If God IS His Attributes

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarianD
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarianD

Guest
Divine Simplicity is a dogma (I THINK, I’m not sure) that states that God IS His Attributes.

If this is so, then let’s take a random attribute of God…Righteous Anger.

So God doesn’t have Righteous Anger. He IS Righteous Anger.

So if I get angry because I hear someone mocking Mary or mocking God, am I experiencing God at that moment? If I get angry after hearing about someone robbing an old lady, am I experiencing God?

Or how about Love. God is Love. So by loving my mother, am I experiencing God? What about the Atheist, who is also capable of loving? Is he/she experiencing God when he/she has a child and loves this child?

It’s kind of weird, but it’s been bugging me ever since I’ve read about the concept of Divine Simplicity.
 
Nonono… God is really identical to his attributes - God’s existence is identical to his essence.

So; when God’s essence says he is “omnipotent; omniscient, omnipresent” God is all these things; and they are God. They are only distinct formally (ie; not in a real way; but by way of understanding them).

However; just because God is identical to his attributes does not mean anyone who shares in his attributes is God.

Ie; God is all knowing - God does not “have” all knowlege - it is Him.

I am my soul and body - I do not “have” a soul and body - they are Me.

Now; when you exhibit an act of God such as Love; it does not mean you are God; it means you are sharing an act that is identical to God; because those acts you exhibit are not you;

I am not love; I do sometimes “have” love though - sometimes I share this act with God. (although in a finite sense; of course).

If an atheist loves; he shares in the act of “love” that is God; but the atheist does not do this act infinitely; nor does he do it necessarily; he does it “accidentally”; which is the philosophical term for not-essentially.

The atheist does not love essentially; he shares in “love” that is God; but this does not make him God; nor does it make “love” the same as the atheist; as the atheist does not love essentially.
 
Marian,

I wouldn’t resolutely hold out on any sleep while exhausting all your mental faculties trying to fully understand this one. For a reason you’ll get to in a few sentences, I’d be inclined to say that someone insistent upon reaching complete Divine knowledge is guilty of spirit-crushing pride. Just as some things may be too complex to truly grasp, there’s at least one “thing” that’s much too simple. Analysis alone would be about as successful for you as attempting creatio ex nihilo. Human knowledge requires the intellect to be impressed by the form of the intellect’s object; so unless your mind itself achieves pure simplicity (i.e., unless you become God), you’ll never attain “pure knowledge,” viz. without some sort of limiting matter/form composition.

My practical advice: make analogy (upward + word) your close friend. Literally. Jesus Is the Word (whoa, double literally!) as Flesh consubstantial with God. That’s the most concrete road to knowledge.

John,

I think he agrees with you on identity. At least, I see nothing in his post to suggest otherwise.
 
MarianD said:
Divine Simplicity is a dogma (I THINK, I’m not sure) that states that God IS His Attributes.

If this is so, then let’s take a random attribute of God…Righteous Anger.

So God doesn’t have Righteous Anger. He IS Righteous Anger.

So if I get angry because I hear someone mocking Mary or mocking God, am I experiencing God at that moment? If I get angry after hearing about someone robbing an old lady, am I experiencing God?

Or how about Love. God is Love. So by loving my mother, am I experiencing God? What about the Atheist, who is also capable of loving? Is he/she experiencing God when he/she has a child and loves this child?

It’s kind of weird, but it’s been bugging me ever since I’ve read about the concept of Divine Simplicity.
Click to expand...
There are two ways to think about God: how he is in himself, and how he is with respect to us.

In himself, God completely understands himself, since he is his act of understanding. This involves God knowing his essence, which is his own being. This happens because God is his own essence.

Yet to us, we can in no way whatsoever understand the essence of God in this life. Were we to do so, we would see in God infinite truth and perfection (in such a case, your present question could not arise. Indeed, no question whatsoever would even be possible.)

