Can God truly understand the human condition?

[prodigalson2011]

1. "Christ never promised us a Rose Garden " But he did Promise a Kingdom of justice and that Kingdom has yet to be established by any teaching of the ‘church’.

That promised Kingdom was explicitly identified by Christ Himself as not being on Earth: "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

His Kingdom is in the world to come, not this one. Again, your objection is based on a reality of your own imagining; nothing to do with anything Christ ever said.

Nor has the church the authority to see any of its social teachings realized on their own merit, nor by the will of God. Christianity exists subservient to secular political realities, so it must play politics where ever it can get away with it to affirm it’s self proclaimed role.

The Church does not exist to force its teachings on anybody; it exists to preserve and expound Christ’s teaching to the world as an invitation for them to follow.

Your statement that the Church “must play politics wherever it can get away with it to affirm its … role” is, again, in stark contradiction to the fact that the Catholic Church is and has always been persecuted and its members, both clergy and laity, killed in countries all over the world and all throughout its history.

The Church has resisted the tides of social change in which most governments have been complicit over the past century. Your false charge is not only erroneous but insulting to the thousands and thousands of people who have died for the faith at the hands of despots.

1. “He created us in His image” Probably the most comforting illusion religion has yet contrived but still an illusion non the less.

You like to repeat things without addressing the objections made to them. I would refer you to an earlier post in which I offered a perfectly sound explanation for this teaching and to which you offer no reply.

1. While " progressivism " is an easy catch phrase, my meaning is that the church is without the authority to either define or act as the catalyst for any progressive moral change;

Oh really? Tell that to the Western Civilization it built from the ashes of Rome. Tell that to the women it lifted out of the margins of society and the slaves it helped set free.

mIred in it’s own corruption of pedophile priests and banking scandal.

Still beating that same tired old drum. Yes, there have been scandals in the Church throughout history and, yes, they are horrific. But it is hardly the defining element of the Church and it certainly doesn’t outweigh or nullify the good that the Church does feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc., etc., on down the line.

The Catholic Church is the single largest charitable organization in the world and created the university system, public hospitals and more.

I’m sorry to be so blunt, but your remarks are all plain ignorant of reality.

If Christ came to establish a Kingdom of justice on earth,

Have you ever actually read the Gospels? Start with the verse I provided above where Christ explicitly states that his Kingdom is NOT of this earth. Then read on to see where He says He came to set the world on fire, He came not to bring peace but a sword, that His followers would face trials and tribulations in this life.

If you can read through the Gospels and think that Christ promised to make life on earth peachy keen, you are delusional. Full stop.

that has yet to happen. What God would leave His true servants without the means to realize his Will?

You, and everyone else, do have the means to realize His will. Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick. Do your part to make this world a better place. “What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me.”

That little pesky thing called “free will” tends to mess us up though. It’s not the Church’s fault that people simply don’t want to do His will. They want to do what they want to do. Moral agency’s a female dog, ain’t it?

The problem is not that the Church lacks the authority of Christ, it’s that the world, and especially our modern “secular” world, does not recognize that authority and goes about its own agenda, destroying our societies in the process.

The Church is not here to make everybody do the right thing; God doesn’t want slaves, he wants sons and daughters who do His will because they love Him. The Church is here simply to help guide us to Him, if we really want to know Him. It’s not here to force utopia on everyone. That’s called Marxism, and, well, I think we all know how that turns out.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Thank you.

The 12 points are very good – which means that this cranky granny can follow them and understand how you arrived at the conclusion. However, points 4 and 5 need to be validated or confirmed – which means that the conclusion in point 12 may not be accurate.

Because you did suggest the possibility of revision, personally, I would revise the first two or so axioms as a way of arriving at the validity of the conclusion. My position is that the initial true axioms, followed by truths based on them, will lead to an answer of either yes or no to the thread’s question “Can God truly understand the human condition?”

What makes the deductive method of reasoning somewhat difficult is that the nature of God is not the same as the nature of the human person. Saying that one is the Creator and one is the creature is a foundational axiom. However, when the concept of perfection is being used, automatically, the standard of perfection cannot be the same for both the Creator and the creature. When we compensate for the discrepancy between divine and human natures, by referring to an imperfect approximation of God Himself (the “imago Dei”), we need to give the specifics so that the merit of point 4 can be established.

