Does God suffer from Loneliness?

[Inquiry]

Well this took a shift. Want and need are different things. Any need God has He already supplies for himself. He is a complete community within Himself.

That said, love desires to share itself. To that end God wants to share Himself with others. That is not a need. A man with dozens of friends will still welcome more, but he will not suffer if there are no more to have. God is not diminished if He has no one to share His love with than Himself.

 

[EndTimes]

So no need to blast whatbyou personally disagree with. I personally dont need your kind of negativity in my life. ITS the kind of thing that falls under what your mother should have taught you… if you dont have anything nice to say, dont say anything at all.

Ahem! Who’s Blasting away?

God never suffers from Loneliness for He’s never been Alone!

_+

 

[Alex4Mary]

Regardless the point is there is two latin phrases that describe the relationship thay the trinity has. Using theological terms… ad extra. Which means outside of Himself and Himself being the trinity. And then ad intra which refers to within the trinity. So yes. Ad intra the trinity is sufficient. But the fact of the matter is God CHOSE to express His glory Ad extra. He desired it. And he expressed ad extra for creation to be made to glorify him through their free will. Was thentrinity lonley? Not really. Its more of a mindset of eternal Generosity that caused the Trinity to desire creation to glorify Him.

 

[Alex4Mary]

Im a little irked that you couldnt have kept your negativity to yourself like an a grown adult.

 

[EndTimes]

Im a little irked that you couldnt have kept your negativity to yourself like an a grown adult.

My negativity? Please…

I’ve said nothing which in opposition to Catholicism

God was and is never LONELY…

There’s Zero in Catholicism which even dares to suggest that humanish notion.

From Eternity - GOD is LOVE… Itself? Yes… Itself!

Creation of all Creation? An expression of Love…

Akin to Any of us - sharing something loveable to a friend - not out of Loneliness but out of LOVE

)

 

[Alex4Mary]

And i never said he was lonely. I said the same thing you did albiet with proof from a saints private revelation which as i have said was approved.

 

[EndTimes]

And i never said he was lonely. I said the same thing you did albiet with proof from a saints private revelation which as i have said was approved.

Re: LONELY – It’s the OP I addressed
I say what I’ve said from Jesus’ Gospel.
Let’s put aside any quarreling.
Peace and Love.

 

[mary15]

Pax

Thanks for posting

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

most theologians do exactly this

I would disagree. I don’t think “most” theologians do this. If you want to make a general claim that most theologians do this, then you’d have to prove that, which I again, I would say you are wrong about that.

define omnipotence and omniscience such that free will is possible

Omnipotence: Having unlimited power.
Omniscience: knowing all things.
Now these don’t deny free will in anyway. Aquinas answers this perfectly in how he sees contingent things in relation to God’s omniscience, seeing this is where you are having an issue.
Aquinas says: " It is written ([Psalm 32:15]), “He Who hath made the hearts of every one of them; Who understandeth all their works,” i.e. of [men]. Now the works of [men] are [contingent], being subject to [free will]. Therefore [God] [knows] future contingent things."
So, first, we can say, even if you limit God’s omniscience, which by the way means God is not omniscience, because limited knowledge isn’t all knowledge, and limiting God’s knowledge also leads to saying that God can learn things He did not know, which then leads to saying that God is not fully perfect in everything, including His knowledge, so limiting God’s knowledge degrades the rest of God. But if you limit God’s knowledge, you still would admit that God knows all actual things. For if God knows all things past and present, as you seem to say He can only know, to try and save libertarian free will, then He has all knowledge of actualities, since all things in time that have actually happened so far have actualized. But then the question comes of whether or not God can know potential things? I would assume you would agree with that since the issue you have is God knowing contingent future things, not future potential things. So if we agree, God then knows things that are not, since potential things are not actual, and God knows all things that are actual, at least in the present and past if you will hold that there are not actualities in future until the future becomes present and past.
Now, where does that leave contingent things? Since God knows all things actual, he also knows all things possible to Himself and His creatures, and since some of these are future contingent to us, it follows that God knows all future contingent things.
Now God must know all future contingent things in their causes as well, for contingent things become actual successively, but God’s knowledge is not in time, therefore His knowledge doesn’t view things successively but as a whole, simultaneously because of His eternity. Hence, all things in time are present to God from eternity because His glance is carried over things in eternity as they are in their present. Therefore, it must be said that future contingent things must be known by God infallibly inasmuch as they are subject to the divine sight in their presentiality, and yet they are contingent things in relation to their own causes.
CONT

