2 questions

[adrift]

Does God Feel Pain? by Jimmy Akin presents this question.

ANTHROPOMORPHISM
The attribution of human form and qualities to the Deity, a common literary method in the Bible to depict or dramatize God’s dealings with humanity. Some of the early Christians, interpreting such texts in Genesis literally, held that God had human form. To obviate this error, the Church teaches that God is an infinitely perfect spiritual being who has no body or spatial dimensions. (Etym. Greek anthr_pomorphos, of human form.)

 

[devoutchristian]

I’ve never understood the parallel philosophers and theologians have drawn between “being lacking in nothing” and “not feeling emotion.” Why couldn’t you lack in nothing, and yet feel emotion?

When one lacks nothing one can’t feel negative emotions, or spiritual pain. If one experiences perfect bliss, as God does, then one cannot at the same time experience suffering. Also note that God in his Divine Nature does not experience emotion per se, since that is a function of the brain, a physical organ, but rather experiences infinite spiritual joy.

(I’m not even sure that this question is relevant, however. In my mind, God **is **lacking in something that He wants: our obedience and love. This is blatantly clear from the parables Jesus told about the Father.)

God doesn’t need us. He wants our obedience and love because that is good for us, not because it is necessary for him.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

When one lacks nothing one can’t feel negative emotions, or spiritual pain.

Can you support this claim? You seem to be assuming that negative emotions are *necessarily *the result of a lack. Now, I admit that often (in the case of humans) they are the result of a lack. But there may also be such a thing as pure pleasure or pure pain, which does not result from the presence or lack of anything. What evidence do we have that pain cannot be caused by something other than a lack?

If one experiences perfect bliss, as God does, then one cannot at the same time experience suffering.

Once again, I don’t understand why. This simply sounds like a substantial philosophical assertion, which you have not defended. Aquinas and Aristotle said this type of thing, too, but I don’t ever recall them giving a reason.

Also note that God in his Divine Nature does not experience emotion per se, since that is a function of the brain, a physical organ, but rather experiences infinite spiritual joy.

Surely *sometimes *emotion is a function of the brain. But always? Why make that claim?

God doesn’t need us. He wants our obedience and love because that is good for us, not because it is necessary for him.

But I never said God needed us. I said God *wanted *us. And I never said that this was necessary for him.

Look: my son’s winning his baseball game is not necessary for me. But I want him to win, and I’m sad when he loses. Why couldn’t God have that type of emotion?

 

[devoutchristian]

Can you support this claim? You seem to be assuming that negative emotions are *necessarily *the result of a lack. Now, I admit that often (in the case of humans) they are the result of a lack. But there may also be such a thing as pure pleasure or pure pain, which does not result from the presence or lack of anything. What evidence do we have that pain cannot be caused by something other than a lack?

Pain is itself a lack of perfect happiness. If you experience perfect happiness, then you won’t experience pain.

Once again, I don’t understand why. This simply sounds like a substantial philosophical assertion, which you have not defended. Aquinas and Aristotle said this type of thing, too, but I don’t ever recall them giving a reason.

If one is completely happy then one cannot be sad. If one is sad then one is not completely happy. That seems pretty much self-evident.

Surely *sometimes *emotion is a function of the brain. But always? Why make that claim?

Emotions (traditionally called passions) have traditionally been regarded as being a function of the brain, not of the soul. That is why animals can experience some emotions, because they are not spiritual qualities.

But I never said God needed us. I said God *wanted *us. And I never said that this was necessary for him.

Look: my son’s winning his baseball game is not necessary for me. But I want him to win, and I’m sad when he loses. Why couldn’t God have that type of emotion?

God possesses every possible joy. Since our suffering is contingent, it can not reduce God’s joy. Think about it, God could have not created us, and then would he lack joy? Certainly not, yet if he would lose joy by our suffering and yet would not lose joy on account of our non-existence, then that would mean that our existence could be bad for him, which is absurd.

 

[Aloysium]

Pain is itself a lack of perfect happiness. If you experience perfect happiness, then you won’t experience pain.

