sorry that you took all that so personally, as it simply has to do with how we get from A to Z, not where you and I might relatively be in a particular dimension of experience. You may well be, and probably are, far more accomplished than I in some area. You might be at universityu or doctorate level to something I’m in kindergarten about.

And it is not a defense. I have nothing to defend. I’m doing mostly reportage here.

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.

Idon’t, and my reasons were stated: cultural restrictions. You have equall acess to what those were as I do. You might come to different conclusions because of how youo see yourself, and that is OK. But that might change. When it does, and you are not so personally reactive, there may be some very interesting things we could talk about. But right now, from your contributions, I’d say this is not the time. That’s not a “no,” its a “we’ll talk later.”

 

[Gorgias]

Idon’t, and my reasons were stated: cultural restrictions. You have equall acess to what those were as I do. You might come to different conclusions because of how youo see yourself, and that is OK. But that might change. When it does, and you are not so personally reactive, there may be some very interesting things we could talk about. But right now, from your contributions, I’d say this is not the time. That’s not a “no,” its a “we’ll talk later.”

I have to admit, I was a bit peeved that your answer seemed to boil down to “you can’t handle the truth!”

However, you had originally asked a question that seemed premised on the notion that the way that the Church did things in the 1st century A.D. takes precedence over how it does in any other time; that is, that if it does things differently, it’s necessary to provide a justification for its actions. My answer, to boil it down, is “it was given the authority to do so.” If that’s too direct or dogmatic an answer for you, I can see how you might want to deflect it.

Can I enter into a discussion of the relative merits of the development of liturgy? Of course.

I thought your one response was interesting, though: am I characterizing you correctly when I say that it seems you believe that, when deeply questioning the Church, the only reasonable conclusion is one that proceeds from suspicion? That is, there’s no opportunity to “deeply question” and then conclude that the Church is ok?

 

[jochoa]

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.

My friend, if the only perspective you want to consider is Jesus as God, the Father, then you are correct in that God cannot sacrifice anything. However, Catholicism knows Jesus is also God, the Son, as well as Jesus is also God, the Holy Spirit.
Catholicism also knows that God is the Holy Trinity or three distinct persons co-existing in one God.
Therefore, there are many perspectives to consider.
For example: The Saints, Martyrs, and Fathers giving their lives to spread the Word of God, are all sacrifices of the Holy Spirit.

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

Please consider the following:

1. What is the one spirit? Is being of one spirit, the same as being one with the spirit? Is being one with the spirit the same as being the spirit?
2. What is your understanding of destruction and world?

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.

Please recognize: I am saying Jesus wants to experience and share the experience of a limitless happiness without anyone ever losing peace. Therefore, He has emotions. In order to do this, He had to think of a plan to bring other humans to freely choose to want to love as He loves. However, He is also perfect at being patient and kind for the sake of happiness without ever losing peace (this is evident in that from our perspective, He has waited patiently for 15 billion years). But in order to spread the ability to freely choose to want to do the same on a global level, when thinking of the plan, He had to assume He was angry to truly set us free to choose to follow Him. When He physically followed through with the plan, He genuinely was angry.
The concept is when you love someone, you must set them free to choose to love you. Jesus’ Love is so Amazing that in His presence, no person can reject Him because He is the perfect servant of happiness and peace for all. In order to set us free on a global level to freely choose to Love as He Loves, so that He may also experience a limitless happiness, a more drastic measure is necessary.

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?

You are correct: God, the Father, can’t be diminished. What about God, the Son, or God, the Holy Spirit?

Thank you very much for the excellent food for thought! I am enjoying pondering your ideas and considerations.

Thoughts?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

My friend, if the only perspective you want to consider is Jesus as God, the Father, then you are correct in that God cannot sacrifice anything. However, Catholicism knows Jesus is also God, the Son, as well as Jesus is also God, the Holy Spirit.
Catholicism also knows that God is the Holy Trinity or three distinct persons co-existing in one God.
Therefore, there are many perspectives to consider.
For example: The Saints, Martyrs, and Fathers giving their lives to spread the Word of God, are all sacrifices of the Holy Spirit.

Please consider the following:

1. What is the one spirit? Is being of one spirit, the same as being one with the spirit? Is being one with the spirit the same as being the spirit?
2. What is your understanding of destruction and world?

