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

[spockrates]

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.

Oh, beam me up, Scotty! I cannot believe my pointy ears!



Please let me ask you this: Isn’t the example I gave proof of free will in animals, or at least in dogs? If it was not, then it was a matter of genetics only. And if it was a matter of genetics only, then the jack russell terrier would, without exception, always choose to run away when the opportunity presented itself. If he had no free will at all, there would be no use in bringing him to obedience school or trying to train him out of a bad behavior, for his instincts would control his actions every time; he’d never have any choice to act any differently.

If that is the case, then you and I ought to mock people to bring their dogs to obedience training classes, and laugh at the fraud of TV shows like The Dog Whisperer, for a dog can never choose one action over another due to its lack of freedom of will. However, having brought our three dogs to obedience training, I’ve seen first hand that they can indeed be trained to choose between what they want to do and what we want them to do. Since they can choose between one behavior or another, doesn’t that mean they have free will? If not, then please explain why not?

 

[spockrates]

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.

Sorry for my kicking at the goads, Goat but I’ve got to know! You were indeed clear in explaining *what *you believe, but not yet clear in *why *you believe. Why do you believe that love is always action and *never **ever *emotion? Why, for example, is compassion *not *love? Please explain.

 

[Bluegoat]

Sorry for my kicking at the goads, Goat but I’ve got to know! You were indeed clear in explaining *what *you believe, but not yet clear in *why *you believe. Why do you believe that love is always action and *never **ever *emotion? Why, for example, is compassion *not *love? Please explain.

Are you asking me a language question or a philosophical question?

Talking about compassion might muddy the waters more than anything.

I’m not quite sure where to start that will make sense to you. Perhaps, if it is an honest question, you could tell me why you think an emotion is, or what you think love is, and I can give you an explanation in terms of that. Being such a devotee of logic, I assume you have some idea about non-material unchanging principles?

You are not going to get anywhere in your dog discussion, your understanding of what free will means is inaccurate.

 

[The_Scotist]

Oh, beam me up, Scotty! I cannot believe my pointy ears!



Please let me ask you this: Isn’t the example I gave proof of free will in animals, or at least in dogs? If it was not, then it was a matter of genetics only. And if it was a matter of genetics only, then the jack russell terrier would, without exception, always choose to run away when the opportunity presented itself. If he had no free will at all, there would be no use in bringing him to obedience school or trying to train him out of a bad behavior, for his instincts would control his actions every time; he’d never have any choice to act any differently.

If that is the case, then you and I ought to mock people to bring their dogs to obedience training classes, and laugh at the fraud of TV shows like The Dog Whisperer, for a dog can never choose one action over another due to its lack of freedom of will. However, having brought our three dogs to obedience training, I’ve seen first hand that they can indeed be trained to choose between what they want to do and what we want them to do. Since they can choose between one behavior or another, doesn’t that mean they have free will? If not, then please explain why not?

“Isn’t the example I gave proof of free will in animals, or at least in dogs?” Not in the least.

“if it was a matter of genetics only, then the jack Russell terrier would, without exception, always choose to run away when the opportunity presented itself,” no, if it’s a matter of genetics only, then any talk of choice would be superfluous.

I’ll break it down for you: Free-will is the ability to choose an opposite action or to fail to execute an action at any given time. You have yet to show if animals possess this quality.

In other words, how do you know that animals can freely choose between running away and staying put? How do you know there’s any choice involved? How can you prove that animals could have taken the opposite action at any given time?

 

[momor]

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?

That is one way to look at it. I could also say there is love as Jesus defines it, which is the act of will. Then there is love as humans usually define it (especially the current Western definition) which is a feeling.

Compassion could be love, but it could also be self-serving (it makes ME feel good) or it could even be selfish (if I treat him nice he’ll do good things for me).
Self-serving compassion is likely to cease if the good feeling stops.
Selfish compassion will cease once it fails to bring about the end it seeks.

Christic love is always about the good of the other, human love is often just about self.

 

[momor]

Oh, beam me up, Scotty! I cannot believe my pointy ears!



Please let me ask you this: Isn’t the example I gave proof of free will in animals, or at least in dogs? If it was not, then it was a matter of genetics only. And if it was a matter of genetics only, then the jack russell terrier would, without exception, always choose to run away when the opportunity presented itself. If he had no free will at all, there would be no use in bringing him to obedience school or trying to train him out of a bad behavior, for his instincts would control his actions every time; **he’d never have any choice to act any differently. **

Interesting topic.
I think free will implies having the ability to weigh options and make a choice.

I suspect dogs act more on impulse than on choice. Does a dog weigh the risk of punishment before acting on it’s impulse to run away and chooses to disobey anyway? Or does it only become aware of the risk of punishment when it sees your reaction and makes the association with past punishment? We can’t even be sure the dog makes the connection between running away and punishment or if it’s simply that when it sees a particular reaction in it’s master, it knows a punishment is coming.

