God's love, wrath, and other "emotions"

[spockrates]

This appears to be what Jesus is telling you and me:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

(John 13:34)

“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.”

(John 15:12)

For the word as means in the same way. So reason dictates that you and I must either concede that (A) God does indeed feel compassion and so must we, or we must admit that (B) since God feels absolutely no compassion at all then it is wrong for you and I to feel compassionate.

Which will it be? Do you recommend I love like (A) or like (B)?

 

[Bluegoat]

Then should we not consider the truth about our feelings about whether God feels any compassion? Logic appears to require that we do, for the Sacred Scriptures tell us to imitate God. Consider this:

w = how we are to love others

G = how God loves others

If we are to imitate God, then

w = G

does it not?

Not in all things. Context is everything - in some cases trying to imitate God is inappropriate, for example by presuming to judge other people’s souls.

Love is a way in which we are to imitate God, in a mode appropriate to our own nature. We do not exist in the same way God does - we have bodies, we are in space and time, we are not self-existant. So we need to know what it means to love as a human.

Christianity teaches us that God created s as material beings, as animals as well as spirits, on purpose. Emotions are part of our nature because God intended them to be. He also intended them to be controlled - the reason we fail at that, even when we try, is because of concupiscence, which is a result of the Fall.

It always seemed to me that in suppressing their emotions Vulcans were cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Emotions have many uses - they act in many ways like intuition, giving us clues about how to behave, or about situations where the facts, or logic, is unclear. And reason can be twisted to serve evil ends too - for example one can coldly decide to sacrifice individuals who are a drain on the group such as those with mental or physical disabilities.

And human or earthly reason is always limited, because it is discursive and exists in space and time. It falls short of God’s “reason” which includes things like the Trinity, or the Incarnation, both mathematically very unreasonable ideas.

 

[spockrates]

Not in all things. Context is everything - in some cases trying to imitate God is inappropriate, for example by presuming to judge other people’s souls.

Love is a way in which we are to imitate God, in a mode appropriate to our own nature. We do not exist in the same way God does - we have bodies, we are in space and time, we are not self-existant. So we need to know what it means to love as a human.

Christianity teaches us that God created s as material beings, as animals as well as spirits, on purpose. Emotions are part of our nature because God intended them to be. He also intended them to be controlled - the reason we fail at that, even when we try, is because of concupiscence, which is a result of the Fall.

It always seemed to me that in suppressing their emotions Vulcans were cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Emotions have many uses - they act in many ways like intuition, giving us clues about how to behave, or about situations where the facts, or logic, is unclear. And reason can be twisted to serve evil ends too - for example one can coldly decide to sacrifice individuals who are a drain on the group such as those with mental or physical disabilities.

And human or earthly reason is always limited, because it is discursive and exists in space and time. It falls short of God’s “reason” which includes things like the Trinity, or the Incarnation, both mathematically very unreasonable ideas.

Goat:

But have you not read?

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

(Genesis 1:27)

If we are not like God insofar as we feel compassion that moves us to loving action, then in what way, exactly, are you and me made in the image of God Himselves?

 

[The_Scotist]

Interesting topic. Regardless of the emotion or motivation behind the action, is not an action judged on it’s own merits? I mean, condemning someone to Hell cannot rightly be called an act of forgiveness, or an act of love (in any sense of the word) for the one condemned. Can it?

My dearest troll, stick to the subject at hand, namely the “emotions” of god.

 

[The_Scotist]

If god had human like emotions, he would be be less than perfect. They are analogies; when god is spoken of as shepherd protecting his flock that doesn’t mean god is a shepherd, but, rather he’s like a shepherd in his care for his creatures

 

[spockrates]

My dearest troll, stick to the subject at hand, namely the “emotions” of god.

Trolls eat goats; I’m simply trying to reason with BlueGoat. If you must compare me to a mythical creature, please call me an elf.

 

[spockrates]

If god had human like emotions, he would be be less than perfect. They are analogies; when god is spoken of as shepherd protecting his flock that doesn’t mean god is a shepherd, but, rather he’s like a shepherd in his care for his creatures

Well, then, my good Mr. Scott, if we are not made in the image of God insofar as our emotion of love is most like His own, then please tell me this: In what way, exactly, are you and I made in His image?

 

[spockrates]

http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/129052691092182586.jpg

Sorry, my mistake. That’s not chocolate. It’s egg.

 

[Bluegoat]

Usually we are understood to be made in his image in that we are spiritual, as well as material, beings, that is, we have immortal souls, and are thus rational and moral. This is unlike animals and plants, who are completely material beings with souls that are completely tied to their physical existence. If you read Genesis, you can see that the point of mentioning that man is made in God’s image is to differentiate him from the animal and natural world which is what had been created so far in the account.