Please recognize: I am saying Jesus wants to experience and share the experience of a limitless happiness without anyone ever losing peace. Therefore, He has emotions. In order to do this, He had to think of a plan to bring other humans to freely choose to want to love as He loves. However, He is also perfect at being patient and kind for the sake of happiness without ever losing peace (this is evident in that from our perspective, He has waited patiently for 15 billion years). But in order to spread the ability to freely choose to want to do the same on a global level, when thinking of the plan, He had to assume He was angry to truly set us free to choose to follow Him. When He physically followed through with the plan, He genuinely was angry.
The concept is when you love someone, you must set them free to choose to love you. Jesus’ Love is so Amazing that in His presence, no person can reject Him because He is the perfect servant of happiness and peace for all. In order to set us free on a global level to freely choose to Love as He Loves, so that He may also experience a limitless happiness, a more drastic measure is necessary.

You are correct: God, the Father, can’t be diminished. What about God, the Son, or God, the Holy Spirit?

Thank you very much for the excellent food for thought! I am enjoying pondering your ideas and considerations.

Thoughts?

You can’t consider one person without considering the others. They are 3 they are 1.

How are they sacrifices of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit isn’t lessened with each of their deaths.

You were saying we have a “good” spirit and a “bad” spirit. We don’t. Just one. We can choose the path we take.

The world as we know it is obliterated. A new world takes it’s place.

You are still focusing on Jesus as God. He is Truly Man then his emotions aren’t faked. He was truly angry in the temple. Just as God the Father is wrathful.

People reject Jesus all the time. People who physically met Jesus rejected Jesus. They killed him remember?

God’s (all three persons) nature is that He can’t be diminished.

 

[Gaber]

I have to admit, I was a bit peeved that your answer seemed to boil down to “you can’t handle the truth!”

I can’t get on youtube right now, but I’m guessing that reference would be the famous one at the military trial. But again, it’s not so much as it might seem, but that, for instance, though I like math and can do some, I’d not do well in a conversation about quadratic equations, or transforms, or some = thing tha has a bunch of Greel letters in it. I’m just not there. But some are, and very good for them! I wouln’t have this keyboard under my fingers without those folks. But I do have a very good religious, metaphysucal, and comparative religion background over so many decades. I also have had a rather profound mystical experience which totally changed my understanding of what constitutes human awareness. It isn’t what we ordinarily think it is, at least not in intellectual terms. So I base much, or all of what I say on that background.

However, you had originally asked a question that seemed premised on the notion that the way that the Church did things in the 1st century A.D. takes precedence over how it does in any other time; that is, that if it does things differently, it’s necessary to provide a justification for its actions. My answer, to boil it down, is “it was given the authority to do so.” If that’s too direct or dogmatic an answer for you, I can see how you might want to deflect it.

That wasn’t quite my point. It was more along the lines that while we have precious little in terms of an account that has even within itself some historic discrepencies, it would appear that the Church has extrapolated a lot. And while there may have been “reason” to do so, I do not see that the teachings of Jesus were about the faculty of reason, but of love and the nature of awareness, particularly as to the relatinship of God and Mankiind and what we make of that, And from another perspective, all dur respect to the Church, even some of her own mystics have a slightly different take on that than does the average parishioner.

Can I enter into a discussion of the relative merits of the development of liturgy? Of course.

Sure. The liturgy is lovely and meaningful to many, even simply as a ceremony. And that is fine to change as seems fit. I only intended to show that since some things change, the “Founder” not being with us as you and I might be in the same room, Presence not withstanding, other things might have changed as well, despite best intentions. Radio waves being equal and “true,” a crystal set, if you know what that is, is rather different than a multiplexed radio. The same transimission might sound radically different on two sets. Someone listening to a crystal set all their life, on hearing the clarity of an FM broadcast might declare "But that is not the true radio! Someone who has been to a museum of radio history and a radio factory might have a different perception of that whole dynamic. that’s all.

I thought your one response was interesting, though: am I characterizing you correctly when I say that it seems you believe that, when deeply questioning the Church, the only reasonable conclusion is one that proceeds from suspicion? That is, there’s no opportunity to “deeply question” and then conclude that the Church is ok?