 

[Bluegoat]

Interesting topic.
I think free will implies having the ability to weigh options and make a choice.

I suspect dogs act more on impulse than on choice. Does a dog weigh the risk of punishment before acting on it’s impulse to run away and chooses to disobey anyway? Or does it only become aware of the risk of punishment when it sees your reaction and makes the association with past punishment? We can’t even be sure the dog makes the connection between running away and punishment or if it’s simply that when it sees a particular reaction in it’s master, it knows a punishment is coming.

Dogs obviously have their instinctual drives and some ability to reason, and I think most dog trainers say operant conditioning works well with dogs, but that surely could not be considered an exercise in free will.

 

[spockrates]

Are you asking me a language question or a philosophical question?

Haven’t given the type of question I’m asking much thought. What is the difference between the two questions, in your view?

Talking about compassion might muddy the waters more than anything.

I suppose that in trying to understand what you are saying, it’s already clear as mud!

I’m not quite sure where to start that will make sense to you. Perhaps, if it is an honest question, you could tell me why you think an emotion is, or what you think love is, and I can give you an explanation in terms of that. Being such a devotee of logic, I assume you have some idea about non-material unchanging principles?

If you mean by honest question that I’m asking in order to sincerely try to understand what you are saying and why it is true, then yes, I’m asking honest questions.



But it would be rude to ask questions and never answer them. So I should do my best to answer yours. Please tell me how close I am to the truth. An emotion is a feeling of pain or pleasure of the mind, though perhaps not the body. It is mute, being unable to communicate to the one who feels it why it produces such a sensation, though it is unmistakable. It might help to compare a virtue that is an emotion to a virtue that is rational thought, and personify the two. Let’s briefly compare Hope and Faith.

Hope is a feeling, for one can feel hopeful. She is a necessary virtue, for without her how could anyone go on living? Hope, however, can only console us with the comforting caress she freely gives us. Being only a feeling of expectation of some future benefit, she communicates what she feels but is mute. Thus, she cannot speak to us in intelligible words and explain why she feels. For that, she requires the assistance of her sister Faith. Faith works with hope to convince us to trust in the truth about that in which we feel hopeful. Where her sister Hope consoles, Faith reasons. Thus, she puts into words why we hope, to help us understand and to increase our hope. Like Hope, Faith requires the assistance of her sister to benefit those who have her. For Faith generously explains why we should believe, but can give us no feelings of hope to sustain us.

Love is like Faith’s sister in that she is an emotion that motivates us to act according to the will of God. She is also like her cousin Hope in that she gives us no words to help us, but only feelings to motivate us (in this case, the feeling of compassion). What we call an act of love is not love at all, but merely the end result of her desire instilled in us after it becomes actualized. Like Hope, Love also has a sister who cooperates with her for the benefit of those who have them both. Where Love gives us feelings of compassion to motivate us, her sister gives us words of reason to guide us to love as God desires that we love. Can you guess her sister’s name?

Whether all four virtues are eternal, I do not know. It seems to me Love and her sister are, for they are attributes of God Himself. But whether Hope and Faith survive the grave and warmly embrace you and I in heaven is something I have yet to determine with any certainty. However, I’d love to hear your thoughts and seriously consider them!

 

[spockrates]

“Isn’t the example I gave proof of free will in animals, or at least in dogs?” Not in the least.

“if it was a matter of genetics only, then the jack Russell terrier would, without exception, always choose to run away when the opportunity presented itself,” no, if it’s a matter of genetics only, then any talk of choice would be superfluous.

I’ll break it down for you: Free-will is the ability to choose an opposite action or to fail to execute an action at any given time. You have yet to show if animals possess this quality.

In other words, how do you know that animals can freely choose between running away and staying put? How do you know there’s any choice involved? How can you prove that animals could have taken the opposite action at any given time?

Yes, I see what you mean, Mr. Scott. Unless you or I become a dog for a day, how can we know for certain whether they have any choice? However, I think there are two sides to the coin of truth you flipped: You, not being a dog, cannot say with any certainty that dogs have no choice any more than I can say they do! Let’s say, therefor, that we honestly don’t know for certain either way.

 

[spockrates]

That is one way to look at it. I could also say there is love as Jesus defines it, which is the act of will. Then there is love as humans usually define it (especially the current Western definition) which is a feeling.

Compassion could be love, but it could also be self-serving (it makes ME feel good) or it could even be selfish (if I treat him nice he’ll do good things for me).
Self-serving compassion is likely to cease if the good feeling stops.
Selfish compassion will cease once it fails to bring about the end it seeks.