We can, though, know God metaphorically or spiritually. In this way, when we experience love or righteous anger, we are, in a sense, metaphorically knowing God, insofar as we are having a finite inkling of what an infinite state of being is like. The mode, therefore, of God’s essence, is similar with ours insofar as we actually can attain a certain understand of his existence. Yet this understanding is not perfect, and is only derived from creatures. As the Catholic faith says, "we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”; and that “concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him.” CCC 43
 
It might also be worth pointing out that “righteous anger” is not an attribute of God. Anger is a passion/emotion and as such requires a material body to experience.
 
Katholish said:
It might also be worth pointing out that “righteous anger” is not an attribute of God. Anger is a passion/emotion and as such requires a material body to experience.
Click to expand...
It is Dogma that God is infinitely just. To regard wickness with justice is to possess righteous anger. Futhermore, Romans 12:19 “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.”

It is not the case that since a body experiences a passion, such a quality cannot therefore exist changelessly in God. Indeed, since he is perfectly simple, all his attributes are one in his divine essence, the effects of which are displayed on his actions towards creatures (such as just punishment.)
 
The_Exodus said:
It is Dogma that God is infinitely just. To regard wickness with justice is to possess righteous anger. Futhermore, Romans 12:19 “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.”

It is not the case that since a body experiences a passion, such a quality cannot therefore exist changelessly in God. Indeed, since he is perfectly simple, all his attributes are one in his divine essence, the effects of which are displayed on his actions towards creatures (such as just punishment.)
Click to expand...
Just punishment does not presuppose anger.

Even if you were to argue that passions in men are analogous to real qualities in God, the only qualities of this sort He could have are those concerned with a present good. Anger, by definition, is concerned with a present evil which is difficult to be rid of. Out of the 11 human passions distinguished by St. Thomas, all five of the irascible would necessarily be excluded because they all involve difficulty which God could not experience. Even amongst the 6 concupiscible, God could have love and hate since they really do not specify location and perhaps joy which deals with a present good.

God, however, cannot be angry, despair, be afraid, be hopeful, or be couragous. Certainly, the Scriptures may speak of God’s anger or courage, but it is a clear case of an anthropomorphism.
 
MarianD said:
Divine Simplicity is a dogma (I THINK, I’m not sure) that states that God IS His Attributes.

If this is so, then let’s take a random attribute of God…Righteous Anger.

So God doesn’t have Righteous Anger. He IS Righteous Anger.

So if I get angry because I hear someone mocking Mary or mocking God, am I experiencing God at that moment? If I get angry after hearing about someone robbing an old lady, am I experiencing God?

Or how about Love. God is Love. So by loving my mother, am I experiencing God? What about the Atheist, who is also capable of loving? Is he/she experiencing God when he/she has a child and loves this child?

It’s kind of weird, but it’s been bugging me ever since I’ve read about the concept of Divine Simplicity.
Click to expand...
 
Katholish said:
Righteous anger is still anger. You didn’t address the objection at all.
Click to expand...
I think our disagreement is due to semantics. We both, I presume, agree that there is justice in God, or that he is by his nature perfect justice. I am simply claiming that righteous anger - that is, to regard wickness as deserving of punishment - is a just attribute. If one wishes to picture anger as purely emotive, then I would agree that it is a passion particular to human beings, capable of emotional change. If one wishes to picture righteous anger as an eternal disposition in God, whereby he beholds evil acts as deserving of wrath, I contend that it’s a divine attribute.

Really, though, I do not think we fundamentally disagree.
 
The_Exodus said:
I think our disagreement is due to semantics. We both, I presume, agree that there is justice in God, or that he is by his nature perfect justice. I am simply claiming that righteous anger - that is, to regard wickness as deserving of punishment - is a just attribute. If one wishes to picture anger as purely emotive, then I would agree that it is a passion particular to human beings, capable of emotional change. If one wishes to picture righteous anger as an eternal disposition in God, whereby he beholds evil acts as deserving of wrath, I contend that it’s a divine attribute.

Really, though, I do not think we fundamentally disagree.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I do still strongly object to your choice of words to describe the truth we both accept, but a purely linguistic disagreement might not be worth pursuing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top