Was God lonely?

[LaSainte]

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!

Thanks for the kind words! Thinking this way has really provoked me to view God with much more compassion, almost giving me a sense of comraderie with Him, as if we’re all in this together, if that makes any sense.

 

[LaSainte]

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.

It’s not that God wasnt perfect without us, or that He NEEDED us in the sense that He wasn’t adequate, but more that as great as everything was, something was missing. The same reason any of us have kids: to make our hearts and homes even more full of love. It’s the desire to love and be loved in return.

I’m not so sure about the idea of some posters that He created us because “we would like it”. First of all, those people burning in fiery Hell certainly don’t “like it”, so of that were His reason for creation, it surely didn’t work out for quite a few people according to the Church. The Bible approximates God’s relationship with us as that of a father to His children. Well, I’ve heard a LOT of reasons for people having kids, but because they would “like it” is not one of them. More often, it is the simple natural progression of things, an obvious response to the love shared between spouses. It’s not that they are inadequate alone, but that they desire something more, a greater manifestation of their love, a more fulfilling experience of stewardship and mutual affection that wants to multiply.

Is it THAT unbelievable that God would want to experience a mother’s love, a friend’s laugh, a father’s encouragement? Seems reasonable to me.

 

[LaSainte]

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!

Yes! This is exactly what Imeant!

 

[504Katrin]

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.

This ^ is the truth here fellas Totally makes sense.

 

[centurionguard]

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.

I thoroughly enjoyed what you articulately here. It correlates with the spiritual classic (The Cloud of Unknowing) and Saint John of the Cross’s (Dark Night of the Soul) where he speaks about the purging of all the human senses including all that our intellect identifies what (God Is) and What we think He is not). It really is a Dark Night sacrificing, complete self-denial of all references to our humaness to that of our soul becoming a complete void of emptiness where God comes in to reside completely.

 

[LaSainte]

Let’s not forget that in the garden of Eden, Jesus asked for the simple company of the apostles and was subsequently very disappointed and let down when they failed to keep awake with Him. An angel came and strengthened Him and kept Him company. And yes, as a poster above noted, we have His cries of despair from the cross. We also have the description of John as the “one Jesus loved”- clearly not in the sense that He as God loves everyone, but in an intimate, PERSONAL way.

It seems obvious to me that God wanted very much to come down to oh level, to create and then take a part in His creation on a human level that was just not possible without His act of the creation of humanity.

It’s not that God Himself wasn’t perfect before, but that He desired something more, otherwise He wouldn’t have bothered. And He came down to Earth to share in His creation with us in a way that otherwise would have been impossible, sharing experiences with us on Earth and then drawing us even closer to Him for eternity through the redemption.

He didn’t HAVE to do it that way. He didn’t HAVE to become a human being. He CHOSE to share this experience wih us. He CHOSE to experience human love, to be one of us.

We also know that God is jealous (1st commandment) and how angry He can become when we don’t give Him His rightful place in our lives (golden calf, anyone?)

Examples abound of God’s desire to commune with us.

 

[Richca]

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.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the purpose of creation as explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. #293, is that "God created all things not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it, 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

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.

God was not compelled to create the world nor did he create the world to increase his own beatitude as the catechism (#293) explains: "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…

 

[Contarini]

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?

No. It renders creation utterly free and generous. God does not need us. Yet He created us anyway, because He wanted to share the eternal joy He is with others, inviting us into the life of the Trinity.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It’s not that God wasnt perfect without us, or that He NEEDED us in the sense that He wasn’t adequate, but more that as great as everything was, something was missing.

If something was missing then God was not perfect or adequate. It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.

The same reason any of us have kids: to make our hearts and homes even more full of love. It’s the desire to love and be loved in return.

I don’t think that’s the sole reason we have children, but it certainly plays a role, and that’s legitimate. But it’s also the reason why parents so often abuse and warp their children in various ways, even with the best of intentions. We treat them as means to our own fulfillment.

