Can God truly understand the human condition?

[Skye_Ariel]

You can also flip that around and say how can we humans possibly judge what God can and can’t understand when we are not God and we are only human. We would have to be God ourselves to truly be able to judge what God can truly know and understand. Not only that, we know as humans that with our limited knowledge and understanding that WE are not capable of truly understanding a situation unless we live it completely, but we can’t put that kind of limited knowledge or ability to understand on a God who is infinitely more intelligent than we can ever even begin to fathom. You are taking the intelligence of humans and putting that limited intelligence on God which doesn’t work and is mismatched. With humans, we cannot fully understand something unless we experience it fully ourselves, but God is smarter than us. It’s like a normal human who has to hear and learn something over and over before they finally get it verses a natural genius who only has to hear something once and they get. With God being a genius for lack of a better word, does it *take *Him having to fully experience it for Him to truly understand it? That’s the question. Instead of arguing about whether He fully experienced the things a regular human experiences, the question is with Him being an infinite genius, does He really need to fully experience it to understand it and get it?

And for the record I do believe Jesus fully experienced being a human with all of the emotional suffering that goes along with it. And I always did believe that Jesus deliberately made Himself forget He was God till He reached a certain age. If not He would have been slaying people who made Him angry as a toddler with the power God. That’s what happens when you combine an immature mind of a toddler with the power of God. LOL! There’s a reason why we know nothing of Jesus’ early years. And Mary didn’t know the outcome either concerning exactly what Jesus’ mission was, she only knew He was the savior. And Jesus was not perfect as a child who did no wrong. I’m sure He had temper tantrums as a toddler just like any other kid, you can be angry without sinning. Look at how Jesus worried His poor mother when He ran off as a kid without telling her where He was. That wasn’t being a perfect child, but that wasn’t a sin either. Jesus might have been a handful as a kid without sinning. There was a thread on here some months back with someone asking something about if Jesus knew He was God as a baby and I said back then that I thought He willingly made Himself forget He was God, kind of like deliberately blindfolding Himself. People do it when they are in denial and blind themselves from what’s right in front of them. But since we are not God and only have the human experience to judge from, we are not fit to judge what God can and cannot truly and full understand. At least God did become 100% man while at the same time being 100% God. So He’s in a better place to judge than we are.

 

[fhansen]

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.

**But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. **Heb 2:9

He knew fear-the agony in the garden is proof of that. And His passion was only made more painful by the foreknowledge He had of it.

 

[Robertanthony]

You can also flip that around and say how can we humans possibly judge what God can and can’t understand when we are not God and we are only human. We would have to be God ourselves to truly be able to judge what God can truly know and understand. Not only that, we know as humans that with our limited knowledge and understanding that WE are not capable of truly understanding a situation unless we live it completely, but we can’t put that kind of limited knowledge or ability to understand on a God who is infinitely more intelligent than we can ever even begin to fathom. You are taking the intelligence of humans and putting that limited intelligence on God which doesn’t work and is mismatched. With humans, we cannot fully understand something unless we experience it fully ourselves, but God is smarter than us. It’s like a normal human who has to hear and learn something over and over before they finally get it verses a natural genius who only has to hear something once and they get. With God being a genius for lack of a better word, does it *take *Him having to fully experience it for Him to truly understand it? That’s the question. Instead of arguing about whether He fully experienced the things a regular human experiences, the question is with Him being an infinite genius, does He really need to fully experience it to understand it and get it?

And for the record I do believe Jesus fully experienced being a human with all of the emotional suffering that goes along with it. And I always did believe that Jesus deliberately made Himself forget He was God till He reached a certain age. If not He would have been slaying people who made Him angry as a toddler with the power God. That’s what happens when you combine an immature mind of a toddler with the power of God. LOL! There’s a reason why we know nothing of Jesus’ early years. And Mary didn’t know the outcome either concerning exactly what Jesus’ mission was, she only knew He was the savior. And Jesus was not perfect as a child who did no wrong. I’m sure He had temper tantrums as a toddler just like any other kid, you can be angry without sinning. Look at how Jesus worried His poor mother when He ran off as a kid without telling her where He was. That wasn’t being a perfect child, but that wasn’t a sin either. Jesus might have been a handful as a kid without sinning. There was a thread on here some months back with someone asking something about if Jesus knew He was God as a baby and I said back then that I thought He willingly made Himself forget He was God, kind of like deliberately blindfolding Himself. People do it when they are in denial and blind themselves from what’s right in front of them. But since we are not God and only have the human experience to judge from, we are not fit to judge what God can and cannot truly and full understand. At least God did become 100% man while at the same time being 100% God. So He’s in a better place to judge than we are.

