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

[DCNBILL]

Sure, we can allow for the time being that it was mankind’s fault that it needed salvation.

But let us consider the particulars of that salvation. God’s plan was: “Send my son to become man and be betrayed and killed in order that he might be a sacrifice to redeem mankind.”
This plan *requires *both betrayal and murder. If Jesus was not betrayed (and consequently murdered), he would not have been a sacrifice, and therefore failed to redeem humanity.
Let us consider what is said about the betrayer by Jesus himself:

Now what does this mean? It means that God took deliberate action (having Jesus conceived) with the foreknowledge that doing so would condemn Judas to commit this terrible sin. If God had not sent Jesus at that time, then Judas could not have committed such a sin. Indeed, God even chose to have Judas born even though Jesus Himself acknowledges “It would be better for him if he had not been born.”

Catholic theology holds that you cannot achieve a good end through an evil action, and condemning Judas to betray Jesus cannot be justified even by salvation of the whole world.

Note that what Judas did in the betrayal of Jesus did not condemn him, it was his despair afterward that did that, he could have chosen the way of Peter after his betrayal of Jesus and he would have been forgiven.

 

[itullian]

cause he didn’t have to.

 

[tonyrey]

cause he didn’t have to.

That is a very good reason but it’s not the only one,

 

[Neildown]

I’ve never understood why this was always considered such a sacrifice. God sent his son to die for our sins, but neither God nor Jesus actually lost anything. Basically, the way I see it is Jesus was in heaven, went to earth for a few decades to do an unpleasant, but quick (relative to eternity 30-some years is really quick) job, and then he went back up to heaven. Job done. Easy peasy. Why do people always talk about this like it was such a sacrifice?

It was “such a sacrifice” due to the fact that He was true man - you don’t think 3 hours nailed to a cross after a scourging counts as one? If its that easy then I’d like to see you do it and not consider it a sacrifice - do that and I’ll alter my views just for your effort . Just because He was true God didn’t mean it was easy, because He took on the form of true man as well - ie. He still experienced pain and fear.

Now to go through all of that to save sinners (the very people responsible for crucifying Him even) - if that isn’t charity or sacrifice, I don’t know what is.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

It was “such a sacrifice” due to the fact that He was true man - you don’t think 3 hours nailed to a cross after a scourging counts as one? If its that easy then I’d like to see you do it and not consider it a sacrifice - do that and I’ll alter my views just for your effort . Just because He was true God didn’t mean it was easy, because He took on the form of true man as well - ie. He still experienced pain and fear.

Now to go through all of that to save sinners (the very people responsible for crucifying Him even) - if that isn’t charity or sacrifice, I don’t know what is.

We all owe a death - rarely is it without pain.

 

[Neildown]

We all owe a death - rarely is it without pain.

Who willingly lets himself be nailed to a cross for 3 hours for every person who’s done him harm? Jesus is God, so He had the power not to do it but He did it anyway. And His sacrifice wasn’t just in the physical either. Remember Gethsemane?

 

[itullian]

He experienced everything because he had to, for us. that’s wht he was “forsaken” while there.
so he went thru what we would go through. love him.

even tho i struggle with doubt many times, i still love him.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Note that what Judas did in the betrayal of Jesus did not condemn him, it was his despair afterward that did that, he could have chosen the way of Peter after his betrayal of Jesus and he would have been forgiven.

But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.

That doesn’t sound like “If he seeks forgiveness, he’ll be fine.”

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Who willingly lets himself be nailed to a cross for 3 hours for every person who’s done him harm? Jesus is God, so He had the power not to do it but He did it anyway. And His sacrifice wasn’t just in the physical either. Remember Gethsemane?

God is omniscient. He knows exactly what any given experience feels like. He knew what the crucifixion would feel like, and he knew that Jesus would be obedient. God didn’t learn anything, the best that can be said is that he was putting on a demonstration for us. Demonstrations can be worthwhile, but we must admit that this particular demonstration required people to sin in order to be effective.

 

[Gorgias]

God is omniscient. He knows exactly what any given experience feels like. He knew what the crucifixion would feel like, and he knew that Jesus would be obedient. God didn’t learn anything, the best that can be said is that he was putting on a demonstration for us.

from the perspective of God the Father, yes, it’s a demonstration. From the perspective of Jesus the human being? slightly more than a “demonstration”, wouldn’t you say?

And, as I pointed out, ‘satisfaction’ doesn’t mean ‘payment of blood guilt’, it means ‘substituting something that displeases God with something that pleases him more’.

Demonstrations can be worthwhile, but we must admit that this particular demonstration required people to sin in order to be effective.

This “demonstration” wasn’t effective because of sin – it was effective because of Jesus’ love.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

This “demonstration” wasn’t effective because of sin – it was effective because of Jesus’ love.