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

if you claim God MUST follow the rules of logic (ie, not make a square circle, etc), that implies there is a higher order law to which even God must subscribe. This is contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Never implied this at all.
One cannot forget that God is absolutely simple. He is His attributes. He is logic. Therefore, since God can’t go against His nature, He can’t do illogical things, such as create a square circle, or make a married bachelor. Not because logic isn’t above Him, but because he is logic, therefore not being able to go against His own nature, making His nature the highest order of law.
Here it is in a different form
1.God is simple
2. God is logical
3. Because of (1.) God is His logic.
4. Therefore, because of (3.) God can’t do anything illogical.

Very simple.

This is why I believe the common approach of putting some limits on God’s omniscience seems to be the correct answer. It solves so many problems…

As I explained above, it solves nothing but degrades God to being not perfect, which then makes God not God at all. Limiting God knowledge means He does not have all knowledge, which means God learns things, which then implies God is temporal and not timeless/eternal.
So trying to limit omniscience does four things:

1. Makes God’s knowledge incomplete, therefore God is no all-knowing and can learn new things.
2. Makes God temporal, since He can learn new things, He learns them successively, which is temporality.
3. Makes God not full perfect, by the fact He does not know all things, God is then not fully perfect.
4. It forces one to deny God’s absolute simplicity.

So your one hypothesis, ruins the perfect, eternal, simply God. Be careful in trying to redefine things to fit your desire of maintaining libertarian free will. Instead, lets uphold the things about God Scripture affirms, Tradition affirms, and Logic affirms.

(edited to add in a fourth error that limiting God’s omniscience does)

 

[EndTimes]

I would disagree. I don’t think “most” theologians do this. If you want to make a general claim that most theologians do this, then you’d have to prove that, which I again, I would say you are wrong about that.

Ultimately, It matters not what one, some, most, all - theologians think

There’s theologians at complete loggerheads with other theologians

And. Jesus promised we’d have some false shepherds …

_

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

It is almost Pagan in describing God, and certainly Deist. Although it is rational and consistent, it is contrary to the Christian view of God.

The Catholic Church defines God as being absolutely simple. If you think it is pagan, then you think the Catholic Church is pagan for simplicity is a dogma.

you are saying God IS the universe

I think I see a strawman! Never once did I imply this. And Divine Simplicity does not even remotely imply this pantheism at all. Research it a bit more.

The problem many Christians have with your line of reasoning is that it reduces God to nothing more than “Logic” or “math” - as you say “very simple”.

Actually the majority of Christians agree with absolute simplicity. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church all confess it as doctrine. And doesn’t reduce God to nothing more than Logic. What it does do is keep God as divine and creator and the first efficient Cause, for if He was composed of parts then who put those parts together? Things that are composed most be composed together. Therefore, if God has no causer, then God must be simple and not a composition, for nothing can put Him together.
Here is a great read on simplicity: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm

YES - putting limitations on God’s knowledge does degrade his perfection.

I am glad we agree! You can have your limited God, and I’ll keep the unlimited simple God.

But if you won;t put limitations on God’s knowledge, we can;t have free will. Which do you choose? You cannot have both.

Obviously you didn’t read what I posted or you wouldn’t get this conclusion. Re-read it again. Another good thing to is research Molinism. It answers all of your concerns wonderfully.

as you imply above, God simply CAN’T know the future because it is logically impossible to do so.

