Was God lonely?

[LaSainte]

The more I think about it, the more I feel a little bit sorry for God in a way. If you look at human history, it seems like God has always been trying to find someone who loves Him unconditionally. He created the angels, but their love can’t really be described as unconditional because their love doesn’t really require an act of faith, since they were created with the full knowledge of God and His true nature. Even so, some rebelled. Then He created humans. When He created Adam and Eve, he created them as a pair because He saw that it was not good for man to be alone, as if He understood on a personal level the loneliness that Adam must have felt. Then, He literally created a mother for himself, the ultimate embodiment of unconditional love. And on top of that, he made friends and communed with them on an extremely intimate level.

I was just thinking about this today and it just occurred to me that I have always looked at God as sort of the big man in the sky to be feared and obeyed. Loved, sure, but in the sense that we are commanded to love Him as our creator. Now, I am sort of thinking of Him as a being who, just like us (after all, we were created in His image) has an intense DESIRE to be loved, not egotistically, but on a really intimate level as a part of His (and our own) nature.

The problem is, being God, it is almost impossible to be loved unconditionally. But that may be precisely what the whole point of human and even angelic creation has been, God just wanting to be loved for who He is, like we all do.

Maybe that is the best gift we can give the Lord. It makes me feel kind of sorry for God in a way, but I think it also helps me to understand Him more, because maybe in this respect, He is not very unlike us.

 

[Richca]

LaSainte: You have made some very thoughtful insights. However, to answer the question, "Was God lonely’, we must firmly believe no. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #293, it says:
"St. Bonaventure explains that God created all things “not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it,”135 for God has no other reason for creating than his love and goodness: “Creatures came into existence when the key of love opened his hand.”136 The First Vatican Council explains: (337, 344, 1361, 759)

This one, true God, of his own goodness and “almighty power,” not for increasing his own beatitude, nor for attaining his perfection, but in order to manifest this perfection through the benefits which he bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel “and from the beginning of time, made out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal…”137

You write “Now, I am sort of thinking of Him as a being who … has an intense DESIRE to be loved.” Mother Teresa of Calcutta would agree with you here. She says that God has an infinite longing to love and be loved. A beautiful book on her spirituality is “Mother Teresa’s Secret Fire: The Encounter That Changed Her Life and How It Can Transform Your Own” by Fr. Joseph Langford.

Even though there is no time in God as he exists for all eternity, sometimes I have thought of God as existing for an eternity before he created the universe. And I have wondered if God was ever lonely before he created the world, mankind, and the angels. One time as I was wondering about this the thought of the Trinity came to my mind. Yes, God is one but a communion of three persons. So I concluded that God is not lonely, he is a communion of three persons.

 

[meltzerboy]

The more I think about it, the more I feel a little bit sorry for God in a way. If you look at human history, it seems like God has always been trying to find someone who loves Him unconditionally. He created the angels, but their love can’t really be described as unconditional because their love doesn’t really require an act of faith, since they were created with the full knowledge of God and His true nature. Even so, some rebelled. Then He created humans. When He created Adam and Eve, he created them as a pair because He saw that it was not good for man to be alone, as if He understood on a personal level the loneliness that Adam must have felt. Then, He literally created a mother for himself, the ultimate embodiment of unconditional love. And on top of that, he made friends and communed with them on an extremely intimate level.

I was just thinking about this today and it just occurred to me that I have always looked at God as sort of the big man in the sky to be feared and obeyed. Loved, sure, but in the sense that we are commanded to love Him as our creator. Now, I am sort of thinking of Him as a being who, just like us (after all, we were created in His image) has an intense DESIRE to be loved, not egotistically, but on a really intimate level as a part of His (and our own) nature.

The problem is, being God, it is almost impossible to be loved unconditionally. But that may be precisely what the whole point of human and even angelic creation has been, God just wanting to be loved for who He is, like we all do.