Fair enough. I think we can turn once again to Aquinas and say that any thing achieves a greater or lesser degree of “perfection” so far as it fulfills its nature. So for a human being, I would argue (in this life at least), perfection would entail the full possession of all intellectual faculties, the mastery of will over passion, and the loving of God and neighbor with all of one’s heart, mind and strength. That being said, anything finite is by definition incapable of achieving absolute perfection as to be finite is, necessarily, to be lacking in some possible good.

God, on the other hand, being infinite, lacks nothing and cannot fail to be absolutely perfect and absolutely good. His intellect being, thus, infinitely perfect and good, it follows that the “imago Dei” with which we are endowed can only be an imperfect approximation of God’s mind, as we lack the infinite nature necessary to such a perfection.

Does your brain hurt, yet? Mine does.

Note: I used the word “automatically” above because otherwise we are dealing with the possibility of two Gods. One of the elements of Satan’s temptation is the assumption that there can be more than one God. A sidebar would be that the possibility of plural gods came from sources outside of the Hebrew tradition.

Versed as I know we both are in such matters, I think we can agree that the proposition of multiple Gods is a logical absurdity and move on.

Going back to my opening sentence. “The 12 points are very good – which means that this cranky granny can follow them and understand how you arrived at the conclusion.” The next thing is to test these points by placing them in the context of Catholic teachings.

Since we are trying to find the truth regarding the relationship between two distinct natures, the beginning truths (axioms) should be established truths (from Catholicism) containing particular basic information about these two natures. Point 8 is essential basic information. It relates well to the topic. Would you consider point 8 as an example of the principle of non-contradiction?

Precisely. To make another analogy, when we see a horror movie, we can, in a sense, “enter into” the experience of the characters onscreen. We feel fear and suspense when they are in danger as if the movie is really happening. However, the experience is not the same for us as for someone really living in that situation because we know that we are not really in such a situation and are in no immediate danger. Short of some mind altering substance or experience, we cannot just forget who we are and “fully become” the characters whose experience we are vicariously living. There is an approximation, but an imperfect one, of what that character is going through.

It seems to me that something similar would be true of God. While he may be able to enter into the emotions of His children, He cannot just forget that He’s God, as forgetting is itself a privation of the intellectual faculty and thus an absurdity akin to the “rock too big.” Just as it’s meaningless to ask whether omnipotence can make a rock too big for it to lift, so it seems that it would be meaningless to ask whether omniscience could forget that it’s omniscient. So, for God, it seems like entering into the subjective experience of our pain and despair would be, as it is for us when watching a movie, diminished by the fact of His very being, and more specifically His self-awareness.

To look at the most obvious example of God’s entering into the human experience: Even in the midst of His passion, though He felt dread and anxiety and He only knows what else, He never once expressed doubt or hesitance in obeying the Father’s will.

 

[opusAquinas]

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.

What are you worried about exactly??? That God can’t understand a human being sinning therefore He can’t really understand what it is like to be human therefore He can’t judge us? No offense but this is a ridiculous concern. Look, God can judge a human, His creatures even though He has never actually sinned (though He did face temptation in the dessert remember). This is like an upright citizen -a just judge of some state court not being right to judge a criminal defendant because the judge did not grow up in say a crime ridden neighborhood as did the defendant. Rest easy.

 

[simpleas]

Fair enough. I think we can turn once again to Aquinas and say that any thing achieves a greater or lesser degree of “perfection” so far as it fulfills its nature. So for a human being, I would argue (in this life at least), perfection would entail the full possession of all intellectual faculties, the mastery of will over passion, and the loving of God and neighbor with all of one’s heart, mind and strength. That being said, anything finite is by definition incapable of achieving absolute perfection as to be finite is, necessarily, to be lacking in some possible good.

God, on the other hand, being infinite, lacks nothing and cannot fail to be absolutely perfect and absolutely good. His intellect being, thus, infinitely perfect and good, it follows that the “imago Dei” with which we are endowed can only be an imperfect approximation of God’s mind, as we lack the infinite nature necessary to such a perfection.

Does your brain hurt, yet? Mine does.

Versed as I know we both are in such matters, I think we can agree that the proposition of multiple Gods is a logical absurdity and move on.