Christic love is always about the good of the other, human love is often just about self.

Interesting Momor. I’m thinking of self-love as being different from compassion, and compassion as being love for others but not for oneself.



But let’s continue to consider how God loves and how we ought to love others. Do you still maintain that God has no feelings of love at all but only loves by action devoid of the sensations of passion and compassion?

 

[momor]

Interesting Momor. I’m thinking of self-love as being different from compassion, and compassion as being love for others but not for oneself.



But let’s continue to consider how God loves and how we ought to love others. Do you still maintain that God has no feelings of love at all but only loves by action devoid of the sensations of passion and compassion?

Here’s a thought. Isn’t it possible for self-love to be selfish or compassionate (at different times)?

As to whether God has feelings, I would say that the human emotions that Jesus has as a man must necessarily be part of God. I suppose God could love with great emotion and passion. The descriptions of being united with God in heaven are always ecstatic ones. So perhaps that is how He loves us as well. I do know that He made it clear He didn’t consider it necessary for us here on earth.

Matthew Chapter 5:
43 "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Perhaps a study of the writings of the saints would indicate if they perfected their capacity to love so much that they came to feel the emotion of love even in distasteful situations. I think there might have been something about that regarding St. Francis and lepers. If they did, I suppose that could be at least a dim reflection of God’s love.

 

[spockrates]

Here’s a thought. Isn’t it possible for self-love to be selfish or compassionate (at different times)?

Please give me an example; I cannot think of one myself.

As to whether God has feelings, I would say that the human emotions that Jesus has as a man must necessarily be part of God. I suppose God could love with great emotion and passion. The descriptions of being united with God in heaven are always ecstatic ones. So perhaps that is how He loves us as well. I do know that He made it clear He didn’t consider it necessary for us here on earth.

Matthew Chapter 5:
43 "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Perhaps a study of the writings of the saints would indicate if they perfected their capacity to love so much that they came to feel the emotion of love even in distasteful situations. I think there might have been something about that regarding St. Francis and lepers. If they did, I suppose that could be at least a dim reflection of God’s love.

Yes, perhaps. Know any good quotes from one of the venerated Church patriarchs?



So is your thought is that Jesus was not asking us to have compassion for our enemies but to love them any way?

 

[momor]

Please give me an example; I cannot think of one myself.

Selfish self-love = spending money the family cannot afford to pamper one’s self even though the pampering may be well deserved.
Compassionate self-love = not beating one’s self up over sinful failings.

Yes, perhaps. Know any good quotes from one of the venerated Church patriarchs?



Sorry. I’m not that familiar with the Patriarchs.

So is your thought is that Jesus was not asking us to have compassion for our enemies but to love them any way?



Ideally, I would guess he’d like us to have both; the warm and fuzzy emotion of compassion and the loving action (which is naturally going to appear compassionate to the recipient).

 

[spockrates]

Selfish self-love = spending money the family cannot afford to pamper one’s self even though the pampering may be well deserved.
Compassionate self-love = not beating one’s self up over sinful failings.

Sorry, I was not clear. Please give me an example of love being selfish and at the same time compassionate. I cannot think of such an example, for an act of love might be selfish, or compassionate, but not both selfish and compassionate at the same time. Don’t you agree?

Sorry. I’m not that familiar with the Patriarchs.

That’s OK; neither am I! I’m a new Catholic convert (or revert).

Ideally, I would guess he’d like us to have both; the warm and fuzzy emotion of compassion and the loving action (which is naturally going to appear compassionate to the recipient).

Yes, I believe you are right.



Jesus also said this:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

(Matthew 5:48)

Would you say it is more perfect, or less perfect, when I meet the ideal of loving others with both compassion and action? That is, what is more perfect–to commit an act of love with compassion, or to commit an act of love without compassion?

 

[momor]

Sorry, I was not clear. Please give me an example of love being selfish and at the same time compassionate. I cannot think of such an example, for an act of love might be selfish, or compassionate, but not both selfish and compassionate at the same time. Don’t you agree?

Yes, I agree, not at the same time. This was my original post.

Here’s a thought. Isn’t it possible for self-love to be selfish or compassionate (at different times)?

Would you say it is more perfect, or less perfect, when I meet the ideal of loving others with both compassion and action? That is, what is more perfect–to commit an act of love with compassion, or to commit an act of love without compassion?



I would have to say that loving without compassion is more perfect. That is what Jesus knew would be the most difficult for us to accept since it goes against our broken human nature.

Here’s a question for you. Do you think Spock was capable of perfect love or was he made incapable by his human nature? Would a full blooded Vulcan be capable of perfect love?

 

[spockrates]

Here’s a question for you. Do you think Spock was capable of perfect love or was he made incapable by his human nature? Would a full blooded Vulcan be capable of perfect love?