Maybe that is the best gift we can give the Lord. It makes me feel kind of sorry for God in a way, but I think it also helps me to understand Him more, because maybe in this respect, He is not very unlike us.

Judaism prefers to describe G-d in terms of a negative description, that is, what G-d is not, rather than what G-d is. The reason is that once we begin describing G-d in a positive way, we tend to fall into an anthropomorphic description in which we compare G-d’s thoughts, emotions, motivations, and behaviors to our own. We are created in the image and likeness of G-d, not according to His being. His thoughts and emotions are beyond our comprehension.

 

[1ke]

No. God has no need of us or the angels.

I highly recommend the book Theology For Beginners by Frank Sheed. It discusses this topic in detail. It is an awesome book. The title is quite deceptive, it is full of deep thought.

 

[Battleaxe]

One time as I was wondering about this the thought of the Trinity came to my mind. Yes, God is one but a communion of three persons. So I concluded that God is not lonely, he is a communion of three persons.

Yep. see 1ke, and my own lower comments.

No. God has no need of us or the angels.

I highly recommend the book Theology For Beginners by Frank Sheed. It discusses this topic in detail. It is an awesome book. The title is quite deceptive, it is full of deep thought.

i haven`t read Theology for Beginners, but quoting from his book Theology and Sanity, Ignatius Press 1978 version:

God, the infinite fullness of Existence, is wholly Himself in one infinite act of being, utterly fulfilled in infinite knowledge and infinite love, utterly simple [because He`s spirit only], utterly single yet not solitary. Mankind has always feared the solitary God. In flight from that terrifying idea, the Pagans imagined a multitude of Gods…
…The Trinity was the right answer. God is one, but it is not the oneness of infinite solitude: it is the oneness of one infinite Godhead triply uttered: a communication of infinite truth and infinite love among three, infinite self-donation, companionship at the level of divinity.

Awesome words!

There`s an earlier 1947 version online:
www.katapi.org.uk/TandS/Contents.html

Parts of the next paragraph:

Contemplating it, we find that the concept of infinite love comes alive for us. God lives a life of infinite love. But whom does He love? What is an adequate object for a love that is infinite? Not men, nor angels. If God has only these to love, then His love never has an object worthy of it, for they cannot conceive infinite love and cannot return it. If that is all, God is forever loving His inferiors, as He is doomed to the companionship of His inferiors The only adequate object of infinite love is an infinite being, God Himself…
…there is an otherness within the Godhead. Infinite love among three who are infinite with one same infinity means infinite love infinitely received, infinitely returned.

 

[LaSainte]

If all of the above is true, that God is completely fulfilled in and of Himself, then why bother creating us at all and why would He care if we love Him or not?

Wouldn’t that render creation utterly pointless?

 

[Nate13]

I would answer it in this way. Love is reproductive. Love by its nature seeks to spread.

 

[Portofino]

This is a controversial question that you raise; however, if any religious tradition could accommodate this question, it is Christianity. I say this because Christianity is the only religion I’m aware of where one has compassion for God, through compassion for the suffering of Christ. This is truly unique among religions, as far as I know – to have compassion for the suffering of God Himself, through the Incarnation.

As for God the Father, I think the closest to what you are suggesting can be found in the tradition of “process theology.” Some of these process theologians apparently believe that the nature of God changes, evolves, and that the activity of human beings has an impact on God’s own nature and development. In other words, that God is counting on us. I need hardly point out that this is not orthodox Catholic teaching, and seemingly never will be. But compassion for Christ, of course, is still fundamental.

Your thoughts also remind me of the old Joan Osborne song, “What if God were one of us?” The tone of that song is compassion for God (the Father), and speaks directly to your point of, “does God ever get lonely?”

