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

[Ad_Orientem]

From a Christian perspective, God IS human. Without the second person of the Trinity perpetually defining God’s humanity, God is less than God.

… 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.

I don’t think this is correct at all. God is not human, nor is humanity essential to his perfection. He assumed a human nature out of love for us, but this was neither necessary for him to be complete, nor necessary in any other way, except to fulfill his holy will.

There are perfections which an ant has which God does not have in the same way. Does this make God any less God, or less perfect, because he did not become incarnate as an ant?

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

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?

True courage finds its source in the perfections of G-d who is perfection itself. True courage could not exist if G-d was an ever changing G-d; however, because God is unchanging, He is therefore steadfast and resolute. This perfection of G-d, when applied to humans, is called courage. When applied to G-d it is called nothing, because it is not something He has, but rather it is Himself. For example G-d does not have goodness, because G-d IS Goodness itself. He is the Source, not a beneficiary.

 

[CaptFun]

Humans can repent from their sins.

And thank their creator.

Humbly know they are inferior to God.

Animals? Uh. Gimme a second.

Under consideration: Cats clean their fur with their tongues.

 

[superwimp]

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?

Hello Meltzerboy,
First off what I write will most likely not conform to Catholic beliefs. I believe God is spirit rather than a Supreme Being. We are actually spirits (or souls) which are encased in human bodies. As Jesus said in the garden he and the father our One and we can all be One with them. Our ultimate destiny (over many lifetimes) is to become One with God. When an individual shows courage the soul becomes more closely aligned with the spirit. He becomes to some degree one with God therefore God does have courage.

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t think this is correct at all. God is not human, nor is humanity essential to his perfection. He assumed a human nature out of love for us, but this was neither necessary for him to be complete, nor necessary in any other way, except to fulfill his holy will.

There are perfections which an ant has which God does not have in the same way. Does this make God any less God, or less perfect, because he did not become incarnate as an ant?

I would have to say that in my mind, if the greatness of God is not fulfilled in God becoming man so that that man might become God, then the Jewish or Muslim understanding of God is adequate.

The fullness of God is one where God selflessly takes on human nature. That describes who God has always been for sure, but the biography of God only becomes complete in time, when God assumes a human nature.

There was a time when God did not have a human nature, but the immortality of the body tells us that God’s humanity is now integral to who God is.

Immortality of the soul is the Platonic idea. Immortality of the body on the other hand is in the creed. And the immortality of the body is fulfilled in the Second Person of the Trinity.

 

[1AugustSon7]

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.

Yes that makes sense: we wonder how an immortal being could be ‘courageous’ since courage is usually something done in the context of the presence or threat of death. The devil certainly has no courage and is all the more contemptible, in my opinion, because he does not face the prospect of death as the man he tempts or persecutes does. Some writers will go so far as to think of Satan as a kind of Promethean hero; however, since by his nature he cannot die, he could not be as heroic as any man could be and many, e.g., soldiers have been. The devil moreover certainly is not selfless, and it is usually for the sake of some other that courage is summoned.

But then again, while I believe I have an immortal soul and that God is both just and merciful and, therefore, that if I am penitent of my sins that I can hope for eternal life: in that sense at least my soul is immortal and, of course, I also believe in the ressurection of the body. This, however, would not make any courageous actions of mine less courageous, mostly because I do not know what God’s final verdict or judgement will be of me and the prospect of death always remains in itself horrifying because it is always more or less a something unknown: one of (and I think even the primary example of) Shakespeare’s ‘undiscovered countries’. Still, I do confidently expect to in some sense go on living even after death - that death is not the end.

Again, courage would be impossible without God. We might think of courage being attributable to God as the cause containing the effect.

For Christians, of course, our Lord was also truly and fully man and therefore also as man would have possessed the virtues properly speaking.

Again, we might link courage to faith in God: the Old Testament is filled with stories of heroism for the sake of God or His Law. God in that sense is clearly a source of courage. The Second Person of the Trinity, therefore, can be said to be indeed very courageous and heroic - for a Christian certainly at least.

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?

I would say as source and cause God would not only in some sense “possess” courage but even surpass it infinitely. In this sense we could certainly attribute courage to God.

 

[1AugustSon7]

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.

