Are there certain admirable traits that humans (or even animals) may have but NOT G-d?

Status
Not open for further replies.

meltzerboy

New member
I was thinking specifically of the admirable trait of courage though I’m sure there are also others. Humans may possess this characteristic but I don’t believe G-d can since He doesn’t need it. How might one explain this seeming paradox? Or, if you think G-d is courageous, in what sense? If not, then where do humans get traits such as fortitude since humans are supposedly created in the image and likeness of G-d?
 
Catholics believe that God has all positive/good attributes and has them perfectly. God is perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just, etc.

I would say that God could also be perfectly courageous, depending on your definition of courage (ie. doing something without fear vs. doing something in spite of fear; where God would be the former).

I would say human fortitude is a reflection of God’s courage, and where if we turn to God, we have nothing to fear, because God is without fear and more powerful than any pain or suffering.
 
I would say that when we talk about the virtues in relation to God, it is not that we have those qualities and he does not, but rather he is the fulfillment of all of them, since he is the perfection of goodness, the pinnacle of existence itself; any virtue or merit we have is derived from that of God. So when we have faith, for instance–God doesn’t have faith because he doesn’t need faith, being the object of faith itself, and its source and ultimate end. Same with hope and charity. The cardinal virtues are expressions thereof, and thus expressions of God’s goodness. So it is not that we might have courage or fortitude and God doesn’t, but rather that we possess those qualities insofar as we derive our goodness from having been made in God’s image and likeness, who is perfection itself.

-ACEGC
 
I don’t follow this.
I mean that humans may need courage in the face of adversity but that G-d, since He does not face adversity, does not need courage. Similar idea concerning faith and hope: we need these traits but G-d does not unless it is possible that G-d has faith and hope in our goodness and our behavior.
 
St. Thomas says:

All created perfections are in God. Hence He is spoken of as universally perfect, because He lacks not (says the Commentator, Metaph. v) any excellence which may be found in any genus. This may be seen from two considerations.

First, because whatever perfection exists in an effect must be found in the effective cause: either in the same formality, if it is a univocal agent–as when man reproduces man; or in a more eminent degree, if it is an equivocal agent–thus in the sun is the likeness of whatever is generated by the sun’s power. Now it is plain that the effect pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause: and although to pre-exist in the potentiality of a material cause is to pre-exist in a more imperfect way, since matter as such is imperfect, and an agent as such is perfect; still to pre-exist virtually in the efficient cause is to pre-exist not in a more imperfect, but in a more perfect way. Since therefore God is the first effective cause of things, the perfections of all things must pre-exist in God in a more eminent way. Dionysius implies the same line of argument by saying of God (Div. Nom. v): “It is not that He is this and not that, but that He is all, as the cause of all.”

Secondly, from what has been already proved, God is existence itself, of itself subsistent (3, 4). Consequently, He must contain within Himself the whole perfection of being. For it is clear that if some hot thing has not the whole perfection of heat, this is because heat is not participated in its full perfection; but if this heat were self-subsisting, nothing of the virtue of heat would be wanting to it. Since therefore God is subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him. Now all created perfections are included in the perfection of being; for things are perfect, precisely so far as they have being after some fashion. It follows therefore that the perfection of no one thing is wanting to God. This line of argument, too, is implied by Dionysius (Div. Nom. v), when he says that, “God exists not in any single mode, but embraces all being within Himself, absolutely, without limitation, uniformly;” and afterwards he adds that, “He is the very existence to subsisting things.”

from S.T. I, Q4, a2
 
St. Thomas says:

All created perfections are in God. Hence He is spoken of as universally perfect, because He lacks not (says the Commentator, Metaph. v) any excellence which may be found in any genus. This may be seen from two considerations.

First, because whatever perfection exists in an effect must be found in the effective cause: either in the same formality, if it is a univocal agent–as when man reproduces man; or in a more eminent degree, if it is an equivocal agent–thus in the sun is the likeness of whatever is generated by the sun’s power. Now it is plain that the effect pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause: and although to pre-exist in the potentiality of a material cause is to pre-exist in a more imperfect way, since matter as such is imperfect, and an agent as such is perfect; still to pre-exist virtually in the efficient cause is to pre-exist not in a more imperfect, but in a more perfect way. Since therefore God is the first effective cause of things, the perfections of all things must pre-exist in God in a more eminent way. Dionysius implies the same line of argument by saying of God (Div. Nom. v): “It is not that He is this and not that, but that He is all, as the cause of all.”