Of course, I find it somewhat paradoxical (as you seem to) that God doesn’t need our love, and yet love of God is necessary for our salvation. The philosopher Nietzsche once quipped, “what – a God that requires human beings to love him? A God that needs to be loved in return?” At first glance, this flies in the face of unconditional love, where love is freely given, without the requirement that the object of your love also loves you in return (or, for that matter, is even aware of your existence).

 

[meltzerboy]

This is a controversial question that you raise; however, if any religious tradition could accommodate this question, it is Christianity. I say this because Christianity is the only religion I’m aware of where one has compassion for God, through compassion for the suffering of Christ. This is truly unique among religions, as far as I know – to have compassion for the suffering of God Himself, through the Incarnation.

As for God the Father, I think the closest to what you are suggesting can be found in the tradition of “process theology.” Some of these process theologians apparently believe that the nature of God changes, evolves, and that the activity of human beings has an impact on God’s own nature and development. In other words, that God is counting on us. I need hardly point out that this is not orthodox Catholic teaching, and seemingly never will be. But compassion for Christ, of course, is still fundamental.

Your thoughts also remind me of the old Joan Osborne song, “What if God were one of us?” The tone of that song is compassion for God (the Father), and speaks directly to your point of, “does God ever get lonely?”

Of course, I find it somewhat paradoxical (as you seem to) that God doesn’t need our love, and yet love of God is necessary for our salvation. The philosopher Nietzsche once quipped, “what – a God that requires human beings to love him? A God that needs to be loved in return?” At first glance, this flies in the face of unconditional love, where love is freely given, without the requirement that the object of your love also loves you in return (or, for that matter, is even aware of your existence).

There is a strain of thought in Judaism, represented by the mystical Kabbala and the teachings of those such as Rabbi Luria, which believes G-d not only suffers from the sins of mankind but has suffered from the beginning of the universe due to the shattering and detachment of His created reality from Himself. It is therefore Man’s task to repair the connection between G-d and His broken universe and render it a completely whole structure. Such thinking is opposed to that of Maimonides who believed that anthropomorphic descriptions of G-d’s emotions and thoughts suggest a changeable G-d, which is contrary to the essential nature of G-d. Judaism allows, and even encourages, such diametrically opposed views concerning the internal life of G-d.

 

[jochoa]

The more I think about it, the more I feel a little bit sorry for God in a way. If you look at human history, it seems like God has always been trying to find someone who loves Him unconditionally. He created the angels, but their love can’t really be described as unconditional because their love doesn’t really require an act of faith, since they were created with the full knowledge of God and His true nature. Even so, some rebelled. Then He created humans. When He created Adam and Eve, he created them as a pair because He saw that it was not good for man to be alone, as if He understood on a personal level the loneliness that Adam must have felt. Then, He literally created a mother for himself, the ultimate embodiment of unconditional love. And on top of that, he made friends and communed with them on an extremely intimate level.

I was just thinking about this today and it just occurred to me that I have always looked at God as sort of the big man in the sky to be feared and obeyed. Loved, sure, but in the sense that we are commanded to love Him as our creator. Now, I am sort of thinking of Him as a being who, just like us (after all, we were created in His image) has an intense DESIRE to be loved, not egotistically, but on a really intimate level as a part of His (and our own) nature.

The problem is, being God, it is almost impossible to be loved unconditionally. But that may be precisely what the whole point of human and even angelic creation has been, God just wanting to be loved for who He is, like we all do.

Maybe that is the best gift we can give the Lord. It makes me feel kind of sorry for God in a way, but I think it also helps me to understand Him more, because maybe in this respect, He is not very unlike us.

I really dig your line of thinking! Given consideration of some of the responses, there is definite semantics to consider, however, you and Church teachings are declaring extremely similar qualities.

From my personal analysis, you are absolutely correct in this being the whole point of human and even angelic creation! I personally use the following words: The Purpose for Creation is for the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the Creator. In order to achieve this, the Creator must create an ever-lasting society of a limitless number of true friends, in which the Creator may participate as a friend, and the Creator initially exists in absolute solitude.