Precisely. To make another analogy, when we see a horror movie, we can, in a sense, “enter into” the experience of the characters onscreen. We feel fear and suspense when they are in danger as if the movie is really happening. However, the experience is not the same for us as for someone really living in that situation because we know that we are not really in such a situation and are in no immediate danger. Short of some mind altering substance or experience, we cannot just forget who we are and “fully become” the characters whose experience we are vicariously living. There is an approximation, but an imperfect one, of what that character is going through.

It seems to me that something similar would be true of God. While he may be able to enter into the emotions of His children, He cannot just forget that He’s God, as forgetting is itself a privation of the intellectual faculty and thus an absurdity akin to the “rock too big.” Just as it’s meaningless to ask whether omnipotence can make a rock too big for it to lift, so it seems that it would be meaningless to ask whether omniscience could forget that it’s omniscient. So, for God, it seems like entering into the subjective experience of our pain and despair would be, as it is for us when watching a movie, diminished by the fact of His very being, and more specifically His self-awareness.

To look at the most obvious example of God’s entering into the human experience: Even in the midst of His passion, though He felt dread and anxiety and He only knows what else, He never once expressed doubt or hesitance in obeying the Father’s will.

In red.
Can I just ask, when Christ said the words on the cross, “Father why have you forsaken me?”
Could be an expression of doubt?
Maybe it was just a moment of doubt, an human thing, that through his pain and suffering he felt completely alone, that the Father had forsaken him in that moment.

 

[RCCB]

I read some of the replies to this question, not all.

We are talking about an all knowing creator are we not?

I accept this without question. But it is self evident that as a species, our human knowledge and value base is insufficient, too limited for a truly moral cultural construct. So why hasn’t God provided additional practical insight that we might evolve to a higher, more ethical plane?

To think He has already done so must be false, as there is no evidence of that happening. In fact just the contrary!

 

[fhansen]

I accept this without question. But it is self evident that as a species, our human knowledge and value base is insufficient, too limited for a truly moral cultural construct. So why hasn’t God provided additional practical insight that we might evolve to a higher, more ethical plane?

The highest, most ethical plane is defined by and accomplished by love; we’re truly just to the degree that we genuinely love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. But we’re obstinate; we’re here to learn why/how we should love in that way, to learn of the will of the Logos and Reality that lies at the foundation of our universe and why/how to follow its/His will.

And many have answered that call, although it may seem subtle at first. But the light that God has left us has changed those who’ve truly received it. Countless hours of volunteer work, countless sums of money donated, to feed the poor and hungry and clothe the naked; orphanages, schools, and hospitals built, the university system developed, education carried through the dark ages and the pursuit of excellence in general gradually becoming a goal for humankind as hope was given to an ignorant, lost, and dying world. Love of ones enemy rather than conquest of him became a new challenge; altruism became an authentic human value. God is love, life is worth living, eternal life awaits.

From a myopic modern perspective it’s very easy to overlook the impact this light has made on the world we live in-but it’s HUGE, continuing to shape the positive social values of our society even as it may bite the hand that’s fed it.

But we’re obstinate, selfish, wanting our own ways; humanity doesn’t change overnight.

 

[grannymh]

In red.
Can I just ask, when Christ said the words on the cross, “Father why have you forsaken me?”
Could be an expression of doubt?
Maybe it was just a moment of doubt, an human thing, that through his pain and suffering he felt completely alone, that the Father had forsaken him in that moment.

Those words on the cross are the beginning of Psalm 22 which, in my bible, is considered as the “Passion and Triumph of the Messiah.” Christ was referring to this Psalm, which His listeners would know completely, including the ending verses 28-32.

Regarding Christ experiencing doubt. I cannot answer that; however, I can present some guidelines.

First, the Divine Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature. He took on human nature as His own which means that Christ was still completely God. Christ is still one Person with two different natures, divine and human. Christ willed that His human nature would be in obedience to the Father “all that He decided divinely with the Farther and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will ‘does not resist or oppose but rather submits to His divine and almighty will’.” (from CCC, 475)

Second, Christ’s human anatomy was finite because it was material/physical like ours. Thus, He needed to eat and sleep. He could feel the warm sun. He could feel the love of others, especially children. And He could feel pain like our anatomy and psychological makeup. He wept.

