Simple question # 5214 - explain Christ's sacrifice

[GrahamH]

What can you imagine as a suitable sacrifice for a god-man to make to redeem the souls of all humanity, who's natural penalty is said to be eternal torment? A long weekend break in Hell and some unpleasant wounding doesn't cut it, does it?

How much more redemptive and godly would it have been if Jesus suffered every day of an immortal life in human form. He could wake it the morning pristine and by tea-time he would have the wounds of a good flogging be hanging from the nearest tree covered in blood. What a testament to God's love for mankind that would be! (not really, it's barbaric, but no more than one poor sinner is supposed to face). Shouldn't a god endure perfect suffering? The wimp even passed out before the end of the day (some lasted for days on the cross, Jesus couldn't even manage one).

The whole crucifixion story is so damn petty in comparison to what it is supposed to redeem. Still, the people that came up with story had serious constraints. They only had a tale of an executed cult leader / faith healer to work with.

[Bella Fortuna]

Dear diary, today I put xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx up my xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx then I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx which made me xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx so I xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx vagina xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We're discussing Bella's diary, Pawiz, not yours.

Believe me, vaginas play no role in pawiz's diary.

He can dream, surely?

Not under the court order, he can't.

[Thinking Aloud]

What confers on substitution its redemptive value is not the material fact that an innocent person has suffered the chastisement deserved by the guilty and that justice has thus been in some way satisfied (in such a case one should speak rather of a grave injustice). The redemptive value comes instead from the fact that the innocent Jesus, out of pure love, entered into solidarity with the guilty and thus transformed their situation from within. When a catastrophic situation such as that caused by sin is taken upon oneself on behalf of sinners out of pure love, then that situation is no longer under the sign of opposition to God. On the contrary, it is under the sign of docility to the love which comes from God (cf. Gal 1:4), and therefore becomes a source of blessing (Gal 3:13-14). Christ, by offering himself "as a ransom for many," put into effect to the very ultimate his solidarity with man, with every man and with every sinner. The Apostle Paul indicates this when he writes, "The love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died" (2 Cor 5:14). Christ therefore is in solidarity with everyone in death, which is an effect of sin. But in him this solidarity was in no way the effect of sin; instead, it was a gratuitous act of the purest love. Love induced Christ to give his life, by accepting death on the cross. His solidarity with man in death consists in the fact that he not only died as every man dies, but that he died for every one. Thus this "substitution" signified the superabundance of love which overcomes every deficiency and insufficiency of human love, every negation and contrariety linked with human sin in every dimension "interior and historical" in which this sin has weighed on the relationship of man with God.

I may have copied that from somewhere.

If I attempt to read more than two sentences of that, I will surely turn into a zombie ...

Which is why I didn't. Blame the Pope. He wrote it. (Well, the previous one, anyway.)

[Feck]

A few days crucified is not fun .. Research the Bio-mechanics of crucifixion before you say "what did he suffer ?"

[Bella Fortuna]

What confers on substitution its redemptive value is not the material fact that an innocent person has suffered the chastisement deserved by the guilty and that justice has thus been in some way satisfied (in such a case one should speak rather of a grave injustice). The redemptive value comes instead from the fact that the innocent Jesus, out of pure love, entered into solidarity with the guilty and thus transformed their situation from within. When a catastrophic situation such as that caused by sin is taken upon oneself on behalf of sinners out of pure love, then that situation is no longer under the sign of opposition to God. On the contrary, it is under the sign of docility to the love which comes from God (cf. Gal 1:4), and therefore becomes a source of blessing (Gal 3:13-14). Christ, by offering himself "as a ransom for many," put into effect to the very ultimate his solidarity with man, with every man and with every sinner. The Apostle Paul indicates this when he writes, "The love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died" (2 Cor 5:14). Christ therefore is in solidarity with everyone in death, which is an effect of sin. But in him this solidarity was in no way the effect of sin; instead, it was a gratuitous act of the purest love. Love induced Christ to give his life, by accepting death on the cross. His solidarity with man in death consists in the fact that he not only died as every man dies, but that he died for every one. Thus this "substitution" signified the superabundance of love which overcomes every deficiency and insufficiency of human love, every negation and contrariety linked with human sin in every dimension "interior and historical" in which this sin has weighed on the relationship of man with God.

I may have copied that from somewhere.

If I attempt to read more than two sentences of that, I will surely turn into a zombie ...

