Why God made us

[Shike]

Hello again, my friend!

Thank you. It seems like you are a very patient person. I like the way you are willing to walk someone through the way you see things. That can be a very powerful tool for promoting the truth.

I will cut right to the heart of the matter of where I think you are getting confused and hence, confusing me.

Please consider the following stipulations which help guide my interpretations and concepts:

1. There is only one God, which must be Jesus Christ, because He is fully God.
2. God does not change.
3. There are three persons in one person.
4. The Fullness of Truth regarding His Church is the Roman Catholic Church, therefore I especially focus on the Nicene Creed, as well as Scripture.

Number 3 is incorrect. To say that God is one person and that God is three persons is a contradiction. Not only that (or perhaps partly because of that) number 3 is not part of the Deposit of Faith. If you consult the Catechism I am very sure you will find that the Trinity is three persons in one divine nature. Therefore, instead of saying three persons in one person, you should say three persons in one God. The word “God” is often used synonymously with the “Divine Nature”. The word “God” is also sometimes used synonymously with “God the Father”, but I will comment on that further below.

St. Augustine might be a valuable resource for trying to understand a bit more on the Trinity.

Perhaps I should rephrase: What was the first material thing to exist? There are only two options: living or non-living. Given that Catholicism knows: Through the Son, all things were made. Had non-living material things been created like the sun, the earth, plants, etc. and then Jesus came to exist, Jesus would not have been able to make all things. Therefore, we should find a concept which validates that God initially does not have a body, as well as having a body before anything else can be created.

Although your effort to find a concept that solves such a conundrum is laudable, it has actually been solved. Jesus is one of the persons of the Holy Trinity, also known as God. He existed from all eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus assumed a human nature in time and space in a particular part of history. Looking at it this way, that Jesus has a divine nature and that He took on a human nature at the Incarnation, we can say that Jesus is fully God and fully man… and that all things were made through Him.

We don’t have to say that all things were made by Him through his human nature… and I think to say so would be incorrect on a number of levels.

I am referring to when Jesus Christ/God was the only person to exist, and I stated the Son because Jesus Christ, as the Father, will always know everything, and therefore always exist in perfect happiness. So which would you prefer?

And to push the point one more time for clarity’s sake, there was no time when God was the only person to exist because God has always been three persons from all eternity. I can somewhat see how you could be influenced to say what you have if you read a lot of the New Testament, specifically the Gospels. But it is important to know that many times in the Gospels the word “God” is used in place of God the Father. So you have Jesus speaking to God the Father instead of speaking to himself.

Take care.

 

[Shike]

*]Logic. Believers claim that God created logic, math, etc. Trying to use logical arguments against a belief system is always defeated by the, “logic does not apply to God” defense.

So I don’t bother.

That is so annoying! Some believers do claim such an absurdity.

 

[jochoa]

Thank you. It seems like you are a very patient person…

I greatly appreciate your kind words, and especially appreciate your willingness to consider these concepts. You are helping me in tremendous ways! Please know that I genuinely appreciate your straight to the point critiques. It is these kind of critiques which help me grow in perspective by helping me grow in consideration, which helps me grow in wisdom. In particular, I enjoy harsh critiques regarding alignment with the Catholic Church, logic/reason, and even grammar.

Before further consideration of the earlier concept, I would like to try a different approach. My reasoning is that I am sorry I presented my most detailed and complex concept of the Holy Trinity first, and I should have shared a simpler method. On that note: please consider the following concept - The Universally Greatest Being of Society
If a society models its governing method in alignment with the Holy Trinity, it will consist of:
The person of the governing head sets and enforces the Truly Loving commandments. Then the governed body of persons, including the head person, freely subject themselves to the same laws. Then the will of the body of persons, including the head person, perfectly proceeds from the commandments, as set by the head person, and the body of persons. To simply state this: The Father is the person of the Spirit of God (has the exact image of Jesus Christ). The Son is the person of the body of God that came down from heaven and subjected himself to the laws of existence in this world, therefore He has a human mind, a godly body, a human and godly will, and has a human spirit, which in His mind and will developed and grew to become at one with the Truly Loving Nature. The instance His mind and human will were at one with the nature of His Body, His Spirit revealed the Holy Spirit. But in order to reveal the Holy Spirit of Unity in the Truly Loving Nature to free-willed beings, a free-willed human must become at one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ to demonstrate to the free world the joy and beauty of being one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ!
In my considerations of this concept, it is incomplete in that it seemingly limits The Holy Trinity to being three or more persons united in cause only. Therefore, more development is needed. I will follow up with the further development in a following post.

Regarding the other considerations you presented, please consider all that Catholicism knows, which must be validated by a reasonable perspective:
Catholicism knows there is only one Lord our God. Catholicism also knows “In the name of the…” From these two facts, especially since it is not “names,” one can recognize that God is Jesus Christ.
Seemingly on the contrary, Catholicism also knows that the Holy Trinity is God, that God is three persons in one divine nature, as well as God is three distinct persons co-existing for all eternity. From these facts, one can recognize that there must be three different persons, because if they were the same, there would only be one person.
Catholicism knows a finite past proves God exists: Therefore time can only be moving in one direction.
Catholicism knows that there was a beginning in the beginning, therefore time existed in the beginning.
Catholicism knows that there was the Father, then the Son was begotten of the Father, and then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, therefore, there must be a perspective which validates a timeliness of a begotten person as well as a proceeding person.
Catholicism knows that God can freely will throughout and during time, as well as God does not change, therefore there must exist a perspective which validates all factors.
Hopefully I can share the concept, which validates all, in a wise and graceful manner. I will follow up shortly.

Thoughts?

