Can God truly understand the human condition?

[Bahman]

Here’s a question that sometimes keeps me awake at night: Can God truly understand the human condition?

Of course, we all know the traditional teaching that through the Incarnation, “He was like us in all things but sin.” But is that really so?

While he may have experienced physical pain, etc., can a human person endowed with a divine intellect and will truly understand the confusion and despair that can befall a finite mind?

Can a man who knows He is God truly relate to the doubts and fears of a mere mortal?

Of course, this all leads to the question of whether even God can rightly judge us? For a soul that has turned against Him, can God truly understand and evaluate the sufferings that may have led that person to such a state?

Discuss.

Assuming that God was incarnated as human being BUT could not do sin shows that he could not understand human being since he could not understand the mental condition in which we perform sin for an advantage or pleasure. Tell a lie and save a life or avoid serious pain, such a pleasure!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Assuming that God was incarnated as human being BUT could not do sin shows that he could not understand human being since he could not understand the mental condition in which we perform sin for an advantage or pleasure. Tell a lie and save a life or avoid serious pain, such a pleasure!

This is not accurate, is it?

Jesus laughed. Jesus wept. Jesus was tempted. Jesus feared suffering and suffered.

Most of all, Jesus loved.

Jesus was human in every sense except in the will to sin. But this does not mean he could not understand the human condition. Adam and Eve were also human in every respect before they sinned. That they chose to sin and Jesus chose not to sin is determined by the fact that Jesus was both God and man. But being God and man does not mean that he could not understand what it is to be human, that he could not be tempted, and that his human innocence could not overcome Adam’s legacy of sin.

 

[Bahman]

This is not accurate, is it?

Jesus laughed. Jesus wept. Jesus was tempted. Jesus feared suffering and suffered.

Most of all, Jesus loved.

Jesus was human in every sense except in the will to sin. But this does not mean he could not understand the human condition. Adam and Eve were also human in every respect before they sinned. That they chose to sin and Jesus chose not to sin is determined by the fact that Jesus was both God and man. But being God and man does not mean that he could not understand what it is to be human, that he could not be tempted, and that his human innocence could not overcome Adam’s legacy of sin.

Would Jesus eventually perform one sin if he had a chance to live much much longer as long as eternity, the situation that Adam and Eve were within?

 

[Tom_Baum]

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches. The Church teaches that God is love itself and the source of all love. What you are saying is an error akin to that of others who draw the erroneous conclusion that because God is, per Catholic teaching, existence itself, so everything that exists is part of God (which is the heresy of pantheism.) It’s a complicated doctrine to explain, but suffice it to say, the statements “God is Love” and “Love is God” are not equivocal and the latter is not true.

Actually, God Is a Being of Love, so ULTIMATE LOVE Is God.

As I have said many times, Love is NOT an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

 

[paziego]

This is not accurate, is it?

Jesus laughed. Jesus wept. Jesus was tempted. Jesus feared suffering and suffered.

Most of all, Jesus loved.

Jesus was human in every sense except in the will to sin. But this does not mean he could not understand the human condition. Adam and Eve were also human in every respect before they sinned. That they chose to sin and Jesus chose not to sin is determined by the fact that Jesus was both God and man. But being God and man does not mean that he could not understand what it is to be human, that he could not be tempted, and that his human innocence could not overcome Adam’s legacy of sin.

Jesus did fear and experience suffering. But did He do so in the full spectrum of human experience? He may have feared and suffered physical pain, as well as other elements, but He may have also been immune to the desperation and doubts about his own salvation which an ordinary person may be inclined to suffer. An ordinary person will never know if his personal sacrifice will produce the result he wants, what will become of his soul after death, or whether the justice he craves will be found.

Was Jesus really tempted in the desert, or was it merely the devil’s futile and shameless attempt resisting God’s will? When speaking of the weeping, suffering and the temptation of Jesus we are alluding to the events as they are described in scripture. The position some of us are arguing for - that God cannot fully understand the human experience - may imply an alternative reading, where descriptions of Jesus’ human experience take a degree of creative license to emphasise doctrine.

It is true that Jesus loved, but this is not exclusive to human beings, and is not proof of His full participation in humanity.

 

[davidv]

Jesus did fear and experience suffering. But did He do so in the full spectrum of human experience?