Luke 2:49 completely and utterly destroys your argument about Jesus not knowing exactly who he was. There are a few things Jesus said, which are related in the NT, which seem to indicate, IMO, that he may not have understood what it was like to be “only” 100% human, and to be born in sin, with all the weaknesses and infirmities that original sin plagues us with.

 

[Robertanthony]

**But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. **Heb 2:9

He knew fear-the agony in the garden is proof of that. And His passion was only made more painful by the foreknowledge He had of it.

He may have known a couple of human emotions, but he surely doesn’t know what it’s like to be born in sin and to have sin written in our very DNA. Sin was not an option for him, neither was it something he had to fight. Sin is such an integral part of the human experience that it is how we respond to and deal with it that determines our eternal fate. Sin is such a huge factor in our lives, being human without sin, and without free-will (Jesus could not choose evil, ergo he didn’t have free-will), what does it even mean? He is like a noble, a king’ son who dresses shabbily to spend a day with beggars. AT some point, the king’ son will get iirritated and ask ‘Why don’t you find work, and buy clothes, food and a place to live?", thereby showing how clueless he is to the beggars’ reality. When Jesus got irritated because the apostles did not understand, Jesus wasn’t unlike the king’ son.

 

[JM3]

Just because you’ve been taught something, you think it’s irrefutable truth,

Not taught. My education is barely adequate, compared to most people. What I understand only comes from the grace of God, even though I remain His most unfaithful servant.

God bless you. :tiphat:

 

[fhansen]

He may have known a couple of human emotions, but he surely doesn’t know what it’s like to be born in sin and to have sin written in our very DNA. Sin was not an option for him, neither was it something he had to fight. Sin is such an integral part of the human experience that it is how we respond to and deal with it that determines our eternal fate. Sin is such a huge factor in our lives, being human without sin, and without free-will (Jesus could not choose evil, ergo he didn’t have free-will), what does it even mean? He is like a noble, a king’ son who dresses shabbily to spend a day with beggars.

He went willingly to an excruciatingly painful and humiliating fate at the hands of His own creation-something He could’ve walked away from at any point. That’s a noble kid I can bow to. Adam was born without the DNA to sin and yet he sinned anyway. And, since it was the Father’s will that Jesus should suffer and die, it would’ve been sinful for Jesus to disobey, but the human fear of the pain of such a fate would’ve been immense, and so the temptation would be as real for Him as for any us us…to run.

 

[LilyM]

Jesus never: had emotionally unstable or selfish parents, had an identity crisis, never felt inferior, inadequate or not good enough, experienced the pull of sin as he did not have concupiscence, felt ashamed of who he was, or not good enough, doubted the Father’s goodness, never doubted Father’s love for him, never had to constantly fight lust, had a sense of purpose, had an excellent intellect, so he has no clue what are the psychological ramifications of being a dummy, was self-conscious, wished he hadn’t been born, was two-minded about God, was lost as to what the heck he was doing on earth, felt that his life was worthless and going nowhere. MOst of us are like peasants who struggle to make ends meet, Jesus is a king’s son who neevr lacked anything paying us a visit. The underlying question is this: can Christ understand what it’s like top be a human born in original sin, can Christ understand what it’s like to be weighed down by all kinds of psychological troubles? When Christ was despised, rejected, punched in the face, spat on, did any of that resonate in him, did he start to feel that there might be something wrong with him that people might treat him that way? Can Jesus understand what it’s like to be tormented with sin, to be addicted to sin, without having experienced it himself? Would God understand the human condition any less if it hadn’t been for the Incarnation?

 Lots of people who are tortured I'm sure do not sweat blood. what was so different about Jesus that he would sweat blood, and actually, can one truly sweat blood when experiencing terror? It may have been a way to convey that he was scared stiff.

As for Jesus not having a parent who was less-than, you’re forgetting St Joseph. Who, although saintly, was not perfect, not immaculately conceived without original sin, not God and so sinless. But merely a just man, who according to scripture like every just man sinned seven times a day.

Do you think Jesus couldn’t learn about humanity, pain, sorrow and the rest from living with him? What makes you think the lost years were smooth sailing? He was born to be a sign of contradiction, His early and adult life were full of ups and downs. Just because his late teens and early adulthood aren’t recorded isn’t to say that nothing, not even human experiences such as pain and suffering, poverty and the like, happened.