It may be possible that Christ’s human nature felt doubt while praying in the Garden. You are correct when you called “doubt” a human thing. But the Person of Christ as God would not doubt because He is One of the Trinity. Therefore, this sentence “He never once expressed doubt or hesitance in obeying the Father’s will.” is correct. CCC, 468 says: “He Who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and *one of the Holy Trinity.” *Even when Christ’s flesh was wracked with pain, Christ as God, would not doubt the process or the outcome of His humanity on earth.

Christ clarified His two natures with His call to Psalm 22. This is a link to a Catholic Answers Quick Questions.
catholic.com/quickquestions/do-jesus-words-from-the-cross-my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me-mean-that-god-th

The following is the* CCC, *479-483,“In Brief” section, page 121. Personally, my suggestion is to start with paragraph 456.

**479 **At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word.

 

[simpleas]

Those words on the cross are the beginning of Psalm 22 which, in my bible, is considered as the “Passion and Triumph of the Messiah.” Christ was referring to this Psalm, which His listeners would know completely, including the ending verses 28-32.

Regarding Christ experiencing doubt. I cannot answer that; however, I can present some guidelines.

First, the Divine Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature. He took on human nature as His own which means that Christ was still completely God. Christ is still one Person with two different natures, divine and human. Christ willed that His human nature would be in obedience to the Father “all that He decided divinely with the Farther and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will ‘does not resist or oppose but rather submits to His divine and almighty will’.” (from CCC, 475)

Second, Christ’s human anatomy was finite because it was material/physical like ours. Thus, He needed to eat and sleep. He could feel the warm sun. He could feel the love of others, especially children. And He could feel pain like our anatomy and psychological makeup. He wept.

It may be possible that Christ’s human nature felt doubt while praying in the Garden. You are correct when you called “doubt” a human thing. But the Person of Christ as God would not doubt because He is One of the Trinity. Therefore, this sentence “He never once expressed doubt or hesitance in obeying the Father’s will.” is correct. CCC, 468 says: “He Who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and *one of the Holy Trinity.” *Even when Christ’s flesh was wracked with pain, Christ as God, would not doubt the process or the outcome of His humanity on earth.

Christ clarified His two natures with His call to Psalm 22. This is a link to a Catholic Answers Quick Questions.
catholic.com/quickquestions/do-jesus-words-from-the-cross-my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me-mean-that-god-th

The following is the* CCC, *479-483,“In Brief” section, page 121. Personally, my suggestion is to start with paragraph 456.

**479 **At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.

480 Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men.

481 Jesus Christ possesses two natures, one divine and the other human, not confused, but united in the one person of God’s Son.

482 Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

483 The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word.

Thanks.

God the Father did not abandon his Son in his Son’s suffering but allowed him in his humanity to experience the sense of divine abandonment that humans often feel during times of need,

So Jesus experienced what we can experience as a human, and this was an expression of abandonment. To us its many things in life, to jesus it may have just been that precise time, in order to fill the words of scripture and for him to feel what he may never have felt before.
So if we accept Jesus was the Christ (God) of all time, then he could understand the human condition, imo.

Just thinking out loud.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks.

God the Father did not abandon his Son in his Son’s suffering but allowed him in his humanity to experience the sense of divine abandonment that humans often feel during times of need,

So Jesus experienced what we can experience as a human, and this was an expression of abandonment. To us its many things in life, to Jesus it may have just been that precise time, in order to fill the words of scripture and for him to feel what he may never have felt before.
So if we accept Jesus was the Christ (God) of all time, then he could understand the human condition, imo.

Just thinking out loud.

From post 127
God the Father did not abandon his Son in his Son’s suffering but allowed him in his humanity to experience the sense of divine abandonment that humans often feel during times of need,

So Jesus experienced what we can experience as a human, and this was an expression of abandonment. To us its many things in life, to Jesus it may have just been that precise time, in order to fill the words of scripture and for him to feel what he may never have felt before.
So if we accept Jesus was the Christ (God) of all time, then he could understand the human condition, imo.
Oh, My Heavens!
Your thinking out loud may have provided me a Scripture/Divine Revelation way to substantiate the belief that God truly understands the human condition.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