Never implied this at all. And it is not at all logically impossible to know the future in its actuality. For if it was, then the Catholic Church and all the philosophers who affirm that God does know this wouldn’t affirm it. But they do, because it isn’t logically impossible.

Future events have no truth value

You can assert it all you want. But you have given no proof or deductive reasoning for this. What you say doesn’t make sense. The future will happen, therefore there is truth value in the future. For instance, explain prophecy to me then. God prophesied that the Messiah would be killed. Was that true or false when God foretold it?

 

[Maximus1]

God is the Trinity for Catholics and the Trinity itself is relationship.
" The Father loves the son and the son loves the father."
There is no love without at least two.
Your citation to Jesus words of abandonment on the cross has a lot of commentary. It is a bit simplistic to draw a distinction “My God” without consideration of Jesus Christ role in the Trinity. In John 1:1
" The Word" was with God and THE WORD was God. This is of course a mystery in our faith, but clearly a distinction and clearly a oneness.
You can see relationship in Rublev’s famous icon of the Trinity.
You can see relationship in the mystic ideas of Saint, to wit: God became man, so that men could become gods." ( Describing our participation in the divine) I think you are right, that God does dwell within us and the idea that it is that indwelling within, that recognises and loves God, is how I have heard priests express this idea. I have heard describes the Communion as presence meeting presence when we recieve. Saint Augustine said basically," eat it, and know who you are."
A variation of this I heard a priest say, quite beautifully, “You are what you eat, recieve who you are. ( Noting the merging of material and spirit, which is the great truth of our Eucharist).
The bread is truly eaten ( what Protestants fail to understand, representing the nourishing of physical and spiritual.) Christ is where the physical and spiritual meet. He is the mediator; the vine ; the advocate; we are adopted through him.
In fact ,” no one is saved except through him," is not a tribal boast. It is necessity. Whether you believe in a fraction saved or nearly everyone.
Another idea about Jesus words from the cross were written by Balthazar in his notable works about Jesus decent upon his death. If I recall his writing, the words were caused by the temporary ceasing of the perpetual
" pouring out" of the Trinity, one upon the other, upon the other, and so forth.

 

[Maximus1]

I followed you until you said God is not diminished if he had no one to share his love with other than himself. We are here via God’s exercise of his will. What did he get out of that exercise? The answer I think IS NOT nothing. The answer is related to love.

 

[Inquiry]

He got more people to love. He didn’t need to have that to love fully, but He welcomed it nonetheless.

 

[Maximus1]

That is a big assumption. Why would he do it? There has to be a reason.

 

[EndTimes]

I followed you until you said God is not diminished if he had no one to share his love with other than himself.

Exactly…

A notion such as that … merely attempts to suggest a Knowledge of God and Actuality

LOVE WANTS TO SELF-LESSLY SHARE ITSELF OUT OF LOVE!

Even a Human can love one who has - in the body but not in spirit of course - passed away

 

[mary15]

I’m thinking that He is lonely for us and our refusal to receive all the mercy and grace that He longs to shower upon us hurts His heart…

 

[EndTimes]

I’m thinking that He is lonely for us and our refusal to receive all the mercy and grace that He longs to shower upon us hurts His heart…

Perhaps lonely is not the exacting adjective… ?

That said, Yes… God wants us to share In Him…

And too… Fortitude - is one of God’s Spirits.

_

 

[Maximus1]

Love wants to share itself is a companion to you need at least two, to love.
It is a difficult issue to locate direct teaching in CATHOLOCISM. It is so fundemental," what does God get out of it?"
Is the answer nothing, something, who knows or cares? Everything is about what we get out of it.
It is interesting because Judaism has a related teaching in a mystical sense where," what God gets," has some evidence.
The " kiss of death of Moses,"
God breaths life into the nostrils of Adam. God kisses Moses taking his soul intimately. Frankly these ideas track our own mystic tradition where mystic encounter is described in intimate terms. SONG OF SONGS and it’s influence on John of the Cross for example. Intimacy, relationship, love, these seem obvious answers.