Not sure what perfect happiness is but definitely human beings can experience hapiness in spite of experiencing chronic pain. Moms experience lots of pain at childbirth which is most times a joyous event. Jesus’ suffering on the cross is transformed into the greatest, happiest of events by His resurrection.

If one is completely happy then one cannot be sad. If one is sad then one is not completely happy. That seems pretty much self-evident.

Some masses I have cried the entire hour. I’m not entirely sure if I can explain it to myself, but it seems I was completely happy and completely sad. I do not suffer from mental illness.

Emotions (traditionally called passions) have traditionally been regarded as being a function of the brain, not of the soul. That is why animals can experience some emotions, because they are not spiritual qualities.

Emotions have to do with the mind which is related to brain function. Suffering has to do with the soul.

God possesses every possible joy. Since our suffering is contingent, it can not reduce God’s joy. . , God could have not created us, and then would he lack joy? Certainly not, yet if he would lose joy by our suffering and yet would not lose joy on account of our non-existence, then that would mean that our existence could be bad for him . . .

Thank goodness, i seem to be agreeing with you here. I was afraid of where this was going.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Pain is itself a lack of perfect happiness. If you experience perfect happiness, then you won’t experience pain.

That’s not what you said, though. You said, “When one lacks nothing one can’t feel negative emotions, or spiritual pain.” You must be assuming perfect happiness to be the condition of lacking nothing, and assuming pain to be the experience of lacking something. Both of these assumptions are questionable.

Moreover, it just seems absurd that a being capable of perfect happiness would not be capable of some level of sorrow, when that same being judges someone’s lot to be pitiable. (And not just anyone, a person that being loves). Why do you allow God to be happy but not sad?

Emotions (traditionally called passions) have traditionally been regarded as being a function of the brain, not of the soul. That is why animals can experience some emotions, because they are not spiritual qualities.

But why has “tradition” made this judgment? Why not say that WE experience emotions through the brain, but another type of being might experience emotions in some other way? The same phenomenon can be caused by different types of stimuli: I might be happy because of a physical stimulus (a physical event), or I might be happy because of an expectation of some future stimulus (a mental event).

God possesses every possible joy. Since our suffering is contingent, it can not reduce God’s joy. Think about it, God could have not created us, and then would he lack joy? Certainly not, yet if he would lose joy by our suffering and yet would not lose joy on account of our non-existence, then that would mean that our existence could be bad for him, which is absurd.

Why would the experience of sorrow reduce God’s joy? In my experience, the experience of sorrow in my life increases my joy. You can’t have the joyful mysteries without the sorrowful mysteries.

 

[devoutchristian]

Not sure what perfect happiness is but definitely human beings can experience hapiness in spite of experiencing chronic pain. Moms experience lots of pain at childbirth which is most times a joyous event. Jesus’ suffering on the cross is transformed into the greatest, happiest of events by His resurrection.

Perfect happiness: The state of being completely self-fulfilled, not possible to attain in this life. A mother in childbirth is not sad, so her being happy is not contradictory. Jesus was probably not happy at the time of the Crucifixtion.

Some masses I have cried the entire hour. I’m not entirely sure if I can explain it to myself, but it seems I was completely happy and completely sad. I do not suffer from mental illness.

Perhaps you were experiencing what are referred to as “tears of joy”. Obviously, I don’t know you, so I’m just speculating.

Thank goodness, i seem to be agreeing with you here. I was afraid of where this was going.

Where did you think I was going?

You must be assuming perfect happiness to be the condition of lacking nothing, and assuming pain to be the experience of lacking something.

No. I simply said that perfect happiness necessitated the lack of pain, and that pain necessitated the lack of perfect happiness.

But why has “tradition” made this judgment? Why not say that WE experience emotions through the brain, but another type of being might experience emotions in some other way?

Because there’s no reason to believe that. For instance, animals experience emotions through their brains as we do, yet they do not experience joy, since they are not spiritual. Reason seems to dictate that similarly, purely spiritual creatures would experience joy, but not emotion.

I might be happy because of a physical stimulus (a physical event), or I might be happy because of an expectation of some future stimulus (a mental event).

But the happiness itself is mental, regardless of the reason for being happy.