You’re right when you say later on that the Bible uses parental love as an image of God’s love. But all images fall short of the reality. We can’t assume that God’s fatherly love is the same as ours. See Aquinas on the divine names! All names we use for God are more unlike the reality than they are like it.

I’m not so sure about the idea of some posters that He created us because “we would like it”.

I wouldn’t put it that way myself–that seems a bit trivial. But He created us solely because He wanted us to share in His life, not because we would somehow give Him something He lacked.

First of all, those people burning in fiery Hell certainly don’t “like it”, so of that were His reason for creation, it surely didn’t work out for quite a few people according to the Church.

It does not appear to be the teaching of the Church that we can definitely know that anyone is in hell (leaving aside the probably metaphorical nature of the “burning in fire” language). If any are in hell–and that is certainly a real possibility–then it’s because they refuse God’s love. This takes us into the mystery of predestination, which is indeed a dark and difficult one. . . .

Well, I’ve heard a LOT of reasons for people having kids, but because they would “like it” is not one of them.

Seriously? You’ve never heard of people having kids so that there would be more beings in the world capable of knowledge and love, of laughter and joy, of virtue and wisdom?

No wonder, if we have really fallen so far away from God’s generous fatherhood, that we have trouble imagining it. And no wonder that there are people out there who think it’s immoral to have children at all. . . .

More often, it is the simple natural progression of things, an obvious response to the love shared between spouses. It’s not that they are inadequate alone, but that they desire something more, a greater manifestation of their love, a more fulfilling experience of stewardship and mutual affection that wants to multiply.

The Holy Spirit is, in Catholic thought, the manifestation of God’s love. We can’t possibly be “greater” in this respect than the Holy Spirit.

At the same time, certainly God creates to manifest His love. But to whom? Not to Himself, surely, but to us. . . .

Is it THAT unbelievable that God would want to experience a mother’s love, a friend’s laugh, a father’s encouragement? Seems reasonable to me.

There certainly are those who hold this view. However, unless I am gravely mistaken it’s contrary to Catholic teaching.

Edwin

 

[Richca]

However, if one considers the term lonely to be indicative of having wants, then I could somewhat agree with this usage.

If God had wants, then he wouldn’t be God. For we believe God to be the infinitely perfect self subsisting being. God is infinite goodness, infinite love, infinite beatitude. God lacks nothing. It may be possible to say that because God is infinitely good, he has a infinite desire to communicate his goodness ( I’m not sure this is theologically correct). But not to increase his own beatitude or out of a necessity of his nature. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, #293, God created man and the angels with absolute freedom of counsel and not to increase his own beatitude. St Thomas Aquinas says that "what we work according to the counsel of the will, we do not will necessarily. Therefore God does not will necessarily whatever He wills… Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily…But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end…since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change. (Summa Theologica Pt. 1, Q. 19., article 3)

 

[jochoa]

As I mentioned in a previous post, the purpose of creation as explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. #293, is that "God created all things not to increase his glory, but to show it forth and to communicate it, 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

Thank you very much, my friend, for extended discussion! I greatly appreciate your reference to the Catechisms for I am poorly knowledgeable on them, and I always appreciate ensuring my understandings are in alignment with Church Teachings!

I believe from this Catechism, we can derive the following understandings:

1. Since “God has no other reason for creating than…”
2. Then “God’s reason for creating is His Love and Goodness”

Therefore, if we can find a method to define His Love and Goodness, then we will have found the reason for Creation. Please consider the following line of thinking to define God’s Love:

Given that God has given us His Greatest Commandment, surely He is perfect at living in unity with it. And since this Commandment is the Absolute Greatest thing to do in living, surely it must be the definition of His Love because there is nothing greater than the Love of God.

From experimentation and analysis, I have come to interpret the Greatest Commandment as the following:
Always freely being and spreading the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit (memory of the person), thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self.

Now when a person lives in union with this commandment, the blessing which come from it is the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all relationships, including within the self.

Therefore, the method I recognize my understandings as being in alignment with Catholicism is the following:
I recognize God’s only reason for creating is to spread the means to the ever-lasting experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace.
Given He is only spreading the means, the reason for Creation is not to increase his glory, instead the reason is Love and Goodness.