1. "Christ never promised us a Rose Garden " But he did Promise a Kingdom of justice and that Kingdom has yet to be established by any teaching of the ‘church’. Nor has the church the authority to see any of its social teachings realized on their own merit, nor by the will of God. Christianity exists subservient to secular political realities, so it must play politics where ever it can get away with it to affirm it’s self proclaimed role.
2. “He created us in His image” Probably the most comforting illusion religion has yet contrived but still an illusion non the less.
3. “Material redemption” must be the strangest idea I have yet to hear from anyone.
4. While " progressivism " is an easy catch phrase, my meaning is that the church is without the authority to either define or act as the catalyst for any progressive moral change; mIred in it’s own corruption of pedophile priests and banking scandal. If Christ came to establish a Kingdom of justice on earth, that has yet to happen. What God would leave His true servants without the means to realize his Will?
5. “You see Christ knows all about us and our natures. He knows what is good for us and what is bad for us.” I am counting on that very fact to be well and true, but existing religious traditions, claiming to speak in that name, do not!

" Material Redemption " simply means a world humming along without missing a beat and everyone perfectly happy. In otherwords " heaven on earth " as defined by the progressives. Isn’t that what they claim they can do? Don’t they claim we can get along just fine without God? Or, at the very least, don’t they claim that they can get along without any " Religion, and most especially, the Catholic Religion.?

So, you are all prepared to march out and solve all the world’s problems as Christ would, but you are not willing to be guided by the Church. Tell me then how in the world are you ever going to know what is the right thing to do, because you will have sever billions of competing opinions, for you are not alone.

Linus2nd

 

[RCCB]

The highest, most ethical plane is defined by and accomplished by love;

I could not but agree. Now all we need is a clearer understanding of that ideal which has as many definitions as God! Just try Googling what is love ! And as as I must presume that God has an interest in the subject, I must hope there will be something higher that biology to work with. Both the nature of God and Love are subjects that still need to be sorted out! And I expect that will happen together.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I could not but agree. Now all we need is a clearer understanding of that ideal which has as many definitions as God! Just try Googling what is love ! And as as I must presume that God has an interest in the subject, I must hope there will be something higher that biology to work with. Both the nature of God and Love are subjects that still need to be sorted out! And I expect that will happen together.

“To love is to will the good of another.” It’s really not that complicated. Again, I must say you really demonstrate a profound ignorance of the religion you have rejected.

That said, I am going to kindly ask you to refrain from posting further unless you are actually going to contribute to the conversation at hand, as these threads are limited in the number of posts allowed and you are derailing it. If you want to discuss these matters further, please start your own thread.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Does a mother understand her own child? Even if she doesn’t fully understand, she will love, empathize and care about her child when it is in pain or distress. God loves all of his children with that kind of love. He doesn’t want any of us to feel despair.

But more than that, God does understand his creations. We came from him, and were created in his image. It is us who can’t really understand God. But we can catch glimpses of his grace, his mercy, his beauty, etc. everyday.

 

[fhansen]

I could not but agree. Now all we need is a clearer understanding of that ideal which has as many definitions as God! Just try Googling what is love ! And as as I must presume that God has an interest in the subject, I must hope there will be something higher that biology to work with. Both the nature of God and Love are subjects that still need to be sorted out! And I expect that will happen together.

The nature of God, Who is love, will always be beyond our natural ken-and yet the Church teaches that we *can *know Him-via grace. He can reveal Himself to us IOW, in small and gradual ways or all at once, rarely, as epiphanies. And those who’ve had these latter, incomparably profound experiences relate that love is actually known, along with its attributes: absolute, ineffable peace, well-being, acceptance; one is wrapped or engulfed in a love which is virtually tactile, by His simple presence.

This is why love, along with faith and hope, is considered to be a theological-or supernatural- virtue, because while we experience it on some level here on earth, the kind and quality He desires for us is beyond our natural ability to obtain. It requires grace, by turning to Him, apart from Whom we can do nothing (John 15:5).

 

[cheezey]

I read some of the replies to this question, not all.

We are talking about an all knowing creator are we not? The very one who knew all that would happen to our earth and the human creatures and animals that God created?
So why would God not truly understand his creation?
God is beyond our human understanding.
I believe we can’t ever fully understand anothers life experience unless we have gone through something similar, but we can empathise. We can grow in knowledge if we allow ourselves to.
To me God already knows everything about what we are, its us that can refuse to understand the human condition, and then in turn think that God might not be able to either…

 

[opusAquinas]

Is this question a cry for help?

