Is God humble? Connection between Humility and Love

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Aquinas was being very technical…

And that’s why I am not a big fan of him and, in particular, scholastic philosophy — it’s too technical.

And for me it’s really helped me to better appreciate the immensity, magnificence, and goodness of God, and the distinction between myself as a creature and God as creator. To appreciate his omnipresence and place in my life.

So to each his own.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Makar:

Wesrock:

Aquinas was being very technical…

And that’s why I am not a big fan of him and, in particular, scholastic philosophy — it’s too technical.

And for me it’s really helped me to better appreciate the immensity, magnificence, and goodness of God, and the distinction between myself as a creature and God as creator. To appreciate his omnipresence and place in my life.

So to each his own.

Different strokes. I have two engineering degrees and think technically, and that approach to theology appeals to me. When I try to talk to my wife about it, she just stares at me flatly until I shut up and go away.

 

[Makar]

Different strokes. I have two engineering degrees and think technically, and that approach to theology appeals to me. When I try to talk to my wife about it, she just stares at me flatly until I shut up and go away.

I also have an engineering degree, but I cannot from that point of view understand and describe what is love and humility. Love cannot be reduced to definition of just “willing the good of the other” (it’s a much bigger thing; a computer also may be programmed to “will” the good of the client, but that will not be love) and humility to just “knowing your place” (it’s a state of mind, only in which you can love).

 

[HopkinsReb]

a computer also may be programmed to “will” the good of the client

No it can’t; computers don’t have wills.

 

[Makar]

No it can’t; computers don’t have wills.

Because of that I wrote it in quotes.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

No it can’t; computers don’t have wills.

Because of that I wrote it in quotes.

Which renders it a meaningless analogy.

I did not define humility as just “knowing your place.” I’m working off the dictionary definition: “a modest or low view of one’s own importance.” I said that self-awareness in humans leads to humility, not that humility is the same thing as self-awareness. Likewise, self-awareness in God is not humility, because God is not of modest or low importance; He is ultimate.

 

[Makar]

Which renders it a meaningless analogy.

No, it means that there is a “soft”, but important connection between this two statements, which reveals the inevitable losses which we will have if we “mechanize” and reduce love to just “willing the good of the other”. Not everything in the soul can be explained from the technical point of view.

I’m working off the dictionary definition: “a modest or low view of one’s own importance.”

Are You sure that dictionary definitions coincide with Biblical and spiritual points of views? Of course, there is a lot of truth in them, but not all the truth. For example St. John of the Ladder said that humility cannot be defined, every definition is a loosely definition, it’s a Godly virtue. Also, in dictionaries love is defined as an emotional state (and there is almost nothing about will), whereas from the spiritual point of view first of all it’s about will (as we’ve already said).

 

[HopkinsReb]

No, it means that there is a “soft”, but important connection between this two statements, which reveals the inevitable losses which we will have if we “mechanize” and reduce love to just “willing the good of the other”. Not everything in the soul can be explained from the technical point of view.

Nothing about referring to a computer illustrates anything about “willing the good of another,” because there is no will involved in the computer. However, programming a computer to seek the good of another illustrates the programmer’s love.

Are You sure that dictionary definitions coincide with Biblical and spiritual points of views? Of course, there is a lot of truth in them, but not all the truth. For example St. John of the Ladder said that humility cannot be defined, every definition is a loosely definition, it’s a Godly virtue. Also, love in dictionaries is defined as an emotional state (and there is almost nothing about will), whereas from the spiritual point of view first of all it’s about will (as we’ve already said).

I am not sure. As I said, those were my thoughts, so I tried to choose a definition of “humility” close to my understanding of it and to the general usage of the term, not a formal theological definition.

 

[Wesrock]

No, it means that there is a “soft”, but important connection between this two statements, which reveals the inevitable losses which we will have if we “mechanize” and reduce love to just “willing the good of the other”.

As HopkinsReb said, a computer has no will.

As rational animals, we have both sensitive (animal) appetites and intellectual appetites. Feelings fall to the former, movements of the will to the latter. But rather than being restrictive, the aspect of love an intellectual movement of the will towards the good of another seems to only highlight the magnanimity of God and the mystery of creation.

Aquinas seems cold and technical at the first reading, but as understanding follows… I’m at a loss as to how to explain, but there’s an emotional and spiritual stirring inside of me, a great appreciation for God as all encompassing love, of the participation of all things in God. It’s not reductive, as it may first seem, but enlightening, expansive, awe inspiring. To call Aquinas cold is a gross misunderstanding of his take.

 

[Makar]

I repeat my question: how can God have compassion and love me without “inner sense” of humility? I cannot understand how it is possible to have compassion and love, for example, an injured and weak living being without inner sense of humility… It’s just impossible!

 

[HopkinsReb]

Why would it be impossible? I don’t think I’m as low as a dog, yet I love and have compassion for my dog.

 

[Wesrock]

We’ve already written some replies. What points in them don’t you understand? I can help if you specifically talk about my own lengthy reply. Stating the question again without addressing prior posts doesn’t move the discussion forward.

 

[Makar]

HopkinsReb, Wesrock,
OK, if my analogy with computers had no good for you, you can drop it (it is not the main thing I want to talk about). I just wanted to say that just “mechanically” willing the good of the other is not yet love; love is much more then this “mechanical” willing.

 

[HopkinsReb]

I would agree with that. But the will is not mechanistic. I don’t understand your claim.

 

[Wesrock]

HopkinsReb, Wesrock,
OK, if my analogy with computers had no good for you, you can drop it (it is not the main thing I want to talk about). I just wanted to say that just “mechanically” willing the good of the other is not yet love; love is much more then this “mechanical” willing.

You keep calling it mechanical. We’re not machines.

So, what do you say love is?

 

[Makar]

I understood Your opinion (and thank You for Your replies), but I’am not agree with You in all things. And as non of us knows the truth I would like to listen thoughts and opinions of other people. I wouldn’t like to turn this thread into a debate between two or three people, but rather I would like to listen different opinions.

 

[fhansen]

Yet men aren’t naturally anywhere near as humble as they should be. Nothing Jesus said or did contradicted His deity. God is love. Love and humility are mutually inclusive. The “shocking truth” is that, while God could squash us all like a bug, 1 Cor 13 actually describes His nature pretty well.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Yet men aren’t naturally anywhere near as humble as they should be.

Agreed.

Nothing Jesus said or did contradicted His deity.

Nothing contradicted his deity, no. It couldn’t have, since he’s fully God.

The “shocking truth” is that, while God could squash us all like a bug, 1 Cor 13 actually describes His nature pretty well.

“squash us all like a bug” makes it sound like too much effort, tbh.

 

[Makar]

Even personally I cannot accept that God is not humble, has not absolute humility, because in that case I would fear Him just TERRIBLY (because I will not understand how He, that all-powerful, absolutely perfect and omnipresent God, can love me in that case) and the only way to avoid that fear will be to think that He is far-far away and has nothing to do with me, but it is not so.

 

[HopkinsReb]

because in that case I would fear Him just TERRIBLY

You should fear Him terribly.

because I will not understand how He, that all-powerful, absolutely perfect and omnipresent God, can love me in that case

I think this is the point where the hangup is occurring. Why do you think that God cannot love us unless he is humble? We don’t see how one follows from the other.