 

[mercytruth]

Why did God make us?
The apostle Paul expressed it in a prayer:

"For this cause we bow our knees unto the Father, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. That He might grant us according to the riches of His glory to be strengthed with power by His Spirit in our inner man, that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith. That we being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all His saints, what is the length and breadth, depth and height, to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that we might be filled with all the fulness of God."

Or, as the apostle Paul says in another epistle, "That God might be all in all"

 

[Shike]

Seemingly on the contrary, Catholicism also knows that the Holy Trinity is God, that God is three persons in one divine nature, as well as God is three distinct persons co-existing for all eternity.

That is correct. But I don’t see how this can be reconciled with your previous statement:

1. There are three persons in one person.

…at least not without equivocating any of the terms used in the sentence. It is a contradiction.

If a society models its governing method in alignment with the Holy Trinity, it will consist of:
The person of the governing head sets and enforces the Truly Loving commandments. Then the governed body of persons, including the head person, freely subject themselves to the same laws.

God does not freely subject Himself to the law of love, nor is He enslaved… it is rather His nature.

In my considerations of this concept, it is incomplete in that it seemingly limits The Holy Trinity to being three or more persons united in cause only. Therefore, more development is needed.

There are good analogies and bad analogies, but no matter how you slice it, an analogy will always fail in some respect. I’m not saying you couldn’t make the analogy better, I’m just saying that you have to recognize the limitation of the medium.

Catholicism knows a finite past proves God exists: Therefore time can only be moving in one direction.

I wasn’t aware that was a doctrine of the Church. Catholicism knows that God exists and that his existence can be proven by reason. But even if the Church did know what you claim it does, it still remains to be shown that we have a finite past.

Catholicism knows that there was a beginning in the beginning, therefore time existed in the beginning.

If you are referring to Scripture, we know that there was a beginning. I’m not too clear on what ‘beginning in the beginning’ could mean other than what exists, exists.

Catholicism knows that there was the Father, then the Son was begotten of the Father, and then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, therefore, there must be a perspective which validates a timeliness of a begotten person as well as a proceeding person.

Why does begotton require time? I thought ‘eternally begotten of the Father’ refers to Christ through His divine nature.

Catholicism knows that God can freely will throughout and during time, as well as God does not change, therefore there must exist a perspective which validates all factors.

That there is a perspective does not mean that we are able to have it. Many of these truths of the Faith we can only show that there is no contradiction, not that we can fully wrap our minds around them.

 

[jochoa]

That there is a perspective does not mean that we are able to have it. Many of these truths of the Faith we can only show that there is no contradiction, not that we can fully wrap our minds around them.

Thank you tremendously, my friend! One of my favorite things in life is to push my limits of perspective, especially in validating Jesus Christ and His Church, and your consideration and sharing of thoughts is helping me do just that.

Regarding Person
Please consider the following Google definitions of distinct:

1. Recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type.
2. Physically separate.

Given these two definitions, God can be both:
…3 distinct natures (#1) in 1 physical person, where Jesus Christ is Father (perfect love), Son (assumed unperfect love), and Holy Spirit (perfected love).
…3 distinct persons (#2) in 3 physically different persons, where God refers to the Father (perhaps the single cell which came to exist first before anything), the Son (perhaps the begotten/duplicate cell of the Father), and the Holy Spirit (perhaps the created cell which becomes one in spirit and body with God).

Regarding God freely subjecting Himself to the Law of Love, please consider the following things Catholicism knows:
-God freely created man to have free-will
-Jesus is fully God and fully man
Therefore, Jesus Christ freely subjected himself to being a free-willed man.

Regarding finite past proving God exists
This is applying the concept of time to Aquinas argument from motion. For our universe, time is in motion and cannot be reversed because the past cannot be changed. Therefore God is the first mover of time.

Regarding “beginning in the beginning”
You are definitely valid in stating that what exists, exist. And we could definitely leave it at that, however I deeply enjoy pondering the depths of wisdom found in God’s Word. There are general, specific, and exact reasons why He states His Word the way He does. It is just one of my favorite pastimes to resolve to understand all three.

Regarding begotten and eternity
Once again, your thinking is definitely valid, and I am only complicating things by wondering a reasonable and logical method by which God creates, which validates and remains in alignment with all Truths of Catholicism.
In order for something to be begotten or brought about, there has to be an instance in which it wasn’t brought about, indicating a necessity for time.
Regarding eternity, please note that this is my first time to share these concepts, so please be gentler in your critiques.
To gain extra perspective on Time, consider the perspective of a deceased person. If we operate under the belief that s/he is simply dead meaning no thought/feeling/spirit, then from the perspective of the deceased person, time has ended, yet time from the living’s perspective is still in effect.
To broaden this concept consider the perspective of things mattering. During a deep and restful sleep, time does not matter to the sleeper. Therefore, from the perspective of the one sleeping, time does not exist.
To gain greater perspective, when a human is developing in the womb, from the perspective of the embryo, time does not exist.
Since each of these perspectives validates that time can exist and not exist, we can formulate a concept which combines and integrates the perspectives.
Prior to creation, time didn’t matter to God, therefore time didn’t exist. However, He thought of His plan to bring free-persons to love as He loves. During this thoughtful creation, He could freely will and change what He does and how He does it from the beginning to the end of His plan, because it existed in thought only. Similar to a playwright, however God genuinely grants His purposeful creations free-will, whereas a playwright is limited to His/Her database of knowledge.
During physical creation, although time still doesn’t really matter to God because everything happens exactly according to His Word/The Holy Bible, time exists because humans make it matter. Therefore, God doesn’t change to whom time matters. The idea is that when we get to Heaven with Jesus Christ by becoming in unity with His Holy Spirit, we will be able to live in an eternal Kingdom in which time doesn’t matter, but time still exists.

Thoughts?