Why were the negative attributes of God so important?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
Why were the negative attributes of God so important?

Thanks!
 
Can you provide an example of a “negative attribute?” I’m having a hard time understanding what you are asking. Thanks.
 
PrayHarder said:
Can you provide an example of a “negative attribute?” I’m having a hard time understanding what you are asking. Thanks.
Click to expand...
The Poster MIGHT be Talking about How One can Prove God----By Defining What He is NOT.

A Good Example of Proving God By what He is Not is In Moses Maimonides’s “Guide To The Perplexed,” Which Uses Many Examples of the “Negative” side Of God To Prove His Existence.

Basically--------God is SO FAR beyond Human Comprehension That One Can Only Define Him by what He is NOT. 👍

That might be what the Poster Is Talking About.

Just A Guess. 🙂
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
The Poster MIGHT be Talking about How One can Prove God----By Defining What He is NOT.

A Good Example of Proving God By what He is Not is In Moses Maimonides’s “Guide To The Perplexed,” Which Uses Many Examples of the “Negative” side Of God To Prove His Existence.

Basically--------God is SO FAR beyond Human Comprehension That One Can Only Define Him by what He is NOT. 👍

That might be what the Poster Is Talking About.

Just A Guess. 🙂
Click to expand...
For example, God is NOT evil. Is that a negative attribute?
 
St Thomas Aquinas made the point that the “via negativa” is often closer to the truth than our attempts to describe God in positive terms. Human ideas about divine reality are inevitably inadequate.
 
tonyrey said:
St Thomas Aquinas made the point that the “via negativa” is often closer to the truth than our attempts to describe God in positive terms. Human ideas about divine reality are inevitably inadequate.
Click to expand...
I’m not familiar enough with Aquinas or Latin to know what he really meant. No doubt Aquinas’s statement was written in a certain context, and without that background, I have no idea what he was talking about. Although I do have a couple of suggestions to make.

First of all we are sometimes closer to the truth when we state things about God that we know He’s not, rather than what He is. For example, He doesn’t think like a man. He is not limited by our expectations. He did not speak in the storm to Elijah but in a whisper. He did not answer Job’s questions, but simply spoke of His power. He abandoned and humiliated His own Son.

The other thing that comes to mind is that although we say “God is Light”, when the mystics seek him in the depths of meditation, they find He appears as a sort of darkness. To see stars during the day for example, one needs to look through a dark tunnel eg. a mine shaft. Only by becoming immersed in the dark can the light really begin to be seen.
 
Infinite

Incorporeal

One, in the sense not composed of parts

No deficiencies

No affections or passions

Immutable

No comparisons
 
Infinite

Incorporeal

One, in the sense not composed of parts

No deficiencies

No affections or passions

Immutable

No comparisons

uncreated

indivisible

not due to any other

no plurality

immaterial

invisible

no motion

no time

no passions

ineffable

no quantity

no relation

and so forth
 
Bob_Crowley said:
I’m not familiar enough with Aquinas or Latin to know what he really meant. No doubt Aquinas’s statement was written in a certain context, and without that background, I have no idea what he was talking about. Although I do have a couple of suggestions to make.

First of all we are sometimes closer to the truth when we state things about God that we know He’s not, rather than what He is. For example, He doesn’t think like a man. He is not limited by our expectations. He did not speak in the storm to Elijah but in a whisper. He did not answer Job’s questions, but simply spoke of His power. He abandoned and humiliated His own Son.

The other thing that comes to mind is that although we say “God is Light”, when the mystics seek him in the depths of meditation, they find He appears as a sort of darkness. To see stars during the day for example, one needs to look through a dark tunnel eg. a mine shaft. Only by becoming immersed in the dark can the light really begin to be seen.
Click to expand...
You are right in both respects! St Thomas was making the first point.
 
tonyrey said:
As the Son chose to suffer and die of His own free will He cannot have been abandoned and humiliated by the Father…
Click to expand...
…In accordance with the Father’s will?

“Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani”

or “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
 
I think we have to be careful here. Its a mistake to think that we cannot know general facts about God. For example, while we do not know directly what it is or what it is like for God to exist, we can know that God “exists”; since God cannot be anything other than or more than the category of existence. God is not something other than existence. The difference is a matter of degree; that is to say that God does not exist in the same way that we experience existence; but it would be correct to say that God exists nonetheless. Thus while it is evident that we cannot have direct scientific knowledge of God, it seems perfectly clear to me that i can have metaphysical knowledge of Gods attributes; and while that kind of knowledge doesn’t and cannot provide a full description of God, it does provide true knowledge of God. Otherwise all of Gods attributes are not really describing God. In fact even analogies would be false in describing God, since God would be so far beyond anything meaningful that to speak of God would be meaningless, having no rational value whatsoever.

God is not an irrational God; God does not transcend logical description, although he may transcend in degree the analogies we apply to him. For example when one says that God is love, one is saying that God is something like what we experience in the word love when applied to human relationships. Love is an analogy applied to God; but while the analogy is insufficient in expressing the fullness of what it means for God to love, God does not transcend the human meaning of love to extent that he would cease to be anything that could be rationally understood as love; otherwise we could never liken anything to God if he were not truly something like it. God is truly love, but Gods love transcends all finite representations of it. Otherwise you might as well be talking about nothing.

What is wrong with you people?
 
I am not here to fight.

These matter are really, really, really delicate and mysterious.

Starting from a philosophical point of inquiry, but as a Catholic, when we use words about God, do they not always fall infinitely short? (I believe this is sound Christian and Jewish teaching. I know it is sound Catholic Christian teaching.)

If that is the case, then words such as existence, face, and all other parts of the human body are using the words as homonyms or perhaps equivocally.

God is incorporeal and does not have a face and so forth. When the Bible or philosophers address being, the words are used in infinitely different senses.

Is that accurate?
Again, I am not here to fight and I find these realities and the ideas we use to talke about them infinitely above our thoughts.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I think we have to be careful here. Its a mistake to think that we cannot know general facts about God. For example, while we do not know directly what it is or what it is like for God to exist, we can know that God “exists”; since God cannot be anything other than or more than the category of existence. God is not something other than existence. The difference is a matter of degree; that is to say that God does not exist in the same way that we experience existence; but it would be correct to say that God exists nonetheless. Thus while it is evident that we cannot have direct scientific knowledge of God, it seems perfectly clear to me that i can have metaphysical knowledge of Gods attributes; and while that kind of knowledge doesn’t and cannot provide a full description of God, it does provide true knowledge of God. Otherwise all of Gods attributes are not really describing God. In fact even analogies would be false in describing God, since God would be so far beyond anything meaningful that to speak of God would be meaningless, having no rational value whatsoever.

God is not an irrational God; God does not transcend logical description, although he may transcend in degree the analogies we apply to him. For example when one says that God is love, one is saying that God is something like what we experience in the word love when applied to human relationships. Love is an analogy applied to God; but while the analogy is insufficient in expressing the fullness of what it means for God to love, God does not transcend the human meaning of love to extent that he would cease to be anything that could be rationally understood as love; otherwise we could never liken anything to God if he were not truly something like it. God is truly love, but Gods love transcends all finite representations of it. Otherwise you might as well be talking about nothing.

You are going from strength to strength, MOM! Don’t stop… 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Jim_Baur said:
I am not here to fight.

These matter are really, really, really delicate and mysterious.

Starting from a philosophical point of inquiry, but as a Catholic, when we use words about God, do they not always fall infinitely short? (I believe this is sound Christian and Jewish teaching. I know it is sound Catholic Christian teaching.)

If that is the case, then words such as existence, face, and all other parts of the human body are using the words as homonyms or perhaps equivocally.

God is incorporeal and does not have a face and so forth. When the Bible or philosophers address being, the words are used in infinitely different senses.

Is that accurate?
Again, I am not here to fight and I find these realities and the ideas we use to talk about them infinitely above our thoughts.
Click to expand...
We begin with mystery and end with mystery, Jim, but God has illuminated our darkness by coming into the world and showing us what real love is…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top