Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!hsdndev!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: demitrio@husc9.harvard.edu (suzanne demitrio) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Food for Thought Message-ID: Date: 6 Feb 91 09:22:30 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 20 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article gdsimpson@amherst.bitnet writes: >1. If God says that he "requires mercy not sacrifice", then how are we to >understand Jesus' sacrifice on the cross? Roach's response to this question, in article , is splendid! -- and it reminded me of nothing so much as St. Anselm of Canterbury's argument in *Why God Became Man* (Cur Deus Homo). You should find this and read it, if you're interested in this question: it's short, and clear, and very good. My main sticking-point in returning to the Church two years ago was that I didn't understand the necessity of the Crucifixion; it was while writing a paper on this piece of Anselm that the problem suddenly made sense to me. I find in general that looking up theological questions in Augustine, Anselm, or Aquinas (in that order) often helps tremendously. Even if one doesn't revere them as saints or Doctors of the Church or whatever, they were nevertheless extremely bright guys who thought through many of Christianity's problems {...which last hints at where I stand on the Scripture/Tradition spectrum, but I hope to post more on that later}.