Not at all. The human is naturally curious, and some make a business of it, and each in different kind and degree than another. Having had a number of “mystical” expereinces from an ealy age, I have always been very religious and very curious. Suspicion implies questioning with the idea that someone is trying to pull a fast one on you, or trying to get wool over your eyse. Curiosity as such is simple interest in what is. Inevitably, as one looks at things, one’s perspective naturally changes and becomes wider and deeper. And according to the organizing premise one uses to look at that growing feild of information, experience, and understanding, one has integrity with reality to a greater or lesser degree.

My fundamental premise is “God IS” and “God is ALL.” I gring to that premise many tools that I don’t ordinarliy see used. So I seem to come up in some instances with dofferent conclusions than many who simply accept a ready made set of dogmas and doctrins, although, in fact, that is what I started with. And at this point, as far as I can tell, my view, both expereintially as far as it goes, and intellectually, as far as that goes, is in line wth my best understanding of a history of the conclusions of contemplatives, Catholic and not. There being one God, I’d predicate that there can be only one conclusion, independent of faith or lack of it.

 

[jochoa]

You can’t consider one person without considering the others. They are 3 they are 1.

God’s (all three persons) nature is that He can’t be diminished.

If you are only willing to consider God as Everything, then you are correct: There is no sacrifice in Everything. However, if one limits God as only being everything, isn’t this reducing God down to pantheism?
Please recognize that Catholicism is able to consider one person without considering the others: The Son prayed to the Father; The Holy Spirit will be sent by the Father, in the Son’s name.

How are they sacrifices of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit isn’t lessened with each of their deaths.

Please consider the following: If we didn’t consider one of their deaths/sacrifices, we would not have the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

You were saying we have a “good” spirit and a “bad” spirit. We don’t. Just one. We can choose the path we take.

I am saying although each of us only has one spirit, that one spirit can either act in oneness with the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit. So would you please reconsider the questions: What is the one spirit we are of? Is being of one spirit, the same as being one with the spirit? Is being one with the spirit the same as being the spirit?

The world as we know it is obliterated. A new world takes it’s place.

Thank you for sharing. Please consider the following: Given the following:
-Apocalypse of Saint John can be interpreted as the destruction of the unholy spirit within John.
-The unholy spirit is worldliness, as opposed to Godliness.
Therefore, Apocalypse of Saint John can be interpreted as the destruction of worldliness within John.
-Worldliness can be stated more gracefully as of the World.
Which yields the following declaration: Destruction of the World.
-And when we destroy worldliness within ourselves, we get Godliness.
-Godliness can be interpreted as a temple of God, where a temple of God is heaven or a heavenly world.
Therefore, Apocalypse of Saint John and Revelation of Jesus Christ can be interpreted as the destruction of the world, for the new world of heaven within John.

You are still focusing on Jesus as God. He is Truly Man then his emotions aren’t faked. He was truly angry in the temple. Just as God the Father is wrathful.

This is another paradox of Faith: Jesus is True Man, yet He assumed a human nature. One can argue: If He assumed being of human nature, then He can’t be True Man. Therefore, there must be a difference in being a man, and the nature of man.

People reject Jesus all the time. People who physically met Jesus rejected Jesus. They killed him remember?

Please consider the following revision and concepts:
Jesus Love is so Amazing, that on a one on one relationship without peer and societal pressures, it is impossible to lose peace and happiness from receiving His Love.
Perhaps it is not that people reject Jesus, instead, they reject His ways. For example, when they asked Him to reveal His power by getting down from the cross, had He done so, do you think they would have rejected Him? The trouble is that in order to grant them the free-will to choose to Love as He Loves, so that He may also experience a limitless happiness in Heaven, He had to set us free from knowing He is God.

Thank you once again for your consideration. I look forward to more discussion.

Thoughts?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

If you are only willing to consider God as Everything, then you are correct: There is no sacrifice in Everything. However, if one limits God as only being everything, isn’t this reducing God down to pantheism?
Please recognize that Catholicism is able to consider one person without considering the others: The Son prayed to the Father; The Holy Spirit will be sent by the Father, in the Son’s name.

Please consider the following: If we didn’t consider one of their deaths/sacrifices, we would not have the fullness of the Holy Spirit.