Does any human experience the full spectrum of human experience? Are we less human for not doing so?

He may have feared and suffered physical pain, as well as other elements, but He may have also been immune to the desperation and doubts about his own salvation which an ordinary person may be inclined to suffer. An ordinary person will never know if his personal sacrifice will produce the result he wants, what will become of his soul after death, or whether the justice he craves will be found.

Was Jesus really tempted in the desert, or was it merely the devil’s futile and shameless attempt resisting God’s will? When speaking of the weeping, suffering and the temptation of Jesus we are alluding to the events as they are described in scripture. The position some of us are arguing for - that God cannot fully understand the human experience - may imply an alternative reading, where descriptions of Jesus’ human experience take a degree of creative license to emphasise doctrine.

It is true that Jesus loved, but this is not exclusive to human beings, and is not proof of His full participation in humanity.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Without further explication, I’m not sure I follow you completely, but I will do my best. This may be a bit lengthy and will almost certainly require revision, but I’ll go ahead and take a stab at it just to get the ball rolling. So without further ado…

1. God exists.
2. God, per theism, not only exists, but is perfect existence.
3. Since God is perfect, this precludes any moral or intellectual failing on His part.
4. God created human beings with an imperfect approximation of Himself (the “imago Dei”)
5. Being, unlike God, imperfect, human beings are prone to such things as sin, intellectual error, doubt, guilt, etc.
6. The aforementioned states and actions are the consequential manifestation of some privation of perfection.
7. Ergo, none of the aforementioned states can be experienced apart from such a privation, of which they are no more than the temporal manifestation.
8. God, being perfect, can neither be added to nor taken from, and thus cannot experience any form of privation.
9. Ergo, God cannot experience such states as doubt, guilt, etc.
10. It follows that the human experiences of doubt, guilt, etc. are experientially inaccessible to God.
11. Per the Incarnation, this would only apply to those mental states which follow from the intellectual/spiritual/moral life of the human being, and not those which stem primarily from the physiological element. Thus, the experience of such mental states as anxiety, fear or anger, which are in and of themselves morally and intellectually neutral, would be accessible to God via His Incarnation.
12. To reiterate, it would seem that these states are inaccessible to God because the necessary condition for their being experienced is the privation of some spiritual, intellectual or moral perfection, none of which can befall the divine intellect. Here I would cite Aquinas who says that “sin” is not a thing in itself, but rather the privation of some good in some actual thing. Similarly, it would seem that those “states” which result from sin or intellectual shortcomings are not actually a part of human nature per se, but rather a privation of human nature. Thus, even if God takes on human nature, since He can suffer no privation, it would seem to follow that He cannot experience these spiritual conditions.

Isn’t it something that we can tell God that He can not achieve, in the Incarnation, what the bible so clearly said that God achieved and that is that, “Jesus became like us in all ways except for sin” and something else to think about since Jesus took ALL of the sins of ALL upon HImself, He did not personally sin but He “experienced” sin totally.

 

[paziego]

Actually, God Is a Being of Love, so ULTIMATE LOVE Is God.

As I have said many times, Love is NOT an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

Love is a term with multiple meanings. When applied to God it is, as all language used to describe Him, ultimately inadequate. It only gives us an indirect idea of how and what God is.

Love must always be directed at something. In the case of God, being a trinity, He is able to logically love at and within Himself. This love is clearly not a form of romantic or erotic love, or like the love an addict may feel for what he obsesses over.

Misdirected love can be a negative thing; love is not intrinsically good. At most we could say (tautologically) that love of what is good is intrinsically good. Even loving our parents is not intrinsically good if we do it romantically rather than in the appropriate way.

 

[paziego]

Does any human experience the full spectrum of human experience? Are we less human for not doing so?

We are human because we have the ability to do so, even if it doesn’t occur. It is not in our physical nature, in which Jesus participated fully, but in our experiential and existential nature.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is true that Jesus loved, but this is not exclusive to human beings, and is not proof of His full participation in humanity.

Are you suggesting that Jesus could not have been fully human if he had not come to hate as well as to love?

That opens a can of intellectual worms, doesn’t it?