Why would the experience of sorrow reduce God’s joy? In my experience, the experience of sorrow in my life increases my joy. You can’t have the joyful mysteries without the sorrowful mysteries.

It think a clarification is in order. Sadness is the opposite of happiness, not of joy, since joy is a spiritual quality, while sadness is an emotion. I’m assuming that by sorrow you were referring to the emotion, not to the opposite of joy (the name of which escapes me).

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Jesus was probably not happy at the time of the Crucifixtion . . . Where did you think I was going? . . .

• therefore God knows pain and suffering.
• It’s not a matter of where you were going. I was beginning to feel like I was handing back a paper filled with red X’s and a circled D- at he top; that’s not my preferred form of communication.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

IMHO:

Yes, yes, yes, no.

God bless+

 

[devoutchristian]

• therefore God knows pain and suffering.

But he hasn’t experienced suffering in his divine nature.

 

[ellzeena]

Does God Feel Pain? by Jimmy Akin presents this question.

Quote:
ANTHROPOMORPHISM
The attribution of human form and qualities to the Deity, a common literary method in the Bible to depict or dramatize God’s dealings with humanity. Some of the early Christians, interpreting such texts in Genesis literally, held that God had human form. To obviate this error, the Church teaches that God is an infinitely perfect spiritual being who has no body or spatial dimensions. (Etym. Greek anthr_pomorphos, of human form.) end

Site your authority for this definition and note, especially, “Some of the early Christians, interpreting such texts in Genesis literally, held that God had human form.” To my knowledge, God DID have human form in the person of Jesus the Nazarene. Hmmm?

Anthropomorphism is a view of the world that is ubiquitous in humanity, part of the normal functioning of healthy brain and mind; scientists are trained (and it’s a grueling process) to set aside this quasi-automatic function in order to not taint their investigation and its resultant theorem or hypotheses.

I don’t agree with Aquinas, either. That doesn’t make me a heretic, it makes me in disagreement with Aquinas, period. One cannot compare physical pain with spiritual pain, and that is a legitimate pain. My spirit does wither within me and cry out in agony. God hears this, and often responds. Does He not do so for you, as well? We are told by our Blessed Mother that her Son is being “hurt” by the sins of humans, that His Heart is being pierced again, that God is wrathful and that she attempts to hold His hand from doing what His righteous anger (yes, anger) dictates. She implores us to pray, pray much, to hold back the hand of God’s righteous punishment.

I guess Aikin doesn’t have children (well, he’s obviously not a mother lol, which is quite different from being a father). Love is not always a reaction: unconditional love is what a healthy, emotionally stable woman feels for her child(ren), it comes with the territory, it is not learned or acquired. Some of it is instinctual but hardly all; it is profoundly spiritual. And just as a human mother loves her child, so God loves us. What is “love”? It is AN EMOTION. Saying that God is incapable of emotion is absurd. Mercy comes from empathy, empathy is an EMOTION. Punishment comes from righteous anger, anger is an EMOTION. OH how dare I argue with a saint, huh? Well, perhaps I am a saint! Perhaps YOU are a saint! So yes, I can argue. And I can also say that the God Whom cares for me (and for us all) is loving (an emotion), suffers regret for the loss of souls (an emotion), is merciful (secondary to an emotion), takes joy in His creation (joy is an EMOTION).

We cannot know God’s “heart” but we can know, because we were instructed by Him, that we share his “nature” (formed in His likeness and that has no physical attribute intended or otherwise). If I, as poor a sinner as I am, can feel unconditional love, mercy, tenderness, and righteous anger, can I in all rational approach refuse these to my Creator? Ridiculous.

 

[devoutchristian]

Reducing Love to an emotion shows an astounding lack of knowledge of Catholic theology and is the source of many social evils in the modern world such as the degrading of sexuality.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Reducing Love to an emotion shows an astounding lack of knowledge of Catholic theology and is the source of many social evils in the modern world such as the degrading of sexuality.

And the above post shows as an astonishing lack of tact and charity.