I am saying although each of us only has one spirit, that one spirit can either act in oneness with the Holy Spirit or the unholy spirit. So would you please reconsider the questions: What is the one spirit we are of? Is being of one spirit, the same as being one with the spirit? Is being one with the spirit the same as being the spirit?

Thank you for sharing. Please consider the following: Given the following:
-Apocalypse of Saint John can be interpreted as the destruction of the unholy spirit within John.
-The unholy spirit is worldliness, as opposed to Godliness.
Therefore, Apocalypse of Saint John can be interpreted as the destruction of worldliness within John.
-Worldliness can be stated more gracefully as of the World.
Which yields the following declaration: Destruction of the World.
-And when we destroy worldliness within ourselves, we get Godliness.
-Godliness can be interpreted as a temple of God, where a temple of God is heaven or a heavenly world.
Therefore, Apocalypse of Saint John and Revelation of Jesus Christ can be interpreted as the destruction of the world, for the new world of heaven within John.

This is another paradox of Faith: Jesus is True Man, yet He assumed a human nature. One can argue: If He assumed being of human nature, then He can’t be True Man. Therefore, there must be a difference in being a man, and the nature of man.

Please consider the following revision and concepts:
Jesus Love is so Amazing, that on a one on one relationship without peer and societal pressures, it is impossible to lose peace and happiness from receiving His Love.
Perhaps it is not that people reject Jesus, instead, they reject His ways. For example, when they asked Him to reveal His power by getting down from the cross, had He done so, do you think they would have rejected Him? The trouble is that in order to grant them the free-will to choose to Love as He Loves, so that He may also experience a limitless happiness in Heaven, He had to set us free from knowing He is God.

Thank you once again for your consideration. I look forward to more discussion.

Thoughts?

Yes, but in considering One we keep in mind that each One is all Three. The nature of God is He can’t be diminished.

Their deaths are sacrifices of their one life. It isn’t a sacrifice of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit isn’t diminished by their deaths.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Nothing is lost. There is only something to gain. It’s not a sacrifice but rather an invitation.

 

[jochoa]

Their deaths are sacrifices of their one life. It isn’t a sacrifice of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit isn’t diminished by their deaths.

Please consider the following question: What is your understanding of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

ARTICLE 8
“I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT”

687 "No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."7 Now God’s Spirit, who reveals God, makes known to us Christ, his Word, his living Utterance, but the Spirit does not speak of himself. The Spirit who “has spoken through the prophets” makes us hear the Father’s Word, but we do not hear the Spirit himself. We know him only in the movement by which he reveals the Word to us and disposes us to welcome him in faith. The Spirit of truth who “unveils” Christ to us "will not speak on his own."8 Such properly divine self-effacement explains why “the world cannot receive [him], because it neither sees him nor knows him,” while those who believe in Christ know the Spirit because he dwells with them.9

742 “Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!”’ (Gal 4:6).

743 From the beginning to the end of time, whenever God sends his Son, he always sends his Spirit: their mission is conjoined and inseparable.

744 In the fullness of time the Holy Spirit completes in Mary all the preparations for Christ’s coming among the People of God. By the action of the Holy Spirit in her, the Father gives the world Emmanuel “God-with-us” (Mt 1:23).

745 The Son of God was consecrated as Christ (Messiah) by the anointing of the Holy Spirit at his Incarnation (cf. Ps 2:6-7).

746 By his Death and his Resurrection, Jesus is constituted in glory as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 2:36). From his fullness, he poured out the Holy Spirit on the apostles and the Church.

747 The Holy Spirit, whom Christ the head pours out on his members, builds, animates, and sanctifies the Church. She is the sacrament of the Holy Trinity’s communion with men.

 

[jochoa]

Quote:
742 “Because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!”’ (Gal 4:6).

Would you say that when a member of Christ is building, animating, sanctifying the Church, s/he is acting in oneness with the Holy Spirit?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Would you say that when a member of Christ is building, animating, sanctifying the Church, s/he is acting in oneness with the Holy Spirit?

Yes. I think I see where you are going with this.

All men die, God isn’t diminished by any of our deaths.

 

[jochoa]

Yes. I think I see where you are going with this.