Perhaps you are unaware of Vulcan history and psychology, Momor. Please consider this citation from Wikipedia.org:

Vulcans, as a matter of custom and policy, suppress or think past all emotional influence by living lives of rigid emotional self-control through meditative techniques and training of mental discipline. Vulcans are not depicted as having no emotions; although they themselves make this claim, Vulcans are a very emotional people. They developed techniques to suppress their emotions precisely because of the damage they can cause if unchecked. In one episode of Star Trek: Voyager, Tuvok explains that Vulcans’ natural emotions are “erratic and volatile”; if Vulcans do not strongly repress emotions, they can get violently angry in an instant. T’Pol once stated that paranoia and homicidal rage were common on Vulcan prior to the adoption of Surak’s code of emotional control. In the original series episode “The Savage Curtain”, Spock meets Surak and displays emotion, for which Surak reprimands him, and he asks forgiveness.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_%28Star_Trek%29

Vulcans might actually be capable of deeper feelings than humans, and these feelings, unchecked, nearly resulted in the extinction of their race. When overcome by rage, which is rare, they are actually more violent than you or I, or at least have less control over their actions then you or I might have in a fit of rage. One example is where Spock tried to strangle Kirk in the latest Star Trek movie.

The latest Star Trek movie also provides evidence that Vulcans have not evolved to the point where they are devoid of all emotion. After his mother’s death, Spock, who is half human, confided in his father that he had doubts he could be successful as a leader since he had imperfect human emotion of anger toward the one who was responsible for his mother’s murder and the destruction of his home world. His father, being pure Vulcan, confessed that the reason he married his mother was that he felt deep love for her. Thus, he admitted the unspeakable truth that Vulcans are capable of emotion. He advised his son that the moral thing to do was to act on his emotions and bring the murderer to justice.

But to answer your questions, yes, I would think that an act of love that is committed without compassion is less than perfect. Saint Paul the Apostle appears to agree:

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

(1 Corinthians 13)

The Apostle is saying that if our actions are correct, but they are not motivated by compassion, then they are nothing in the eyes of God. Don’t you agree?

 

[momor]

But to answer your questions, yes, I would think that an act of love that is committed without compassion is less than perfect. Saint Paul the Apostle appears to agree:

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

(1 Corinthians 13)

The Apostle is saying that if our actions are correct, but they are not motivated by compassion, then they are nothing in the eyes of God. Don’t you agree?

Sorry, I don’t think that’s what St. Paul was talking about. Substitute love for compassion in your sentence above and I can agree.
I still hold that love and compassion are not necessarily the same thing and one can exist without the other.

 

[Bussi]

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?

It is a sin for us as humans to condemn someone to hell. By the same token we can and some of us do condemn ourselves to hell by rejecting God himself and His ways by not repenting of mortal sins, final impenitence. However, unlike the fallen angels who denied themselves the beatific vision by the “Non Serviam,” the “I will not Serve” declaration, we have multiple chances throughout our lives to fall and “rise” again through God’s mrcy and forgiveness.

The fallen angels knew full well the consequences of their choices, yet still did it, thereby condemning themselves irrevocably to hell. They put themselves there, not God. We can do the same…

God has been merciful to us, he has not given us the same level of understanding or knowledge the angels all had (and still have). Though we can always utter a “Non Serviam,” we do not have to suffer the same consequences they did. God in his great mercy and love has provided us way to avoid going to hell in spite of our sinfulness. We have a lifetime of chances to sin but unlike the angels we have limitations in our nature, We can always repent of our sins and get back in God’s graces…confession.

We can always “blow it!” We must be constantly on guard, take advantage of the grace we receive through the Sacraments and live a holy life in the hope of gaining the Beatific Vision.

God Bless…

Bussi

 

[momor]

The Apostle is saying that if our actions are correct, but they are not motivated by compassion, then they are nothing in the eyes of God. Don’t you agree?

It just occurred to me that perhaps what you are saying is that actions that appear loving are meaningless to God unless they are done with love for God and/or neighbor. Is that what you mean by compassion?

If so, I think we are on the same page. I can, through an act of will, commit a loving (compassionate) action to fulfill God’s command to love my neighbor (thereby loving God also), even if I don’t feel compassionate (loving) towards my neighbor.

Do we agree?

 

[spockrates]

Sorry, I don’t think that’s what St. Paul was talking about. Substitute love for compassion in your sentence above and I can agree.
I still hold that love and compassion are not necessarily the same thing and one can exist without the other.

Perhaps you are correct; that remains to be seen. Your answer to this question will get us closer to the truth, I hope:

If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

(1 Corinthians 13:3)

When are giving all one possesses to the poor and dying a martyr NOT acts of love?