• Can God empathize with my suffering? Is God here with suffering? Does God truly love me?

Job’s greatest blessing was his efficient grace.

 

[Robertanthony]

Does a mother understand her own child? Even if she doesn’t fully understand, she will love, empathize and care about her child when it is in pain or distress. God loves all of his children with that kind of love. He doesn’t want any of us to feel despair.

But more than that, God does understand his creations. We came from him, and were created in his image. It is us who can’t really understand God. But we can catch glimpses of his grace, his mercy, his beauty, etc. everyday.

A mother does not exist. Mothers vary wildly in how they care and empathize with their child(ren). Where I come from, there was a series of Govt-paid ads encouraging parents to take interest in their kids’ life. One such ad was a young teen saying’ “I love drawing, I love playing music with my friends, I have a passion for science and would like to become a scientist doing research. Oh, and by the way, I’m, glad to have been your kid for 15 years”. So the logic behind the “Created us, therefore knows us”, is tenuous.

The problem with threads like these is thta we have nothing solid to work on. “Can God truly understand the human condition after the Fall?”. Yes, because God is omniscient, and omniscience means you know everything, therefore nothing that goes on anywhere, not a single thought can be entertained anywhere without God knowing it. This catechism-like Q&A presupposes that I believe in God’s omniscience, even if it hasn’t been established, i have to take God’s “word” for it, or accept the Church Fathers’ word for it. I mean Thomas had the privilege to see the holes in the hands/wrists to put his doubts to rest, he was skeptical even though he had been a direct witness to many a supernatural occurrence, we, on the other hand, have to do a lot of “take their words for it”.If I can use philosophy, esoteric parlance, it sucks.
I don’t care if in Aquinas’ mind, omniscience was an established fact as certain as the law of gravity, would it be possible for God to be omniscient in everything but the realm of sin? Perhaps God is quasi-omniscient. Satan, despite his apparently outstanding intelligence can not understand love. Perhaps God, apart from seeing sin as his archenemy, as something that people choose over him, is quite incapable of thoroughly understanding the dynamics of sin in a post-Fall human being?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

A mother does not exist. Mothers vary wildly in how they care and empathize with their child(ren). Where I come from, there was a series of Govt-paid ads encouraging parents to take interest in their kids’ life. One such ad was a young teen saying’ “I love drawing, I love playing music with my friends, I have a passion for science and would like to become a scientist doing research. Oh, and by the way, I’m, glad to have been your kid for 15 years”. So the logic behind the “Created us, therefore knows us”, is tenuous.

The problem with threads like these is thta we have nothing solid to work on. “Can God truly understand the human condition after the Fall?”. Yes, because God is omniscient, and omniscience means you know everything, therefore nothing that goes on anywhere, not a single thought can be entertained anywhere without God knowing it. This catechism-like Q&A presupposes that I believe in God’s omniscience, even if it hasn’t been established, i have to take God’s “word” for it, or accept the Church Fathers’ word for it. I mean Thomas had the privilege to see the holes in the hands/wrists to put his doubts to rest, he was skeptical even though he had been a direct witness to many a supernatural occurrence, we, on the other hand, have to do a lot of “take their words for it”.If I can use philosophy, esoteric parlance, it sucks.
I don’t care if in Aquinas’ mind, omniscience was an established fact as certain as the law of gravity, would it be possible for God to be omniscient in everything but the realm of sin? Perhaps God is quasi-omniscient. Satan, despite his apparently outstanding intelligence can not understand love. Perhaps God, apart from seeing sin as his archenemy, as something that people choose over him, is quite incapable of thoroughly understanding the dynamics of sin in a post-Fall human being?

I sense some bitterness here.

 

[Robertanthony]

I sense some bitterness here.

I don’t deny that, but you’re not really addressing my point. I was trying to illustrate how there is no systematic correspondance between begetting someone and knowing someone inside and out. i htink the OP came from a genuine concern: does God truly know what it’s like to be me, to be tossed to and fro in an ocean of passion, false promises, guilt, conflicting voices, doubt, to sometimes feel like I’m fighting who I am, myself to be accepted by God etc. etc. etc. As for bitterness, it has taken roots, i suspect that I won’t be able to eradicate it in this lifetime. But bitterness or not, OP’s question is a valid one in my estimation. Lots of people take for granted that Jesus was just like us, that he knew what it is like to be us, to be drawn to sin, conflicted about God, to wrestle with evil passions that promise a relief from the pains and, sometimes, bleakness of life. Sin is such a dertermining factor in our lives, saying Jesus was like us except for sin is bizarre satement. I’m like Donald Trump except for the money, the charisma, the intelligence, the ambition and the drive he has. Nonsensical.