I have argued on another thread that Jesus was not merely human, but was superhuman by virtue of his divinity. But I don’t see how you can argue that to be fully human one has to experience vice along with virtue. Were Adam and Eve not fully human before they sinned?

Yes or no?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Love is a term with multiple meanings. When applied to God it is, as all language used to describe Him, ultimately inadequate. It only gives us an indirect idea of how and what God is.

Love must always be directed at something. In the case of God, being a trinity, He is able to logically love at and within Himself. This love is clearly not a form of romantic or erotic love, or like the love an addict may feel for what he obsesses over.

Misdirected love can be a negative thing; love is not intrinsically good. At most we could say (tautologically) that love of what is good is intrinsically good. Even loving our parents is not intrinsically good if we do it romantically rather than in the appropriate way.

I know that human language is inadequate but when I met God the Father, I came to the realization that the statement, God Is Love, is quite literal in that God Is a Being of Love.

Lots of people who seem to think that they “know” so much about God and God’s Judgement don’t realize that human language sometimes means exactly what it seems to mean and sometimes does not.

 

[paziego]

Are you suggesting that Jesus could not have been fully human if he had not come to hate as well as to love?

That opens a can of intellectual worms, doesn’t it?

I have argued on another thread that Jesus was not merely human, but was superhuman by virtue of his divinity. But I don’t see how you can argue that to be fully human one has to experience vice along with virtue. Were Adam and Eve not fully human before they sinned?

It certainly does.

What I am saying is that He didn’t have the ability to hate (in the negative sense; I don’t include hating sin). He could have still come with the ability to hate but not have actually done so. But that would be different. I’m not saying you have to sin to be human, only that the human condition includes experiences which I believe Jesus could not partake in.

 

[davidv]

We are human because we have the ability to do so, even if it doesn’t occur. It is not in our physical nature, in which Jesus participated fully, but in our experiential and existential nature.

Did Jesus have a body? Yes.

What kind of body was it?

 

[uksimon]

There is an unspoken question.

There is sense in all chaos. It is a necessary part of life. The contrast is beauty. Without a grasp of pain or loss there would be no sacrifice. Without adversity there would be no strength. There is a calm logic that pervades all chaos. There is beauty in peace but without war it would not be treasured. Adversity has a purpose in shaping man.

The nature of the world and of man is understood completely but it is also your chance to define yourself. You are caught in the ocean waves with a choice. You can proclaim “I am but a wave” and be nothing more, carried with it as a dead fish, or you can define yourself, feel its flow around you and shape what you will become.

Do not die to the world. Your past is understood. Your nature too is understood. Yet you understand your nature. Do not die to the world.

 

[uksimon]

It certainly does.

What I am saying is that He didn’t have the ability to hate (in the negative sense; I don’t include hating sin). He could have still come with the ability to hate but not have actually done so. But that would be different. I’m not saying you have to sin to be human, only that the human condition includes experiences which I believe Jesus could not partake in.

You assume there is reason to hate. It is a raw emotion but its hard to retain hatred with you understand something completely, is it not? If you care about all. I know what can be done in anger. There are many things unspoken but the definition of men is vast. All men have past but they all have future too. Your past lends you strength to shape yourself no matter how adverse it may seem. It also provides for inspiration. A strength you admire in others. Recognition of a hero. Embrace what you admire and let it shape who you will become.

The past is filled with reaction and nature. The present shaped by circumstance and chaos. The future alone is dwelt in in who we wish to become. Few look to the future and truly allow that to shape their present choices.

 

[RCCB]

Here’s a question that sometimes keeps me awake at night: Can God truly understand the human condition?

I have wrestled with a not unrelated question myself. But I start by the question: can man fully understand his/her own human condition? Self evidently, at least to myself, the answer to that question is no, I then wonder, if religion exists claiming to speak for God, not IF God understands our condition but why God has not provided us with more insight into that condition?

 

[grannymh]

I have wrestled with a not unrelated question myself. But I start by the question: can man fully understand his/her own human condition? Self evidently, at least to myself, the answer to that question is no, I then wonder, if religion exists claiming to speak for God, not IF God understands our condition but why God has not provided us with more insight into that condition?

In my humble opinion, God already has provided proper insight and understanding of the human condition starting with chapter one of the book of Genesis and continuing with the Holy Spirit’s protection of Divine Revelation as demonstrated in the Catholic Church.