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Luke 2:49 completely and utterly destroys your argument about Jesus not knowing exactly who he was. There are a few things Jesus said, which are related in the NT, which seem to indicate, IMO, that he may not have understood what it was like to be “only” 100% human, and to be born in sin, with all the weaknesses and infirmities that original sin plagues us with.

Whether you agree with the idea of Him willingly forgetting for a while and then allowing Himself to remember at the right age or not, you still ignore the fact that with God having more than a human intellect and ability to understand things that it is not necessary for Him to experience everything to truly understand it the way we humans with our limited understanding have to experience something to fully understand it. You are putting a human intellect on God and using **that **as your argument that God can’t truly understand because you say He never felt the human things we have felt. If God were only human then you might have a point but since God is infinitely smarter than us humans and knows more than we can even begin to comprehend, you can’t say what God can and cannot truly understand.

 

[Robertanthony]

He went willingly to an excruciatingly painful and humiliating fate at the hands of His own creation-something He could’ve walked away from at any point. That’s a noble kid I can bow to. Adam was born without the DNA to sin and yet he sinned anyway. And, since it was the Father’s will that Jesus should suffer and die, it would’ve been sinful for Jesus to disobey, but the human fear of the pain of such a fate would’ve been immense, and so the temptation would be as real for Him as for any us us…to run.

Jesus could not run from the cross and disobey the Father. It was simply impossible for him to do so. He didn’t have free-will. I’m not saying the last 3 years of Jesus have been without challenge or that he breezed through them. If Adam sinned without the DNA to sin, how much more are we, poor banished children, likely to sin: i.e. to choose creatuires/creation over God. Jesus naturally recognized the Father as the supreme good, which is something very few of us can do. If your dad is a doctor, you’re a smart kid and medicine is your passion, your way in life is far and away easier and clearer than if both of your parents are dumb slackers who live off welfare, are compulsive hoarders, if you yourself struggle in school and have no clear talent. Jesus is the doctor’s son. Both have such different backgrounds, they’re likely to be clueless about the other’s reality.

 

[oldcelt]

Just because you’ve been taught something, you think it’s irrefutable truth, and then turn around and tell me I can’t say anyhting about Jesus unless I knew exactly how he felt and thought every second of his earthly life. Sounds reasonable.

Robert,

There is a lot of that going on here. People who are equating faith with fact and when any of us questions something they become indignant and even nasty. I have always suspected that when people resort to that tactic it is because they have been forced to realize that their knowledge is not as deep as they thought.

My advice to everyone: Don’t come here if you have thin skin.

 

[grannymh]

He may have known a couple of human emotions, but he surely doesn’t know what it’s like to be born in sin and to have sin written in our very DNA.

Pardon me. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Contracted State of Original Sin is “written in our very DNA.” Our human nature was wounded, not totally corrupted.

 

[LilyM]

Pardon me. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Contracted State of Original Sin is “written in our very DNA.”

Indeed! If it were, neither Our Lord nor Our Lady would have been exempt - both had human DNA.

Again, Jesus being God does not have the limits of intellect or understanding that we do. He is not therefore bound to be required to directly experience certain things in order to understand them as we are.

 

[Robertanthony]

Pardon me. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Contracted State of Original Sin is “written in our very DNA.” Our human nature was wounded, not totally corrupted.

Figuratively, figure of speech, pretty sure no matter how hard you search, nothing in our DNA will ever show “original sin”. Our nature has been changed drastically as a result of the Fall. I don’t want to get into semantics, was our nature “wounded”, “tainted”, “corrupted”, “partially corrupted”, suffice to say it has been altered irrevocably and in a negative way.

Indeed! If it were, neither Our Lord nor Our Lady would have been exempt - both had human DNA.

Again, Jesus being God does not have the limits of intellect or understanding that we do. He is not therefore bound to be required to directly experience certain things in order to understand them as we are.

Of course, if original sin was encoded in our DNA, the Father would have been totally incapable of creating Mary and Jesus without original sin.(sic) Just as Mary was supernaturally spared from receiving the stain of original sin by her immaculate conception, just as she was allowed to conceive Jesus outside of the ordinary way of human procreation (trying to keep this rated G here), bypassing the DNA problem (had there been one) wouldn’t have posed a great challenge to the Father.

Does the passage starting in Matthew 16:9 indicate to you that the speaker has a clear and thorough understanding of the people he’s speaking to? If he knew exactly what a human intellect clouded by sin is capable of, he wouldn’t lament the dullness of his disciples’, he’d know exactly what they are capable of. In French, the words used are even stronger “Are you without intelligence?”. Sure doesn’t sound like someone who knows us through and through.

 

[Robertanthony]

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.