So it was love that betrayed and nailed Jesus to the cross? No, that happened through sin. Without sin, the betrayal and death would not have happened. God’s demonstration could have been thwarted if certain people chose to not sin. What if they had tried to do good? Would God have “hardened their hearts” as he did with the pharaoh in Egypt?

 

[Gorgias]

So it was love that betrayed and nailed Jesus to the cross?

No, but that wasn’t your argument. You claimed that it was sin that made the sacrifice effective.

Sin seems to be the material cause, crucifixion the formal cause, but Jesus’ sacrificial love is the efficient cause, which brings about salvation (which is the final cause).

Without sin and crucifixion, there is still Jesus’ love. Looking at only the ‘sin’ side of the equation, and asserting that it is the sole cause, is intellectually dishonest. It’s like saying that the ball or the bat is the cause of baseball.

God’s demonstration could have been thwarted if certain people chose to not sin.

this instance of a demonstration could have been thwarted. of course, this sort of “what if” presumes against God’s omnipotence – that is, that God’s will could be thwarted. That’s a bad presumption.

What if they had tried to do good? Would God have “hardened their hearts” as he did with the pharaoh in Egypt?

LOL. You’re gonna hate this, but you realize that Catholics don’t take that literally, don’tcha?

 

[PeterGStanley]

God sent his son because of his love for us to bring us everlasting life - salvation.

Jesus died for the love of the father ( to bring about Gods plan for salvation) and us so we would have eternal live - he is the only one who could bring salvation to us - because he was sinless death had no hold on him and by this and God he had the power to rise from the dead - the first fruit - every other person who ever died was a sinner so death had a hold on all of them and none could bring salvation but Jesus.Through his death and resurrection we also are resurrected through him and with him to eternal life.If thats not love what is it.He layed down his life so we could have eternal life with him.

God always loved us and wanted us to have eternal life - Jesus by his sinless nature was able to bring it about by his sacrifice and he would not do it if he did not love us.He chose to lay down his life for us which was the fathers will.

 

[DCNBILL]

That doesn’t sound like “If he seeks forgiveness, he’ll be fine.”

You answer this in your post following that one. “God is omniscient.”

Jesus is God.

 

[Adolphus_WC]

God sent his son because of his love for us to bring us everlasting life - salvation.

Jesus died for the love of the father ( to bring about Gods plan for salvation) and us so we would have eternal live - he is the only one who could bring salvation to us - because he was sinless death had no hold on him and by this and God he had the power to rise from the dead - the first fruit - every other person who ever died was a sinner so death had a hold on all of them and none could bring salvation but Jesus.Through his death and resurrection we also are resurrected through him and with him to eternal life.If thats not love what is it.He layed down his life so we could have eternal life with him.

God always loved us and wanted us to have eternal life - Jesus by his sinless nature was able to bring it about by his sacrifice and he would not do it if he did not love us.He chose to lay down his life for us which was the fathers will.

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?

 

[jochoa]

I think you and I are mixing the idea of sacrifice.

Please recognize that I mentioned to you that I clearly understand the justification that God cannot sacrifice because He is not lacking. The idea in All-Encompassing (Catholic) Theology is to find out how a multitude of understandings can be validated as operating within the Truth. You, my friend, have limited God to being everything and are crediting sacrificing to the physical person sacrificing, and are not considering other perspectives, such as the spiritual person. Therefore, you will be unable to recognize how God can sacrifice.

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.

If the priest sacrificed, he gave up something. The trouble becomes in that it is difficult to perceive the perspective which recognize that he gave up something.

So when I say God can’t be diminished therefore how can he sacrifice I am speaking from the farmer’s perspective. God can’t give up anything to be lost forever, because He can’t be diminished.

I think this may be my final perspective offered for consideration:
God gives up each one of His Creations to free will. When we freely choose not to Love as He Loves, and when we freely choose to not believe in Him, He has forever lost His purposeful creation. Therefore, God makes more sacrifices than we can count.

Many thanks for all your time and consideration.

Thoughts?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

If the priest sacrificed, he gave up something. The trouble becomes in that it is difficult to perceive the perspective which recognize that he gave up something.

What did the priest give up?

 

[tonyrey]

Much of what we can learn from Jesus is not what he said but what what He did. For example, in a patriarchal society

Jesus knew that in the patriarchal society of the Jews it would be futile to expect women to abandon their families and travel with him around Galilee and Judea. It wasn’t a question of their fitness but of practical necessity. Women had important roles while He was on earth and there is evidence in the Acts of the Apostles that they had privileged positions in the early Church. Women like St Catherine of Siena and St Teresa have had great influence on Popes and the Catholic laity.

 

[jochoa]

What did the priest give up?

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?

 

[Adolphus_WC]

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?

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.