Thank you very much for your consideration! I look forward to further discussion!

 

[jochoa]

If God had wants, then he wouldn’t be God.

Thank you very much for further discussion! Please know, I am confident we are stuck in a semantic hole, one which I would like to reconcile with you. In hopes of reconciling our understandings, please consider the following:

I can only think of four levels of “wanting.”
One can either want, not want, be indifferent, or conditionally want and not want.

Given your understanding of “If God had wants, then he wouldn’t be God,” please share your understandings to the following questions: Does God want you and me with Him in Heaven? Does God want you and me in any capacity?

 

[snarflemike]

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.

The answer to this is, as others have stated, the Trinitarian nature of God. The Persons of the Godhead shared perfect love. They needed nothing else.

As to the angels, why is an act of faith required for love? I’ve never heard anybody claim that before.

…He is not very unlike us.

He is very much unlike us, but not totally unlike us.

 

[StrawberryJam]

It’s not that God wasnt perfect without us, or that He NEEDED us in the sense that He wasn’t adequate, but more that as great as everything was, something was missing. The same reason any of us have kids: to make our hearts and homes even more full of love. It’s the desire to love and be loved in return.

I’m not so sure about the idea of some posters that He created us because “we would like it”. First of all, those people burning in fiery Hell certainly don’t “like it”, so of that were His reason for creation, it surely didn’t work out for quite a few people according to the Church. The Bible approximates God’s relationship with us as that of a father to His children. Well, I’ve heard a LOT of reasons for people having kids, but because they would “like it” is not one of them. More often, it is the simple natural progression of things, an obvious response to the love shared between spouses. It’s not that they are inadequate alone, but that they desire something more, a greater manifestation of their love, a more fulfilling experience of stewardship and mutual affection that wants to multiply.

Is it THAT unbelievable that God would want to experience a mother’s love, a friend’s laugh, a father’s encouragement? Seems reasonable to me./

QUOTE]
I don’t know. Some long time poster here seems to think it is not catholic thinking for God to experience these things. Not sure if they consider Jesus as God, I am assuming they do. The poster Contarini replied to your last question this way:

There certainly are those who hold this view. However, unless I am gravely mistaken it’s contrary to Catholic teaching.

Edwin

Edwin seems to think it would be contrary to Catholic teaching for Jesus who is God, to experience a Mother’s love. I don’t think we have to go much farther than this to see that this is not a good or accurate representation of what Catholics actually believe.

 

[mercytruth]

We can think of God as omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, invisible, incorporeal, holy and immutable. By so doing, God becomes transcendant.

We can also relate to God as He is depicted in various human relational terms.
To name a few that are depicted in the sacred scriptures:

Father to his son
Mother to her child
Friend to his friend
Bridegroom to her bride
Ruler to his Citizen
Master to his Servant
Redeemer to a Prisoner
Healer to one who is Sick
Judge to a Defendant
Savior to one who is Oppressed

When we relate to God in relational terms, we are relating to God with the heart and with all the various emotions that are specific to that particular relationship. For a relationship to be true it must be reciprocal, and also assumed as being empathetic.

God’s peace

micah

 

[LaSainte]

This idea that if God has any desires (desire for communion, for love, for a cheeseburger) that He wouldn’t be perfect and therefore not God is bizarre to me. CLEARLY He has desires,'otherwise, He would never have created anything. He would still be sitting ther in His infinite awesomeness-no creation necessary.

Also, while the catechism states what is BELIEVED to be God’s motivation for creation, this is certainly not dogma and can hardly be described as a definitive response to the question of existence. I certainly don’t think it’s time to close the book on the question of why God put us on this Earth-that would put a lot of theologians out of a job.

 

[LaSainte]

The answer to this is, as others have stated, the Trinitarian nature of God. The Persons of the Godhead shared perfect love. They needed nothing else.

As to the angels, why is an act of faith required for love? I’ve never heard anybody claim that before.

He is very much unlike us, but not totally unlike us.