Secondly, from what has been already proved, God is existence itself, of itself subsistent (3, 4). Consequently, He must contain within Himself the whole perfection of being. For it is clear that if some hot thing has not the whole perfection of heat, this is because heat is not participated in its full perfection; but if this heat were self-subsisting, nothing of the virtue of heat would be wanting to it. Since therefore God is subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him. Now all created perfections are included in the perfection of being; for things are perfect, precisely so far as they have being after some fashion. It follows therefore that the perfection of no one thing is wanting to God. This line of argument, too, is implied by Dionysius (Div. Nom. v), when he says that, “God exists not in any single mode, but embraces all being within Himself, absolutely, without limitation, uniformly;” and afterwards he adds that, “He is the very existence to subsisting things.”

from S.T. I, Q4, a2
Given this teaching from St. Thomas, how would you apply it to the trait of courage or fortitude within G-d, as a separate Being from us humans? If G-d did not have this positive trait, which he was nonetheless able to bestow on us, would that make Him imperfect?
 
I would say that when we talk about the virtues in relation to God, it is not that we have those qualities and he does not, but rather he is the fulfillment of all of them, since he is the perfection of goodness, the pinnacle of existence itself; any virtue or merit we have is derived from that of God. So when we have faith, for instance–God doesn’t have faith because he doesn’t need faith, being the object of faith itself, and its source and ultimate end. Same with hope and charity. The cardinal virtues are expressions thereof, and thus expressions of God’s goodness. So it is not that we might have courage or fortitude and God doesn’t, but rather that we possess those qualities insofar as we derive our goodness from having been made in God’s image and likeness, who is perfection itself.

-ACEGC
Therefore you seem to be defining courage as one aspect of goodness, which we obtain from being created in G-d’s image and likeness. I can agree with that.
 
Catholics believe that God has all positive/good attributes and has them perfectly. God is perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just, etc.

I would say that God could also be perfectly courageous, depending on your definition of courage (ie. doing something without fear vs. doing something in spite of fear; where God would be the former).

I would say human fortitude is a reflection of God’s courage, and where if we turn to God, we have nothing to fear, because God is without fear and more powerful than any pain or suffering.
And if I define courage as doing something DESPITE fear, would G-d still have that virtue? If not, how would you say he created us with it?
 
I would say the human capacity to learn, grow and change in good ways are admirable traits - ones that G-d does not share, since He is all-knowing all-good and omnipotent and therefore has no need to learn or grow or change.
 
There’s an old teaching of hierarchies of goods. Here’s an example:

I have a pet cat sitting with me right now. One of the traits I very much love about her is her innocence. Yet it would not be good for me to display her sort of innocence. This is because, as a human being, I am capable of a greater innocence. She has the innocence of an animal who cannot commit a sin. As humans we are called to the innocence of being able to commit sin and not doing so. God has a greater innocence still than us, because he is goodness itself.
 
I would say the human capacity to learn, grow and change in good ways are admirable traits - ones that G-d does not share, since He is all-knowing all-good and omnipotent and therefore has no need to learn or grow or change.
Therefore are you saying there are positive things we can do that G-d cannot albeit because G-d gave us the life and ability to do them? If so, does that, in any sense, make G-d imperfect or incomplete, or perhaps even more perfect since He is able to give us things He does not possess or need?
 
There’s an old teaching of hierarchies of goods. Here’s an example:

I have a pet cat sitting with me right now. One of the traits I very much love about her is her innocence. Yet it would not be good for me to display her sort of innocence. This is because, as a human being, I am capable of a greater innocence. She has the innocence of an animal who cannot commit a sin. As humans we are called to the innocence of being able to commit sin and not doing so. God has a greater innocence still than us, because he is goodness itself.
That is an interesting analogy, in which the concept of “innocence” takes on different shades of meaning. How might you apply that to the concept of “courage”?
 
God doesn’t face adversity? There’s a battle in heaven, fallen angels, Satan in Hell, all His creatures tempted. It seems to me that the fact of creation and God’s love is all borne out of courage. God could not give us that which He does not have…
 
Given this teaching from St. Thomas, how would you apply it to the trait of courage or fortitude within G-d, as a separate Being from us humans? If G-d did not have this positive trait, which he was nonetheless able to bestow on us, would that make Him imperfect?
Based on St. Thomas I’d say that fortitude is a species or reflection of some higher perfection which God possesses to an infinite degree. Off the top of my head I don’t know in this case the name of the perfection to which fortitude would correspond. I seem to remember running into this question in philosophy, but it has been years. What say you, Meltzerboy?
 