It is really pleasing to read your words: “almost impossible.” Nothing is impossible with God, and He will wait perfectly patient for us to figure it out!

It is definitely humbling when we recognize how selfish we can be, given such an amazingly selfless Creator. Pondering the tremendous sacrifice He makes in being the All-Knowing Judge, so that we may enjoy the amazing blessing of the heavenly life, generates so much thanksgiving and desire to worship.

Thanks for the great food for thought!

 

[1ke]

If all of the above is true, that God is completely fulfilled in and of Himself, then why bother creating us at all and why would He care if we love Him or not?

Again, I really encourage you to get a copy of Sheed. But the short answer is, because he knew we would like it.

Wouldn’t that render creation utterly pointless?

Not at all. Creation is for us.

 

[Portofino]

There is a strain of thought in Judaism, represented by the mystical Kabbala and the teachings of those such as Rabbi Luria, which believes G-d not only suffers from the sins of mankind but has suffered from the beginning of the universe due to the shattering and detachment of His created reality from Himself. It is therefore Man’s task to repair the connection between G-d and His broken universe and render it a completely whole structure. Such thinking is opposed to that of Maimonides who believed that anthropomorphic descriptions of G-d’s emotions and thoughts suggest a changeable G-d, which is contrary to the essential nature of G-d. Judaism allows, and even encourages, such diametrically opposed views concerning the internal life of G-d.

Thanks, Meltzerboy – I personally find that invigorating, that–in Judaism–there are no fixed dogmas regarding God’s ultimate nature.

If I understand the above correctly, Rabbu Luria was describing human life as an alienation of God from Himself. Human life–and, perhaps, physical reality as a whole-- as the self-alienation of God, the shattering of a primeval oneness (like the shattering of a mirror) into infinite fragments, which–to be “redeemed”–need to be reunified and once again made whole. I am probably giving an overly pantheistic reading of it, but this is what this notion evokes for me.

I do like Hegel’s notion–if I am not misattributing it to Hegel–that it is in humanity that the universe has become conscious of itself, has become self-aware. This can lend itself to the notion that all of nature and all of human history is a form of revelation – a progressive unfolding, through time, of the nature of the divine.

I grant that this is a pantheistic reading of the whole affair – a dangerously pantheistic reading, perhaps (from a Christian perspective) that jeopardizes replacing the incarnation of Christ (“the Word was made flesh”) with the incarnation of humanity itself and the unfolding of human history.

I would imagine that even Judaism might have a problem with the notion of human existence as the self-alienation of God, though we are indeed made in God’s image and likeness, and Eastern orthodox Christianity has the notion of theosis (“the Word was made flesh so that the flesh could become Word”). Christ became the vehicle by which the self-alienation of the divine could be resolved and the dual nature of the divine (which was separated) could become “re-yoked” to itself (“God and sinner reconciled”; the temporal re-yoked to the eternal; flesh re-yoked to the Word). Not just the spirit, but matter itself that was redeemed."

from Paul’s letter to the Colossians: “Life from nothing began through him, and life from the dead began through him, and he is, therefore, justly called the Lord of all. It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live, and through him God planned to reconcile in his own person, as it were, everything on earth and everything in Heaven by virtue of the sacrifice of the cross…”

 

[Battleaxe]

As for God the Father, I think the closest to what you are suggesting can be found in the tradition of “process theology.” Some of these process theologians apparently believe that the nature of God changes, evolves, and that the activity of human beings has an impact on God’s own nature and development. In other words, that God is counting on us. I need hardly point out that ***this is not orthodox Catholic teaching, ***and seemingly never will be.

Youre right. Its not orthodox Catholic teaching, and it never will be. God is immutable.

From my personal analysis, you are absolutely correct in this being the whole point of human and even angelic creation! [It`s not!] I personally use the following words: The Purpose for Creation is for the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the Creator. In order to achieve this, the Creator must create an ever-lasting society of a limitless number of true friends, in which the Creator may participate as a friend, and the Creator initially exists in absolute solitude.[See quote below.]