Speaking online makes it easy to be overly harsh. If you consider someone to be ignorant, by all means, educate them. Do not attempt to make them feel stupid.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Because there’s no reason to believe that. For instance, animals experience emotions through their brains as we do, yet they do not experience joy, since they are not spiritual. Reason seems to dictate that similarly, purely spiritual creatures would experience joy, but not emotion.

This is clearly question-begging. Animals experience emotions, but not joy? What possible evidence could you have for that?

As for there being no reason to believe that emotions could be caused by something other than the brain, there is also no reason to believe that emotions could be only caused by the brain. Science cannot distinguish the two claims, since they have identical experimental results.

Also, what do we make of the continual references to God experiencing emotions other than joy, in the OT and the NT. These all have some non-literal meaning?

It think a clarification is in order. Sadness is the opposite of happiness, not of joy, since joy is a spiritual quality, while sadness is an emotion. I’m assuming that by sorrow you were referring to the emotion, not to the opposite of joy (the name of which escapes me).

I wasn’t implying that sorrow was the opposite of joy. Presumably opposites cannot be present in the same place at the same time, and I am claiming that sorrow and joy can be present in the same place at the same time. (I don’t dispute that there might be a difference between sadness and sorrow. I’m talking about Mary’s feeling in the Pieta, or “Rachel mourning for her children and refusing to be comforted” – this is surely sorrow.)

 

[adrift]

Quote:
ANTHROPOMORPHISM
The attribution of human form and qualities to the Deity, a common literary method in the Bible to depict or dramatize God’s dealings with humanity. Some of the early Christians, interpreting such texts in Genesis literally, held that God had human form. To obviate this error, the Church teaches that God is an infinitely perfect spiritual being who has no body or spatial dimensions. (Etym. Greek anthr_pomorphos, of human form.) end

Site your authority for this definition and note, especially, “Some of the early Christians, interpreting such texts in Genesis literally, held that God had human form.”

I already did: note the link.

To my knowledge, God DID have human form in the person of Jesus the Nazarene. Hmmm?

Hmmmm yourself it is not the same as God the Father taking on human form which is what is meant Hmmmmm

Anthropomorphism is a view of the world that is ubiquitous in humanity, part of the normal functioning of healthy brain and mind; scientists are trained (and it’s a grueling process) to set aside this quasi-automatic function in order to not taint their investigation and its resultant theorem or hypotheses.

I don’t agree with Aquinas, either. That doesn’t make me a heretic, it makes me in disagreement with Aquinas, period. One cannot compare physical pain with spiritual pain, and that is a legitimate pain. My spirit does wither within me and cry out in agony. God hears this, and often responds. Does He not do so for you, as well? We are told by our Blessed Mother that her Son is being “hurt” by the sins of humans, that His Heart is being pierced again, that God is wrathful and that she attempts to hold His hand from doing what His righteous anger (yes, anger) dictates. She implores us to pray, pray much, to hold back the hand of God’s righteous punishment.

Jesus is both human and God. Just like Jesus in His human form had to learn but God know everthing, Jesus suffered but not as God. This is a mystery and myserys cannot be understood.

I guess Aikin doesn’t have children (well, he’s obviously not a mother lol, which is quite different from being a father).

What this has to do with the subject or his writing, I have not idea???

Love is not always a reaction: unconditional love is what a healthy, emotionally stable woman feels for her child(ren), it comes with the territory, it is not learned or acquired. Some of it is instinctual but hardly all; it is profoundly spiritual. And just as a human mother loves her child, so God loves us. What is “love”? It is AN EMOTION.

LOVE
To will good to someone. Also to please someone, either by sharing with that person what one possesses or by doing what someone wants. Basically there are two kinds of love. The love of concupiscence, or self-interested love, means that another is loved for one’s own sake as something useful or pleasant to the one who loves. The love of friendship means selfless love of another for that person’s own sake, for his or her good, to please him or her; it is the love of benevolence.

This is what true love is not an emotion at all.

Saying that God is incapable of emotion is absurd.

It is absurd to try to make God into our image.

Mercy comes from empathy, empathy is an EMOTION.

Empathy is not an emotion.