If you want to use formal logic to examine a narrative, you need to translate the narrative style accurately into logic. Like any form of translation, a word for word or phrase for phrase approach will likely be inaccurate.

 

[spockrates]

Usually we are understood to be made in his image in that we are spiritual, as well as material, beings, that is, we have immortal souls, and are thus rational and moral. This is unlike animals and plants, who are completely material beings with souls that are completely tied to their physical existence. If you read Genesis, you can see that the point of mentioning that man is made in God’s image is to differentiate him from the animal and natural world which is what had been created so far in the account.

If you want to use formal logic to examine a narrative, you need to translate the narrative style accurately into logic. Like any form of translation, a word for word or phrase for phrase approach will likely be inaccurate.

I always endeavor to be accurate.

–Spock

Thank you, Goat. That is my aim to be accurate. What would you say is the accurate interpretation of these words?

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

(Ephesians 5:1-2)

Would you say it is accurate to say Saint Paul the Apostle wants us to imitate God in the way that He loves?

 

[The_Scotist]

Well, then, my good Mr. Scott, if we are not made in the image of God insofar as our emotion of love is most like His own, then please tell me this: In what way, exactly, are you and I made in His image?

“In his image he created them.”
What does that mean?
The torah writers highlight this aspect as being unique to humans and to god. Emotions aren’t unique to humans. Pigs can show affection, were they created in god’s image as well?
What the writers meant is vague but, here’s a list of possibly unique characteristics to humans; Free-will, immortality, consciousness. Take your pick.

Now, on what grounds do you assume that by “created in his image” means emotions like love? Is it the same as animal emotions? Or do they differ in some way and how?

 

[Bluegoat]

I always endeavor to be accurate.

–Spock

Thank you, Goat. That is my aim to be accurate. What would you say is the accurate interpretation of these words?

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

(Ephesians 5:1-2)

Would you say it is accurate to say Saint Paul the Apostle wants us to imitate God in the way that He loves?

Yes, but that does not mean we must get rid of our emotions, although we might redirect or even ignore them if they cause us to behave in a way that is improper. Like God’s love, ours is meant to be universal, particular, and unconditional.

Strictly speaking, love is not the emotion we feel at all. It might be more accurate to describe it as a certain emotion which tends to cause us to behave in a loving way.

 

[spockrates]

“In his image he created them.”
What does that mean?
The torah writers highlight this aspect as being unique to humans and to god. Emotions aren’t unique to humans. Pigs can show affection, were they created in god’s image as well?
What the writers meant is vague but, here’s a list of possibly unique characteristics to humans; Free-will, immortality, consciousness. Take your pick.

Now, on what grounds do you assume that by “created in his image” means emotions like love? Is it the same as animal emotions? Or do they differ in some way and how?

My wife and I are animal lovers. We have two cats and three dogs. They have emotions, it is true. They also have free will–just ask my wife who spent more than an hour chasing our jack russell terrier around the neighborhood. He chose to run away of his own free will, and refused to come back out of the same! Our dogs and cats are also conscious. Are they moral? They have an understanding of what is allowed and what is not. Our labradoodle, when he is caught doing something we have taught him not to do, runs to his kennel with his tail between his legs and lies down (which is where we send him when he does wrong). I would have to say, then, that the only characteristic we’ve considered thus far that might not applied to pets is immortality of the soul. Would you say, Mr. Scott, that this is the only way we are made in God’s image?

 

[spockrates]

Yes, but that does not mean we must get rid of our emotions, although we might redirect or even ignore them if they cause us to behave in a way that is improper. Like God’s love, ours is meant to be universal, particular, and unconditional.

Strictly speaking, love is not the emotion we feel at all. It might be more accurate to describe it as a certain emotion which tends to cause us to behave in a loving way.

But it cannot be true that love is an emotion and also false that love is an emotion. Either love is or is not an emotion, but it is impossible for love to both and not be an emotion. I see only four logical possibilities. Which do you choose, Goat?

1. 
   *]Love is an emotion that motivates but not an action
   *]Love is an action but not an emotion that motivates
   *]Love is both an emotion that motivates and an action
   *]Love is neither an emotion that motivates nor an action

 

[momor]

But it cannot be true that love is an emotion and also false that love is an emotion. Either love is or is not an emotion, but it is impossible for love to both and not be an emotion. I see only four logical possibilities. Which do you choose, Goat?