That belief is false. Thats how heresies start. As already said, God is immutable. And as 1ke has said, God does not need us or the angels: He creates us and everything else because He knows (in His eternal Now) that wed like it.

Without us, God would NOT be lonely. To requote from an earlier post:

God, the infinite fullness of existence, is wholly Himself in one infinite act of being, utterly fulfilled in infinite knowledge and infinite love, utterly simple, utterly single: YET NOT SOLITARY…
…God is one, BUT IT IS NOT THE ONENESS OF INFINITE SOLITUDE: it is the oneness of one infinite Godhead triply uttered: a communication of infinite truth and infinite love among three, infinite self-revelation, infinite self-donation, COMPANIONSHIP AT THE LEVEL OF DIVINITY.

Follow the link…which was provided earlier:
www.katapi.org.uk/TandS/Contents.html

Scroll down to God.

There is a strain of thought in Judaism, represented by the mystical Kabbala and the teachings of…
Judaism allows, and even encourages, such diametrically opposed views concerning the internal life of G-d.

The Church would go along with Maimonides.

 

[Inwe86]

The more I think about it, the more I feel a little bit sorry for God in a way. If you look at human history, it seems like God has always been trying to find someone who loves Him unconditionally. He created the angels, but their love can’t really be described as unconditional because their love doesn’t really require an act of faith, since they were created with the full knowledge of God and His true nature. Even so, some rebelled. Then He created humans. When He created Adam and Eve, he created them as a pair because He saw that it was not good for man to be alone, as if He understood on a personal level the loneliness that Adam must have felt. Then, He literally created a mother for himself, the ultimate embodiment of unconditional love. And on top of that, he made friends and communed with them on an extremely intimate level.

I was just thinking about this today and it just occurred to me that I have always looked at God as sort of the big man in the sky to be feared and obeyed. Loved, sure, but in the sense that we are commanded to love Him as our creator. Now, I am sort of thinking of Him as a being who, just like us (after all, we were created in His image) has an intense DESIRE to be loved, not egotistically, but on a really intimate level as a part of His (and our own) nature.

The problem is, being God, it is almost impossible to be loved unconditionally. But that may be precisely what the whole point of human and even angelic creation has been, God just wanting to be loved for who He is, like we all do.

Maybe that is the best gift we can give the Lord. It makes me feel kind of sorry for God in a way, but I think it also helps me to understand Him more, because maybe in this respect, He is not very unlike us.

I think to say that God was lonely denotes that God was not perfect without us, which is not true. God was never lonely. He was always complete within the fullness of the Trinity. As to why God created us, I remember the old Baltimore Catechism question: Why did God make us? To show forth His Goodness and to bring us to everlasting happiness in Heaven. He wanted to share his happiness with us. He created us simply to love us and to bring us joy. He didn’t need us, He still doesn’t need us, but He wants us. Personally, I prefer this to God “needing” us to remedy loneliness.

 

[mercytruth]

Any theology of God seems to be inadequate if it leaves out the human dimension of who we are. Believe it or not, angels were created to minister to those who receive salvation from God.

In addition, the Messiah says that His Father so loves us fallen human beings that He gave His own Son over to death. How much sense does that make intellectually? The invisible, eternal, mighty God loves us imperfect, fallen, unpredictable, stubborn, proud, selfish humans so much that He was willing to give His beloved Son, His Only One over to death? A death that was more sorrowful than any of us can imagine? What kind of sense does that make?

When I think of the range of the higher human emotions that are reflected in music, and art, I think we are entering into the realm of expressing something of the Eternal One.

When we speak of God’s love, his mercy, his forgiveness, his peace we are speaking of an experiential knowing. Did any of us have any clue as to what this love, this mercy, this forgiveness, this peace was about until we were granted the privilege of knowing Him?