Brother, where art thou? Why do you keep thyself hidden from mine eyes? My enemies surround me, they’re numerous and fierce in countenance. Seriously, it seems most are only interested in nit picking, picking on minor details, and avoid actually getting into the question that you so aptly posed. I want compelling arguments, not “God made us so he knows us best”, we no longer live in the era when “Father knows best” was a satisfactory answer. Time to put away the well memorized politician’s note (with ready answers for everything), and engage our intellects.

 

[LilyM]

Figuratively, figure of speech, pretty sure no matter how hard you search, nothing in our DNA will ever show “original sin”. Our nature has been changed drastically as a result of the Fall. I don’t want to get into semantics, was our nature “wounded”, “tainted”, “corrupted”, “partially corrupted”, suffice to say it has been altered irrevocably and in a negative way.

Of course, if original sin was encoded in our DNA, the Father would have been totally incapable of creating Mary and Jesus without original sin.(sic) Just as Mary was supernaturally spared from receiving the stain of original sin by her immaculate conception, just as she was allowed to conceive Jesus outside of the ordinary way of human procreation (trying to keep this rated G here), bypassing the DNA problem (had there been one) wouldn’t have posed a great challenge to the Father.

Does the passage starting in Matthew 16:9 indicate to you that the speaker has a clear and thorough understanding of the people he’s speaking to? If he knew exactly what a human intellect clouded by sin is capable of, he wouldn’t lament the dullness of his disciples, he’d know exactly what they are capable of. In French, the words used are even stronger “Are you without intelligence?”.

He knows better than anyone what a human intellect clouded by sin is capable of - IF said human intellect relies implicitly on God to supply for its own defects. Which is, in short, the beatific vision with the infinitely heightened understanding that entails.

What he was really lamenting was the lack of faith that held the Apostles back from deeper understanding.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Good discussion! I’m glad to see this thread has ignited such impassioned replies.

I don’t have time to respond to each reply, but I have noticed one overarching theme on the “pro” (or yes) side: a conflation between intellectual and experiential knowledge.

While, obviously, the Incarnation allowed God to experience such things as the fear of physical pain and suffering, and God’s omniscience may allow him to understand, intellectually, the inner workings of our minds (our despair, etc.), it is hard to see how that could translate to an experiential understanding.

It seems that asking whether God could understand what it actually feels like to doubt His existence, or to be overcome by temptation, is a question akin to asking whether He can make a rock too big for Him to lift. Since God is morally perfect and omniscient, it is impossible for Him to doubt His own existence or succumb to sin. And, as the saying goes, there’s no substitute for experience. You can’t know what broccoli tastes like if you never put it in your mouth.

As others have noted, throughout the course of this thread, it’s a distinction akin to that between a doctor who knows, objectively, every aspect of a certain disease but has never experienced the subjective pain and suffering it inflicts.

As a disclaimer, I do not mean to say that I think the position I’m arguing is right, but only that I find it a very difficult one to resolve.

 

[Pat_Albertson]

Good discussion! I’m glad to see this thread has ignited such impassioned replies.

I don’t have time to respond to each reply, but I have noticed one overarching theme on the “pro” (or yes) side: a conflation between intellectual and experiential knowledge.

While, obviously, the Incarnation allowed God to experience such things as the fear of physical pain and suffering, and God’s omniscience may allow him to understand, intellectually, the inner workings of our minds (our despair, etc.), it is hard to see how that could translate to an experiential understanding.

That isn’t a valid objection. Something that is hard for one person to understand might be easy for somebody else to understand.

It seems that asking whether God could understand what it actually feels like to doubt His existence, or to be overcome by temptation, is a question akin to asking whether He can make a rock too big for Him to lift. Since God is morally perfect and omniscient, it is impossible for Him to doubt His own existence or succumb to sin. And, as the saying goes, there’s no substitute for experience. You can’t know what broccoli tastes like if you never put it in your mouth.

As others have noted, throughout the course of this thread, it’s a distinction akin to that between a doctor who knows, objectively, every aspect of a certain disease but has never experienced the subjective pain and suffering it inflicts.

As a disclaimer, I do not mean to say that I think the position I’m arguing is right, but only that I find it a very difficult one to resolve.

Did God create consciousness or not? If He did, then He knows how it works, inside and out, subjectively and objectively. Case (probably, I think) closed.

Now, why did He do all of this? Well, other than the traditional Catholic (or, more properly, Christian) idea that He did it out of love, I have no idea.

I’ll leave it at that. And so, the other posters can post as they see fit.