It’s not that an act of faith is required, per se, but that the angels have somewhat limited free will. They KNOW everything about God. They KNOW the consequences for not doing His will and they have experienced the beauty of Heaven. Consequently, it’s not as ifthey have much of a CHOICE as to whether or not to believe in God and His goodness.

We can choose to accept God or reject Him. We can choose to simply not believe sin Him if we want to, or to ignore Him altogether. So when we DO choose to love God, it seems to me to be a greater act of love, because it requires faith and surrender to something that may not even exist.

 

[mercytruth]

Scriptures state that God created all things for His Son. At the very least, God desired to love His Son, or show His love toward His Son, prior to bringing forth His creation. (Unless one believes that creation always existed, which is contrary to sacred scripture, and to Catholic teaching.)

 

[Richca]

Is it THAT unbelievable that God would want to experience a mother’s love, a friend’s laugh, a father’s encouragement? Seems reasonable to me./

QUOTE]
I don’t know. Some long time poster here seems to think it is not catholic thinking for God to experience these things. Not sure if they consider Jesus as God, I am assuming they do. The poster Contarini replied to your last question this way:

There certainly are those who hold this view. However, unless I am gravely mistaken it’s contrary to Catholic teaching.

Edwin

Edwin seems to think it would be contrary to Catholic teaching for Jesus who is God, to experience a Mother’s love. I don’t think we have to go much farther than this to see that this is not a good or accurate representation of what Catholics actually believe.

I answer that it is very unbelievable that the Son of God became incarnate because he needed to experience a mother’s love, a friend’s laugh, a father’s encouragement. This is contrary to the very idea of God whom we believe to be the infinitely perfect being and who possesses infinite beatitude. No, the Son of God became incarnate not for his own sake but for our sakes as Jesus himself said “the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom* for many.” (Matthew 20: 28). Again, Paul says “This saying is trustworthy* and deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” (1 Timothy 1:15). Again, in the profession of faith we say every Sunday at Mass “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”

It was God’s infinite love for us that drove the Son of God to become incarnate for us. Jesus not only loves us with divine love but a human love as well which is something that we can certainly identify with. It was also God’s infinite love and goodness that motivated him to create us in the first place.

I would also like to point out that in a certain real sense there is a mother’s love in God. There are a number of places in scripture where God’s love for us is compared to that of a mother for her child as here in Isaiah 49:15: “Can a mother forget her infant, be without tenderness for the child of her womb? Even should she forget, I will never forget you.” Indeed, God created mothers. When we think of love, we think of our mothers. For love seems to be a special perogative of mothers. Now, St John says “God is love.” ( 1 John: 4:8). In catholic theology, we attribute love to the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, in a certain real sense we can say that the Holy Spirit’s love, which is the love of the Trinity, is like a mother’s love. This is the teaching of St. Maximillian Kolbe. In fact, he says that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the personification of the Holy Spirit, a quasi-incarnation of the Holy Spirit. He means to say that the Blessed Virgin Mary, for she is a creature, is not the incarnation of the Holy Spirit like Jesus is the incarnation of the Son of God, but that the union between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit is so great that the Blessed Virgin Mary personifies in a sense the Holy Spirit.

 

[Richca]

This idea that if God has any desires (desire for communion, for love, for a cheeseburger) that He wouldn’t be perfect and therefore not God is bizarre to me. CLEARLY He has desires,'otherwise, He would never have created anything. He would still be sitting ther in His infinite awesomeness-no creation necessary.

Also, while the catechism states what is BELIEVED to be God’s motivation for creation, this is certainly not dogma and can hardly be described as a definitive response to the question of existence. I certainly don’t think it’s time to close the book on the question of why God put us on this Earth-that would put a lot of theologians out of a job.

According to the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, it is a matter of faith and catholic dogma that God was moved by his goodness to create the world which is what the catechism states when it says that God had no other reason for creating than his love and goodness. LaSainte, how are you so sure that this is certainly not dogma?

What more do you want from God than knowing that the reason why he created us was because of his infinite love and goodness for us? And that he has an infinite desire to share his beatitude with us? As St John says, “God is love.”