Self-reflection is one of the rational tools of our spiritual principle, the soul which is directly created by God at human conception. Man, being an unique unification of the spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy, can be individually limited
in the use of self-reflection. On the other hand, man normally lives in community and can learn from others.

As to the question – Can man fully understand his/her own human condition? I would agree with the answer no with the qualification that we are only “in the image of God” which is not the same as God nor is “image” equal to God. This comes from a basic teaching of the Catholic Church which is that God is the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. (Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

We are God’s creatures. Life becomes a tad easier when we accept that fact.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

I disagree. For the purposes of this thread (our personal beliefs aside), we must assume that Jesus Christ IS in fact true God. The issue is whether the Incarnation allowed God to fully share in our suffering.

The purpose of the incarnation was to die for our sins. A perfect sinless sacrifice was needed to die for us. People just assumed God did it to understand man, no He did it to die for our sins, and His incarnation can be taken as a symbol to help us understand that God truly understands us. But God did not walk as man in human flesh to understand what it’s like to be human, He did it to die for our sins.

Which, God being pure intellect, would seem to preclude Him from ever experiencing the intellectual deficiencies of human beings. To add another item to the list, God cannot be stupid. Since God cannot be stupid, can He understand what it’s like to be stupid (like me ) ?

I don’t know, you’re working hard at trying to dumb Him down in order to make this assumption of yours work. This whole question does not work unless you dumb God down to the intellect of humans who have to experience something in order to understand it. You have to dumb God down in order to even ponder this question. I can’t get past that.

 

[RCCB]

In my humble opinion, God already has provided proper insight and understanding of the human condition starting with chapter one of the book of Genesis and continuing with the Holy Spirit’s protection of Divine Revelation as demonstrated in the Catholic Church.

Self-reflection is one of the rational tools of our spiritual principle, the soul which is directly created by God at human conception. Man, being an unique unification of the spiritual soul and decomposing anatomy, can be individually limited
in the use of self-reflection. On the other hand, man normally lives in community and can learn from others.

As to the question – Can man fully understand his/her own human condition? I would agree with the answer no with the qualification that we are only “in the image of God” which is not the same as God nor is “image” equal to God. This comes from a basic teaching of the Catholic Church which is that God is the Maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. (Creed professed at the Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

We are God’s creatures. Life becomes a tad easier when we accept that fact.

The very reason I left the church is that I find such sentiments are no longer tenable, if not outright dishonest. And I can find nothing ‘demonstrated’ by the catholic church to change my mind. The purpose and Promise of the Incarnation, to overcome evil has not happened. Evil finds expression through man. So any insight to overthrow evil must also be moral insight into the human condition. And the church offers no such insight with the potential to realize the Promise.

So long the potential for evil, self evidently remains a part of human nature, I find it implausible that we are ‘created’ in the image of God. And so long as the ‘church’ or any religious claim is unable to offer the means to realize the Promise of the Incarnation, I must doubt that church or claim is of God. ‘Creatures’ we are, of God, not likely!

 

[grannymh]

The very reason I left the church is that I find such sentiments are no longer tenable, if not outright dishonest. And I can find nothing ‘demonstrated’ by the catholic church to change my mind. The purpose and Promise of the Incarnation, to overcome evil has not happened. Evil finds expression through man. So any insight to overthrow evil must also be moral insight into the human condition. And the church offers no such insight with the potential to realize the Promise.

So long the potential for evil, self evidently remains a part of human nature, I find it implausible that we are ‘created’ in the image of God. And so long as the ‘church’ or any religious claim is unable to offer the means to realize the Promise of the Incarnation, I must doubt that church or claim is of God. ‘Creatures’ we are, of God, not likely!

I do hope you are not considering human’s rationality a sentiment that is no longer tenable. I had hoped that readers would recognize one of human capabilities, that is, self-reflection which is needed to explore the human condition.

My apology for starting with what being in the “image of God” is not. However, that issue is important to this thread.

As far as the purpose of the Incarnation… Somehow, modern folks have some difficulties with multiple reasons. For example “evil”. The basic “evil so to speak” in relationship to the Incarnation was left in the dust years ago.

Because I am on my way out the door, may I suggest we continue our discussion later?