God doesn’t face adversity? There’s a battle in heaven, fallen angels, Satan in Hell, all His creatures tempted. It seems to me that the fact of creation and God’s love is all borne out of courage. God could not give us that which He does not have…
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of Judaism, in which there is no battle between good and evil, between G-d and Satan, between G-d and fallen angels. The idea that there is a force of great power that opposes and vies with G-d (i.e. Satan) is too much for Judaism to bear. Satan is regarded as G-d’s helping angel who does the “dirty work” as the Tempter and the Accuser of mankind both on earth and in the heavenly tribunal. However, Judaism also holds that G-d grieves when man sins, so this may show His fortitude and courage by means of His perseverance in continuing to love and forgive us even when we persist in disobeying his Law and causing Him sorrow.
 
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of Judaism, in which there is no battle between good and evil, between G-d and Satan, between G-d and fallen angels. The idea that there is a force of great power that opposes and vies with G-d (i.e. Satan) is too much for Judaism to bear. Satan is regarded as G-d’s helping angel who does the “dirty work” as the Tempter and the Accuser of mankind both on earth and in the heavenly tribunal. However, Judaism also holds that G-d grieves when man sins, so this may show His fortitude and courage by means of His perseverance in continuing to love and forgive us even when we persist in disobeying his Law and causing Him sorrow.
I don’t think your understanding of Satan and evil in Judaism is correct. At least I think it is contrary to what we learn in the Old Testament which is based on the Jewish scriptures.

And I don’t think there are any admirable traits that humans have that God lacks.

Linus2nd
 
I was thinking specifically of the admirable trait of courage though I’m sure there are also others. Humans may possess this characteristic but I don’t believe G-d can since He doesn’t need it. How might one explain this seeming paradox? Or, if you think G-d is courageous, in what sense? If not, then where do humans get traits such as fortitude since humans are supposedly created in the image and likeness of G-d?
not that one can know in material creation and probably at least a few things in immaterial creation.

God is Good and Love and just from the human view thus far these traits are enough to know that God in His perfection cannot lack these.

God bless
 
I don’t think your understanding of Satan and evil in Judaism is correct. At least I think it is contrary to what we learn in the Old Testament which is based on the Jewish scriptures.

And I don’t think there are any admirable traits that humans have that God lacks.

Linus2nd
Although Jews, both knowledgeable and less knowledgeable, seldom agree on ANYTHING, I would say the majority of informed Jews believe that HaSatan is NOT an opposing, adversarial force of evil who battles G-d. Rather, Satan is thought of as a helper in the service of G-d, whose primary role is to test and tempt mankind’s free will, at times very harshly. It is also Satan who accuses humans in the heavenly court, and thus forces us to defend our lives before G-d. In this sense, we judge ourselves, while G-d passes the Final Judgment. But it is Satan who executes the sentence, particularly when it involves our being separated eternally from G-d. One might say that G-d does not have the heart, or courage, to separate us from Him. It seems that Satan as the arch-enemy of G-d, together with his minions, is more of a Christian invention, with Islam adopting this idea. Judaism’s notion of Satan is founded on the belief that angels do NOT have free will. That admirable trait is reserved for humans only. Also remember that Judaism is based not only on the Written Torah (Law) but also the Oral Torah (Law), later compiled in the Talmud, which consists of the core text, or Mishnah, and the rabbinical commentaries, called the Gemara. The Oral Torah fills in the details of the Written Torah, and it is believed that both Laws were given by G-d to Moses.
 
From a Christian perspective, God IS human. Without the second person of the Trinity perpetually defining God’s humanity, God is less than God.

There certainly are admirable traits that can only be present in a life with limits. Faith that exists in a state of knowing all that is and was and shall be is not truly faith, any more than we know the answer is 4 when 2 is added to itself is faith. Hope likewise is only possible in a world with limits, and courage is possible only when the threat to one’s existence is real.

God has been expressed to be that which none greater can be perceived. God who is not fully human therefore is not that which none greater can be perceived, and therefore humanity necessarily is a part of the Godhead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top