 

[grannymh]

Fair enough. I think we can turn once again to Aquinas and say that any thing achieves a greater or lesser degree of “perfection” so far as it fulfills its nature. So for a human being, I would argue (in this life at least), perfection would entail the full possession of all intellectual faculties, the mastery of will over passion, and the loving of God and neighbor with all of one’s heart, mind and strength. That being said, anything finite is by definition incapable of achieving absolute perfection as to be finite is, necessarily, to be lacking in some possible good.

Let’s discuss finite for a bit. When something is finite, it is limited. Finite is existing for a limited time, etc. Is finite something bad? Not necessarily. If plants were not finite, think what would happen. What about elephants? What about rocks? Or do we skip rocks because they are not living beings?

Going back to your sentence " I think we can turn once again to Aquinas and say that any thing achieves a greater or lesser degree of “perfection” so far as it fulfills its nature." – we need to examine “its nature.” Rocks have a material nature and are definitely limited when compared to plants. Yet, we do not normally use plants to build a shelter from rain; we use a material hard like rock. Still, trees can be considered plants and their wood can be used to build a shelter. Yes, we can describe any of the previous items as being less perfect and thus lacking in some possible good because none of them can think and/or accomplish their dreams, if they could dream.

Does the fact that plants cannot run like a finite cheetah diminish the speed of the cheetah? Do finite plants need the cheetah’s legs to become corn on the cob?

In the material world, there are basic distinctions between various beings which have finite life. Even rocks that do not have life like animals and humans can be considered perfect for building a shelter from rain. What all the above examples demonstrate is that perfection in the material world is more than comparisons of different beings. Perfection is tied to the capabilities of the being’s nature.

We can take the above and check out this sentence.
“So for a human being, I would argue (in this life at least), perfection would entail the full possession of all intellectual faculties, the mastery of will over passion, and the loving of God and neighbor with all of one’s heart, mind and strength.”

Humans have a material/physical anatomy which is limited in a number of ways, including the fact that it does not live forever. My point is that if a being has the capability of being rational and can be master of its actions, then that being has the perfections which belong to human nature. I am using “perfections” in the sense that the human being has what is essential to human nature as opposed to what is essential for the natures of trees and cheetahs. We do not call a field of corn imperfect because the corn is rooted firmly in the ground instead of being free to move like a cheetah. We call corn imperfect when the kernels do not form as expected.

At this point, we need to recognize that there are humans who cannot think rationally due to physical impediments. The capability to think rationally still exists because of our spiritual soul. The “the full possession of all intellectual faculties, the mastery of will over passion, and the loving of God and neighbor with all of one’s heart, mind and strength.” comes, not in this life, but in our heavenly life in the presence of the Beatific Vision. Being materially finite on planet earth does not damage our immortal soul. It is our own free will which can lose our soul’s State of Sanctifying Grace by committing Mortal Sin.

Because of our intellectual capabilities, we can understand that corn is good to eat without the experience of munching on a cob. Because of our free will, we can choose to run a marathon without experiencing the speed of a cheetah. Sitting on the couch and drinking a beer does not mean that we are lacking the goodness of our nature’s intellect and will.

Hopefully, I have demonstrated that when dealing with the nature of living beings, we need to examine their nature per se. Comparisons between beings do not always lead to a lack of good in one or the other. Personally, I would not like to munch on a cheetah. In my humble opinion, we need to broaden the idea of imperfection beyond the lack of some possible goodness. Please let me know where I messed up. Because if I am correct, or nearly correct, in my examples above, we can dissect “the “imago Dei” with which we are endowed.”

God, on the other hand, being infinite, lacks nothing and cannot fail to be absolutely perfect and absolutely good. His intellect being, thus, infinitely perfect and good, it follows that the “imago Dei” with which we are endowed can only be an imperfect approximation of God’s mind, as we lack the infinite nature necessary to such a perfection.

Does your brain hurt, yet? Mine does.

My brain is hiding from a corn eating cheetah.