 

[LilyM]

Good discussion! I’m glad to see this thread has ignited such impassioned replies.

I don’t have time to respond to each reply, but I have noticed one overarching theme on the “pro” (or yes) side: a conflation between intellectual and experiential knowledge.

While, obviously, the Incarnation allowed God to experience such things as the fear of physical pain and suffering, and God’s omniscience may allow him to understand, intellectually, the inner workings of our minds (our despair, etc.), it is hard to see how that could translate to an experiential understanding.

It seems that asking whether God could understand what it actually feels like to doubt His existence, or to be overcome by temptation, is a question akin to asking whether He can make a rock too big for Him to lift. Since God is morally perfect and omniscient, it is impossible for Him to doubt His own existence or succumb to sin. And, as the saying goes, there’s no substitute for experience. You can’t know what broccoli tastes like if you never put it in your mouth.

As others have noted, throughout the course of this thread, it’s a distinction akin to that between a doctor who knows, objectively, every aspect of a certain disease but has never experienced the subjective pain and suffering it inflicts.

As a disclaimer, I do not mean to say that I think the position I’m arguing is right, but only that I find it a very difficult one to resolve.

I think the issue the ‘con’ side has is conflating God’s understanding of something with, as the example given, the mere intellectual knowledge, divorced from experiential knowledge, that a doctor might have of an illness he or she has never suffered.

I might point out that God’s knowledge is far more perfect than human knowledge in every respect. He knows, understands, whatever word you want to use, everything - and in every possible way that it CAN be known, understood or whatever. And to the utmost degree that a thing can be known or understood. Not merely in every possible way or to the highest possible degree that a human being can know or understand it. That is what ‘omniscient’ means! Not just superior knowledge/understanding but the utmost - incomparably beyond any understanding that we can gain by any amount of either intellectualising or experience.

 

[wmw]

The intellectual facts are, of course, simple for God. The more difficult question of “What did Christ need to experience to become sin for us for his crucifixion to be complete for our redemption?”, quite a deep topic. I will repeat what St Thomas quoted from St Augustine:

As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xiv), sin is accursed, and, consequently, so is death, and mortality, which comes of sin. “But Christ’s flesh was mortal, ‘having the resemblance of the flesh of sin’”; and hence Moses calls it “accursed,” just as the Apostle calls it “sin,” saying (2 Corinthians 5:21): “Him that knew no sin, for us He hath made sin”–namely, because of the penalty of sin. “Nor is there greater ignominy on that account, because he said: ‘He is accursed of God.’” For, “unless God had hated sin, He would never have sent His Son to take upon Himself our death, and to destroy it. Acknowledge, then, that it was for us He took the curse upon Himself, whom you confess to have died for us.” Hence it is written (Galatians 3:13): “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”

From newadvent.org/summa/4046.htm

To conclude that God in Christ became the full accursed condition of human sin and death and experienced it first hand with greater, even infinite depth. For even we, “do not know what they do”.

 

[grannymh]

Good discussion! I’m glad to see this thread has ignited such impassioned replies.

I don’t have time to respond to each reply, but I have noticed one overarching theme on the “pro” (or yes) side: a conflation between intellectual and experiential knowledge.

Actually, the real basic issue is the same old one – Is Jesus Christ true God?

In order to find truth, does one rely on the natural human mind or is there a God Who is super-natural? What does a person really believe about God and the Catholic Church?

The first time, roughly 30 years ago, that I heard a director of [Catholic] religious education say that Jesus had to learn that He was God, I said to myself-- Woman, where is your common sense? Actually, the notion that human nature prevented Jesus from experiencing human nature is simply a modern sneaky rehash of Arianism.

The Catholic teaching regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ is known as the “Hypostatic Union.” There was a time when the principles of the Hypostatic Union were taught in grade school without the Greek name. This union refers to the One Divine Person with two natures, divine and human. In other words, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity did not give up His Divinity when He assumed, not absorbed, human nature. It should be common sense that the Divine nature is greater than the human nature.

It should also be common sense that Adam’s human nature was not on a par with his Creator’s Divine nature. This fact is prominent in the study of Original Sin. Thus, the only person who could repair humanity’s broken relationship with Divinity, was a person who was on the same level as God and at the same time have the same nature as Adam. This is the foundation for John 3: 16-17. The logical approach to this problem is the Incarnation. At this point, we need to recognize that Jesus Christ did not need the contracted State of Original Sin in order to be human like Adam was before He freely disobeyed his Maker.

An additional point, as long as I am looking at the nitty-gritty about words. What is meant by the human condition? What human condition did Christ assume at the Incarnation?