Maybe through our human relationships we had an inkling of such, and maybe it is through such relationships that we are able to put words into expressing our experiences with the Eternal One.

Did not the Father suffer seeing His Only One suffer? How could he not suffer?
So was God lonely? When His Son said, **‘My God, My God why have you forsaken me?’**I do believe the Eternal One suffered not only His Son’s loneliness, but the loneliness of every human being whom the Son was carrying to the cross.

For myself, God is not some sort of theological, intellectual concept. God enters, breaks, and softens the human heart in ways which words can not express adequately. Isaiah attempts such when he speaks of God’s mercy toward the children of Israel:

7 I will recount the steadfast love of the Lord,
the praises of the Lord,
according to all that the Lord has granted us,
and the great goodness to the house of Israel
that he has granted them according to his compassion,
according to the abundance of his steadfast love.
8 For he said, “Surely they are my people,
children who will not deal falsely.”
And he became their Savior.
9 In all their affliction he was afflicted,[c]
and the angel of his presence saved them;
in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;
he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.

(Isaiah 63:7-9)

 

[TriciaF]

Not lonely.
Generous.
Wanting to share of His great bounty and love.

 

[Battleaxe]

No. God has no need of us or the angels.

Love is reproductive. Love by its nature seeks to spread.

Again, I really encourage you to get a copy of Sheed. But the short answer is, because he knew we would like it.

Creation is for us.

I think to say that God was lonely denotes that God was not perfect without us, which is not true. God was never lonely. He was always complete within the fullness of the Trinity.

Not lonely.
Generous.
Wanting to share of His great bounty and love.

Voices crying in the wilderness.
[Hope no one was missed. ]

 

[centurionguard]

Any theology of God seems to be inadequate if it leaves out the human dimension of who we are. Believe it or not, angels were created to minister to those who receive salvation from God.

In addition, the Messiah says that His Father so loves us fallen human beings that He gave His own Son over to death. How much sense does that make intellectually? The invisible, eternal, mighty God loves us imperfect, fallen, unpredictable, stubborn, proud, selfish humans so much that He was willing to give His beloved Son, His Only One over to death? A death that was more sorrowful than any of us can imagine? What kind of sense does that make?

When I think of the range of the higher human emotions that are reflected in music, and art, I think we are entering into the realm of expressing something of the Eternal One.

When we speak of God’s love, his mercy, his forgiveness, his peace we are speaking of an experiential knowing. Did any of us have any clue as to what this love, this mercy, this forgiveness, this peace was about until we were granted the privilege of knowing Him?

Maybe through our human relationships we had an inkling of such, and maybe it is through such relationships that we are able to put words into expressing our experiences with the Eternal One.

Did not the Father suffer seeing His Only One suffer? How could he not suffer?
So was God lonely? When His Son said, **‘My God, My God why have you forsaken me?’**I do believe the Eternal One suffered not only His Son’s loneliness, but the loneliness of every human being whom the Son was carrying to the cross.

For myself, God is not some sort of theological, intellectual concept. God enters, breaks, and softens the human heart in ways which words can not express adequately. Isaiah attempts such when he speaks of God’s mercy toward the children of Israel:

7 I will recount the steadfast love of the Lord,
the praises of the Lord,
according to all that the Lord has granted us,
and the great goodness to the house of Israel
that he has granted them according to his compassion,
according to the abundance of his steadfast love.
8 For he said, “Surely they are my people,
children who will not deal falsely.”
And he became their Savior.
9 In all their affliction he was afflicted,[c]
and the angel of his presence saved them;
in his love and in his pity he redeemed them;
he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.

(Isaiah 63:7-9)

Beautifully expressed.