All men die, God isn’t diminished by any of our deaths.

Please know that I have a very clear understanding of how God, the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, is not diminished by any of our deaths. However, the goal is to find the perspectives which shed light on the incredible depths of sacrifice God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has given, so that all people will fall in Love with Him to experience a greater limitless happiness with an unbreakable peace from this point forward.

The concept is:
Had those saints, martyrs, fathers, and other members of Christ not acted in oneness with the Holy Spirit, the Church would be far less than what it is today. Therefore, if we take away the sacrifices of the members, the works of the Holy Spirit would be lessened in comparison to what they are today. In conclusion, the sacrifices of Christ’s members, including Christ, are the sacrifices of the Holy Spirit.

Thank you very much for taking the time to share your perspective. I really appreciated the reference to the Catechisms. And I definitely look forward to further discussion.

Thoughts?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

You seem to think that God is somehow lacking without our Love. That the Holy Spirit would be less without the conduit of Man.

I don’t see it that way. God isn’t lacking. Our sacrifices are for our benefit, not God’s.

 

[jochoa]

You seem to think that God is somehow lacking without our Love. That the Holy Spirit would be less without the conduit of Man.

I don’t see it that way. God isn’t lacking. Our sacrifices are for our benefit, not God’s.

Please consider the following concept:
“…we might become God.”
Have we become God?
Since we cannot become God, the Creator, nor Jesus, the Son, the question becomes how will we become God?
Will it take sacrifices to become God?
Given that when we become God, we are God for all eternity: Since we are God for all eternity, were we ever lacking and needing to make sacrifices?
Given that when we are building, animating, and sanctifying the Church, we are acting in oneness with the Holy Spirit: If we can master always building, animating, and sanctifying the Church, we will be One with the Holy Spirit?
In doing so, would we be One with God?
Since, there are times that building, animating, and sanctifying the Church require sacrifice, wouldn’t these be sacrifices of God?
Once we become God, will it require sacrifices to continue to remain God?

Thank you very much for the continued conversation, and I look forward to more!

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Heaven is said to be union with God. This happens after we die if we have aligned ourselves with God before our death. So we are no God now as we are temporal beings.

The sacrifices in this life are to align our eternal self (soul) with God’s will so that we may join Him in the afterlife.

So, no the sacrifices are our own for our benefit. We sacrifice so that we can align ourselves to God.

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

 

[jochoa]

Heaven is said to be union with God. This happens after we die if we have aligned ourselves with God before our death. So we are no God now as we are temporal beings.

The sacrifices in this life are to align our eternal self (soul) with God’s will so that we may join Him in the afterlife.

So, no the sacrifices are our own for our benefit. We sacrifice so that we can align ourselves to God.

Excellent points. Please consider the following questions:
When doing God’s Will is one experiencing Heaven?
During Eucharist are we in union with God?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

Excellent points. Please consider the following questions:
When doing God’s Will is one experiencing Heaven?
During Eucharist are we in union with God?

I think in sacrificing we are shown the joy of losing our self (ego) to the greater. A preview if you will.

It is the intent of the Eucharist, how successful it is depends on the individual. They have to open to the experience.

 

[Gaber]

I think in sacrificing we are shown the joy of losing our self (ego) to the greater. A preview if you will…

This is an interesting statement because it states as a goal exactly that which so many on here object to as an aspect of “Eastern” religions, of which “Roman” Catholicism is one. It is “Roman” because of Paul winning out over Peter as to whom “Christianity” was for, right?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

This is an interesting statement because it states as a goal exactly that which so many on here object to as an aspect of “Eastern” religions, of which “Roman” Catholicism is one. It is “Roman” because of Paul winning out over Peter as to whom “Christianity” was for, right?

Maybe they are missing the forest for the trees. Perfect union with God doesn’t leave room for the ego. “Thy will be done”

 

[Gaber]

Maybe they are missing the forest for the trees. Perfect union with God doesn’t leave room for the ego. “Thy will be done”

That is well said. So far, in Catholic literature, the most exhaustive, detailed, and finely teased treatises on this is the triligy of books by Bernadette Roberts. I personally don’t agree with the necessity of some of the links in her chain, as they are meant to include specifically Catholic dogma, but they still work, God bless her!