EMPATHYA function of the virtue of charity by which a person enters into another’s feelings, needs, and sufferings. (Etym. Greek en + pathein, to suffer.)

Punishment comes from righteous anger, anger is an EMOTION. OH how dare I argue with a saint, huh? Well, perhaps I am a saint! Perhaps YOU are a saint! So yes, I can argue. And I can also say that the God Whom cares for me (and for us all) is loving (an emotion), suffers regret for the loss of souls (an emotion), is merciful (secondary to an emotion), takes joy in His creation (joy is an EMOTION).

These ways of expressing God is for are tiny minds to understand. It is put into our language because we cannot comprehend God as He is.

Scripture also speaks of God experiencing sadness and anger, but Christian theology has historically understood this to be non-literal language. …

Further, Catholic theologically has historically understood God as not containing passions. There are things in God that may be said to correspond to the passions, but he doesn’t experience them the same way that we do.

We cannot know God’s “heart” but we can know, because we were instructed by Him, that we share his “nature” (formed in His likeness and that has no physical attribute intended or otherwise). If I, as poor a sinner as I am, can feel unconditional love, mercy, tenderness, and righteous anger, can I in all rational approach refuse these to my Creator? Ridiculous.

How can you refuse these to your Creator?

 

[Ion]

From Catholic Encyclopedia, Saint Pantaleon :
…
According to legend, Pantaleon’s flesh was first burned with torches; upon this Christ appeared to all in the form of Hermolaus to strengthen and heal Pantaleon. The torches were extinguished. After this, when a bath of liquid lead was prepared, Christ in the same form stepped into the cauldron with him, the fire went out and the lead became cold.
…

Is this what you are asking about?

 

[ellzeena]

Reducing Love to an emotion shows an astounding lack of knowledge of Catholic theology and is the source of many social evils in the modern world such as the degrading of sexuality.

What is it YOU show an astounding lack of?

Charity.

I know about agape/Godly love. I’ve asked you to not make ad hominem attacks, masked or otherwise. This behavior is called Passive Aggression. “Reducing”…emotions are part of our nature, the nature formed by God. Jesus had emotions. He still does. What is the emotion you feel when you persist in condescending and dismissive remarks?

 

[ellzeena]

*Saying that God is incapable of emotion is absurd.
It is absurd to try to make God into our image. *

Just one of many circular reasoning in your response but it’s quite difficult to have such a profound conversation in a venue such as this.

I do not try to make God anything. I have to assume that, since He created me, and since emotion is what Jesus clearly demonstrated, God/Creator is capable of it far more than I. And also, to suggest empathy is not an emotion based upon a definition (provided) that clearly states (toward its end) that it IS…I dunno how to answer that.

I wish I could “make” God understandable. I cannot. I’m the mouse on the space station.

 

[ellzeena]

Quote:
“We cannot know God’s “heart” but we can know, because we were instructed by Him, that we share his “nature” (formed in His likeness and that has no physical attribute intended or otherwise). If I, as poor a sinner as I am, can feel unconditional love, mercy, tenderness, and righteous anger, can I in all rational approach refuse these to my Creator? Ridiculous.”

How can you refuse these to your Creator? *

Er…I just said “can I refuse these to my Creator?” Of course not. He is capable of all, I think that was my point but now I’m a tad confused LOL.

 

[adrift]

*Saying that God is incapable of emotion is absurd.
It is absurd to try to make God into our image. *

Just one of many circular reasoning in your response but it’s quite difficult to have such a profound conversation in a venue such as this.

Obviously you don’t know what circular reasoning is but you sure know a straw man.

I did not say that God is incapable of emotion that was your statement, hence a straw man statement.

do not try to make God anything. I have to assume that, since He created me, and since emotion is what Jesus clearly demonstrated, God/Creator is capable of it far more than I. And also, to suggest empathy is not an emotion based upon a definition (provided) that clearly states (toward its end) that it IS…I dunno how to answer that.

Jesus was not only God but man. As a human, He had emotion but not as God. Emotion requires a human body. As for the definition, just because you can understand another feelings does not mean you experience them. It does not mean you have emotion.
here a Webster definition my emphasis

: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present **without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience **fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this