 

[centurionguard]

In one of Saint John of the Cross writings in “The Living Flame of Love” he metaphorically describes the Holy Trinity always existing together in eternity at high noon.
God is Never lonely in Himself

Here’s one of Saint John of the Cross’s Poetry’s on
The Most Holy Trinity as a spring of water, a poem of St. John of the Cross

The water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting. (John 4:14)
With these words, Christ our Savior promises the gift of the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit is often compared to fire (as on Pentacost), but he may likewise be indented through the metaphor of water (especially under the form of rain). Here, the Good Lord declares that the gift of grace is not merely a separated gift – a gift separated or distinct from the Holy Trinity – but, rather, this grace is a participation in the very life of the Almighty.
St. John of the Cross wrote a poem in which he meditated upon the mystery of the Trinity under the metaphor of a spring of water.

The meaning of the poem, in brief
In the first six stanzas, the Mystical Doctor discusses the Divine Essence itself, yet seamlessly transitions from the Essence to the person of the Father – a masterful example of theological precision of which the Saint is capable, even in his poetry! The “eternal spring” is the whole Trinity, for only of the entire Trinity may we rightly say, “I know that nothing else is so beautiful” (stanza 3) and that it creates and sustains “the lands of hell, the heaven, and earth” (stanza 6). In the seventh stanza, at the words “I know well the stream that flows from this spring,” it is clear that the “spring” is the Father, while the “stream” is the Son – for the Son has eternally proceeded from his Father.
The seventh stanza speaks of the Son, while the eighth turns to the person of the Holy Spirit: “I know the stream proceeding from these two.” Here we have the famous filioque – the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, as from a single principle; though, he proceeds principally from the Father (apud St. Augustine). And yet, although the Spirit is from the Father and the Son, he is not after these two: “I know …] that neither of them in fact precedes it.”
Finally, in the ninth through the eleventh stanzas, St. John incites our minds and hearts to long for (indeed to thirst for) this living water, the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity. The Carmelite father directs us to the Most Holy Eucharist: “This living spring that I long for, I see in this bread of life, although it is night.”

Cantar del alma que se huelga de conocer a Dios por fe
(Song of the soul that rejoices in knowing God by faith)

For I know well the spring that flows and runs,
although it is night.

1. That eternal spring is hidden,
   for I know well where it has its rise,
   although it is night.
2. I do not know its origin, nor has it one,
   but I know that every origin has come from it,
   although it is night.
3. I know that nothing else is so beautiful,
   and that the heavens and the earth drink there,
   although it is night.
4. I know well that it is bottomless
   and no one is able to cross it,
   although it is night.
5. Its clarity is never darkened,
   and I know that every light has come from it,
   although it is night.
6. I know that its streams are so brimming
   they water the lands of hell, the heavens, and earth,
   although it is night.
7. I know well the stream that flows from this spring
   is mighty in compass and power,
   although it is night.
8. I know the stream proceeding from these two,
   that neither of them in fact precedes it,
   although it is night.
9. This eternal spring is hidden
   in this living bread for our life’s sake,
   although it is night.
10. It is here calling out to creatures;
    and they satisfy their thirst, although in darkness,
    because it is night.
11. This living spring that I long for,
    I see in this bread of life,
    although it is night.

 

[jochoa]

That belief is false. Thats how heresies start. As already said, God is immutable. And as 1ke has said, God does not need us or the angels: He creates us and everything else because He knows (in His eternal Now) that wed like it.

Please consider the following questions as to illustrate the connection between the semantics of the OP and Church:

Does God need us? No.
Does God want us? Yes.
If God didn’t have us, would He create us? Yes, because when there was no Creation, He created us.
Does God change? No.
Given God will always choose to create us because God does not change:
In a semantic word-play, one can declare that God “needs” us, in the sense that He will always choose Creation over Nothing Created.

I would add, if one considers the term lonely to be lacking peace, then I definitely disagree. God never loses peace.
However, if one considers the term lonely to be indicative of having wants, then I could somewhat agree with this usage.

Thanks for the great food for thought! I look forward to further discussion!