1. 
   *]Love is an emotion that motivates but not an action
   *]Love is an action but not an emotion that motivates
   *]Love is both an emotion that motivates and an action
   *]Love is neither an emotion that motivates nor an action

1. 
   Love is an act of will. Our will allows us to act contrary to our emotions, i.e., love your enemy.

 

[The_Scotist]

My wife and I are animal lovers. We have two cats and three dogs. They have emotions, it is true. They also have free will–just ask my wife who spent more than an hour chasing our jack russell terrier around the neighborhood. He chose to run away of his own free will, and refused to come back out of the same! Our dogs and cats are also conscious. Are they moral? They have an understanding of what is allowed and what is not. Our labradoodle, when he is caught doing something we have taught him not to do, runs to his kennel with his tail between his legs and lies down (which is where we send him when he does wrong). I would have to say, then, that the only characteristic we’ve considered thus far that might not applied to pets is immortality of the soul. Would you say, Mr. Scott, that this is the only way we are made in God’s image?

You’re begging the question. How can you be sure that you’re not giving them anthropomorphic qualities? How can you objectively (rather than subjectively) prove that they have free-will?

But, there are reasons to doubt animals have free-will; for example, how does natural selection benefit from free-will? It doesn’t, it is better if animals followed their pre-programed instincts for survival than them having any saying on how to survive. It is better for their survival (as Richard Dawkins would say) to be “ a lumbering robot,” than adding the unpredictable element of free-will.

Occam’s razor is your friend here, Mr. Spock.

And if animals have no free-will they can’t be immoral or moral. Your dog might understand that doing an action means going to the kennel, but, it doesn’t mean he understands that he did something “immoral…”and no, I am far from ascribing immortality as the only thing we’ve in common in god.

 

[momor]

I was listening to an Eastern Orthodox podcast the other day about God’s wrath, where the priest that was speaking said that while it do not exist within the Godhead, that God does have wrath and such towards created things. He also mentioned that (Roman) Catholics say that God doesn’t, that these manifestations of wrath, etc, are dependant upon people’s subjectivity. I never really thought about this, and I don’t know the Catholic teaching on this. Anyone care to clarify?

I think trying to understand the nature or attributes of God in human terms is unrealistic.
Instead He gave us His only Son Jesus to show us the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Jesus had the full range of human emotions so, in that sense, those emotions would be a part of God as well. However, Jesus had perfect control of His emotions, and always directed them to a perfect good.

 

[Bluegoat]

But it cannot be true that love is an emotion and also false that love is an emotion. Either love is or is not an emotion, but it is impossible for love to both and not be an emotion. I see only four logical possibilities. Which do you choose, Goat?

1. 
   *]Love is an emotion that motivates but not an action
   *]Love is an action but not an emotion that motivates
   *]Love is both an emotion that motivates and an action
   *]Love is neither an emotion that motivates nor an action

1. 
   I thought I had been clear; evidently I wasn’t. Love is not an emotion. In languages other than English this is more clear. We are stuck using the same word for the emotion and the thing itself, and really only have one word for the various types of love.

 

[Bluegoat]

My wife and I are animal lovers. We have two cats and three dogs. They have emotions, it is true. They also have free will–just ask my wife who spent more than an hour chasing our jack russell terrier around the neighborhood. He chose to run away of his own free will, and refused to come back out of the same! Our dogs and cats are also conscious. Are they moral? They have an understanding of what is allowed and what is not. Our labradoodle, when he is caught doing something we have taught him not to do, runs to his kennel with his tail between his legs and lies down (which is where we send him when he does wrong). I would have to say, then, that the only characteristic we’ve considered thus far that might not applied to pets is immortality of the soul. Would you say, Mr. Scott, that this is the only way we are made in God’s image?

Free-will is likely not what your dog used to decide to run away. Free will i the ability to go against one’s own instincts, or reasoning, or in some sense nature. Animals generally seem to lack this ability - they do what they decide. If you have done any reding in animal training you’ll perhaps see the difference - dogs do not say to themselves “I know tI shouldn’t do it, and I want to do the right thing, but I just keep eating the poo from the kennel. Oy ve!”

This is not the same as being conditioned through training, or other experiences, that an action will result in some sort of negative consequences.

It’s possible we are all incorrect about dogs, or other life forms, and if that were true and they were moral creatures, then they would indeed have immortal souls.

The statement that a soul is rational, moral, and immortal, is not really saying three things. These ideas are connected. They go together. Aristotle is good on this subject if you are interested.

 

[spockrates]

Love is an act of will. Our will allows us to act contrary to our emotions, i.e., love your enemy.

Then what is the emotion we call compassion, if it is not love? Or are you saying, Momor that there are two loves–one emotion, and one action?