Surely the true intent, yes?

[klr]

What confers on substitution its redemptive value is not the material fact that an innocent person has suffered the chastisement deserved by the guilty and that justice has thus been in some way satisfied (in such a case one should speak rather of a grave injustice). The redemptive value comes instead from the fact that the innocent Jesus, out of pure love, entered into solidarity with the guilty and thus transformed their situation from within. When a catastrophic situation such as that caused by sin is taken upon oneself on behalf of sinners out of pure love, then that situation is no longer under the sign of opposition to God. On the contrary, it is under the sign of docility to the love which comes from God (cf. Gal 1:4), and therefore becomes a source of blessing (Gal 3:13-14). Christ, by offering himself "as a ransom for many," put into effect to the very ultimate his solidarity with man, with every man and with every sinner. The Apostle Paul indicates this when he writes, "The love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died" (2 Cor 5:14). Christ therefore is in solidarity with everyone in death, which is an effect of sin. But in him this solidarity was in no way the effect of sin; instead, it was a gratuitous act of the purest love. Love induced Christ to give his life, by accepting death on the cross. His solidarity with man in death consists in the fact that he not only died as every man dies, but that he died for every one. Thus this "substitution" signified the superabundance of love which overcomes every deficiency and insufficiency of human love, every negation and contrariety linked with human sin in every dimension "interior and historical" in which this sin has weighed on the relationship of man with God.

I may have copied that from somewhere.

If I attempt to read more than two sentences of that, I will surely turn into a zombie ...

Surely the true intent, yes?

Touché ...

[mindyourmind]

A few days crucified is not fun .. Research the Bio-mechanics of crucifixion before you say "what did he suffer ?"

Suffer all that bio-mechanics and then go up to daddy to sit on some throne and be God, big cheese over all? That is suffering, that is sacrifice - sufficiently so for us to grovel and bow for all our lives? Again - what did he really suffer !!

[Bella Fortuna]

He surely suffered from all his so-called supporters not getting him the hell off that cross.

[GrahamH]

A few days crucified is not fun .. Research the Bio-mechanics of crucifixion before you say "what did he suffer ?"

A few hours crucified, do you mean? He wasn't up there long.
The two said to have been crucified with him where still going strong when JC passed out and was pronounced dead.

Crucifixion is a horrible torture, for sure, but nothing in comparison to just one person's eternal torment, and it is supposed to pay for all humanities eternal suffering. It doesn't come close to making sense.

[klr]

What confers on substitution its redemptive value is not the material fact that an innocent person has suffered the chastisement deserved by the guilty and that justice has thus been in some way satisfied (in such a case one should speak rather of a grave injustice). The redemptive value comes instead from the fact that the innocent Jesus, out of pure love, entered into solidarity with the guilty and thus transformed their situation from within. When a catastrophic situation such as that caused by sin is taken upon oneself on behalf of sinners out of pure love, then that situation is no longer under the sign of opposition to God. On the contrary, it is under the sign of docility to the love which comes from God (cf. Gal 1:4), and therefore becomes a source of blessing (Gal 3:13-14). Christ, by offering himself "as a ransom for many," put into effect to the very ultimate his solidarity with man, with every man and with every sinner. The Apostle Paul indicates this when he writes, "The love of Christ impels us, once we have come to the conviction that one died for all; therefore, all have died" (2 Cor 5:14). Christ therefore is in solidarity with everyone in death, which is an effect of sin. But in him this solidarity was in no way the effect of sin; instead, it was a gratuitous act of the purest love. Love induced Christ to give his life, by accepting death on the cross. His solidarity with man in death consists in the fact that he not only died as every man dies, but that he died for every one. Thus this "substitution" signified the superabundance of love which overcomes every deficiency and insufficiency of human love, every negation and contrariety linked with human sin in every dimension "interior and historical" in which this sin has weighed on the relationship of man with God.

I may have copied that from somewhere.

If I attempt to read more than two sentences of that, I will surely turn into a zombie ...

Which is why I didn't. Blame the Pope. He wrote it. (Well, the previous one, anyway.)

It's a wonder that theological types don't go insane reading/writing/thinking about this claptrap. But maybe they are all insane ...

[Bella Fortuna]

It's a wonder that theological types don't go insane reading/writing/thinking about this claptrap. But maybe they are all insane ...

You just answered your own question. A certain amount of void in the sanity department is necessary to even embark on that career path.