The earliest writers I remember on this topic in Christianity seemed to draw their source for their beliefs about Satan from two sources: our Lord/the Apostles but also certain Old Testament texts and prophecies - I think it was drawn from Isaiah primarily, building on this idea of two contrary kingdoms. In this way, Babylon becomes something of a permanent (at least throughout human history) archetype for being adversarially opposed to the city of God or Jerusalem or Zion. This concept seems to have reached its zenith in Christianity and be fully articulated by the time of Saint Augustine. The Council of Trent certainly seems to have largely adopted it. In this way Satan is seen as the leader of the opponents of the saints, encouraging them in their prosecutions of them perhaps, in part, by way of justifying it: e.g., Satan is seen as the accuser of mankind who holds him (i.e. man) to be unworthy, accusing man of vice or vanity in imagining that he is in some sense especially beloved of God even to be, perhaps, called the sons of God - a title that could also be attributable to God’s angels.

Thus man is held on Satan’s or, so to speak, Babylon’s view to be unfit or unworthy or incapable even by nature of any kind of divine sonship: it is portrayed as haughtiness or presumption on man’s part. Hence the claim to be God’s people is presented (by the devil) as one of rebellion or usurpation; of course, we could only ever make such a claim based on our confidence of God’s word and truth: i.e., because God Himself says so or makes it so. Thus to be opposed to this in any way is to be opposed to God. But that nonetheless Babylon’s and even Satan’s opposition ultimately works to and serves God and even, again ultimately, His people’s good is always held, such that the opposition is ultimately self-defeating and a kind of vanity.

 

[meltzerboy]

I would have to say that in my mind, if the greatness of God is not fulfilled in God becoming man so that that man might become God, then the Jewish or Muslim understanding of God is adequate.

The fullness of God is one where God selflessly takes on human nature. That describes who God has always been for sure, but the biography of God only becomes complete in time, when God assumes a human nature.

There was a time when God did not have a human nature, but the immortality of the body tells us that God’s humanity is now integral to who God is.

Immortality of the soul is the Platonic idea. Immortality of the body on the other hand is in the creed. And the immortality of the body is fulfilled in the Second Person of the Trinity.

“There was a time when G-d did not have a human nature.” Do you then believe that G-d changed His nature? Or are you speaking only of the human perception of time since G-d is outside of time and space?

 

[Darryl1958]

“There was a time when G-d did not have a human nature.” Do you then believe that G-d changed His nature? Or are you speaking only of the human perception of time since G-d is outside of time and space?

In Christian theology, there was a time when God took on a human nature. The Incarnation is seen to be a historic event.
It is an interesting question whether or not God changes his nature. If you compare God walking with man in the cool of the day in the garden in Genesis, with God at the end of the Biblical period in the writings of Daniel, it is hard not to see a lot of character development on behalf of God too.
God does change his mind constantly in the Old Testament at least. In the New Testament, this reaches an ultimate state of God becomes man.

I am open to the idea that God changes his nature, that even God develops. Certainly in Catholic theology, the idea of Jesus being perfected by suffering accepts that dynamic.

On the other hand, God as alpha and omega, as he who is and was ahd shall be ‘all at the same time’ so to speak does not necessarily require one to believe that God must have changed his human nature when he took on a human nature. God transcends time. While human nature has not evolved in which a state of affairs outside of time is within our ability to perceive, science is aware that time and space themselves are relative to one another and not absolute states of being.
Existence outside of time therefore is logically possible, even if beyond human perception.
And God certainly has that aspect to his nature that a human cannot, since we live within certain limits. But Creators are not, even cannot be, likewise limited to the dimensions of their creation.

Nevertheless, God also limited himself to the dimensions of human experience when he took on human nature in 1 CE. “Became lower than the angels” is how the early Fathers speak about that personhood of God.

Therein lies the paradox that lies at the heart of Christianity, and at the heart of the question of this thread too. To describe God, one is conceiving a being of such a magnitude of greatness that no other being greater could exist. And yet when it comes to some of the highest virtues that exist, such as courage and hope and faith, these virtues require limitations to power and knowledge in order to become realized. Even love and compassion are magnified in the face of suffering.
So, by definition, a Being that which none greater can be conceived, must accept being limited in order that greatest virtues conceivable are indeed a part of his nature.

One of the miracles attested to of saints such as Martin de Porres is bilocation. Whether or not someone accepts such miracles as factual, indeed this sort of attribute of being two persons at once becomes necessary to describe the nature of God. The Creator in effect surpassed himself through his creation. We indeed do glorify God in our own beings, for it is the very act of creating us that the fullest measure of the greatness of God is realized, not just in the mind of God, but in reality of his living through us, the veritable crown of his creation.