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

[spockrates]

Why can’t condemnation be both and act of love and of justice?

Why would it be loving to force someone to be in your presence when they don’t want to be in your presence?

http://hadesenfer.ifrance.com/images/dante1.jpg

David:

Do you mean to suggest condemnation is an act of love toward the one condemned, or are you saying condemnation is an act of love toward those protected from the one condemned? If you mean the later, I can see that.

If you mean the former, I cannot yet see and hope you will please explain. I mean, if everyone in Hell were asked if, now that they’d tasted eternal condemnation, they’d choose to turn or continue to burn, I doubt any would fail to repent and be forgiven. But do you disagree?

 

[davidv]

http://hadesenfer.ifrance.com/images/dante1.jpg

David:

Do you mean to suggest condemnation is an act of love toward the one condemned, or are you saying condemnation is an act of love toward those protected from the one condemned? If you mean the later, I can see that.

If you mean the former, I cannot yet see and hope you will please explain. I mean, if everyone in Hell were asked if, now that they’d tasted eternal condemnation, they’d choose to turn or continue to burn, I doubt any would fail to repent and be forgiven. But do you disagree?

For those who are condemned, they chose this condition for themselve by desiring to be absent the presence of God. The loving God, having given the gift of free will, cannot force Himself on us. Therefore, in His Love, He allows us to have our way.

I’m not sure which of your descriptions above fit what I have attempt to describe.

 

[davidv]

Then I suppose you and I would be wise to become one of the unlikely ones!

Very wise indeed. Though I did not mean to say that we wouldn’t acheive some manner of that perfection as we grow in holiness.

 

[spockrates]

For those who are condemned, they chose this condition for themselve by desiring to be absent the presence of God. The loving God, having given the gift of free will, cannot force Himself on us. Therefore, in His Love, He allows us to have our way.

I’m not sure which of your descriptions above fit what I have attempt to describe.

I think it was the early Church father Irenaeus who reasoned that love is impossible without the freedom to choose to not love. In the light of this venerated wise man’s words, it might be more accurate to say for the sake of making love possible (rather than in His love) He allows us to have our own way.

But what about those who commit mortal sin and yet are deceived into believing there is no immortal God to which they must answer for their dreadful deeds. Do you think those so deceived and corrupt will end up in Hell?

 

[spockrates]

Very wise indeed. Though I did not mean to say that we wouldn’t acheive some manner of that perfection as we grow in holiness.

Perhaps, David. But I have to wonder if perfection in part, but not the whole, can rightly be called perfection. If one loves perfectly one day, but fails to love perfectly 99 other days in a row, would it be correct to say he was perfect because he was so 1% of the time? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say he is far from perfection, for 99% of the time he has failed to love perfectly? If it is better to say he is far from perfect, then what percent of the time would he have to love perfectly before we would say he has achieved perfection?



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

(Matthew 5:48)

Yet I’m not sure Jesus meant we are to be as perfect as we can be, but not quite as perfect as God. For what He commands is that we “be perfect … as [that is, in the same way as] your heavenly Father is perfect.” Doesn’t that mean we are to love just as perfectly as God loves?

 

[davidv]

I think it was the early Church father Irenaeus who reasoned that love is impossible without the freedom to choose to not love. In the light of this venerated wise man’s words, it might be more accurate to say for the sake of making love possible (rather than in His love) He allows us to have our own way.

But what about those who commit mortal sin and yet are deceived into believing there is no immortal God to which they must answer for their dreadful deeds. Do you think those so deceived and corrupt will end up in Hell?

Depends on why they were deceived. If deceived due to badly formed consciences, they have no excuse for their evil ways. I believe this is called willful ignorance.

Eve was deceived by the servant, for allowing herself to do so ended up with them been being kicked out of the garden.

 

[davidv]

Perhaps, David. But I have to wonder if perfection in part, but not the whole, can rightly be called perfection. If one loves perfectly one day, but fails to love perfectly 99 other days in a row, would it be correct to say he was perfect because he was so 1% of the time? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say he is far from perfection, for 99% of the time he has failed to love perfectly? If it is better to say he is far from perfect, then what percent of the time would he have to love perfectly before we would say he has achieved perfection?


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

(Matthew 5:48)
Yet I’m not sure Jesus meant we are to be as perfect as we can be, but not quite as perfect as God. For what He commands is that we “be perfect … as [that is, in the same way as] your heavenly Father is perfect.” Doesn’t that mean we are to love just as perfectly as God loves?

Here a few excerpts from the Catechism. To me these indicate there is no equaling our potential perfection with that of God’s.
CCC 1709:

He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God. This filial adoption transforms him by giving him the ability to follow the example of Christ. It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good. In union with his Savior, the disciple attains the perfection of charity which is holiness. Having matured in grace, the moral life blossoms into eternal life in the glory of heaven.

CCC:

"All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity."65 All are called to holiness: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."66

In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ’s gift, so that . . . doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints.

“All Christians . . . are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity” (*LG *40 § 2). “Christian perfection has but one limit, that of having none” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, De vita Mos.G 44, 300D).

 

[spockrates]

Depends on why they were deceived. If deceived due to badly formed consciences, they have no excuse for their evil ways. I believe this is called willful ignorance.

Eve was deceived by the servant, for allowing herself to do so ended up with them been being kicked out of the garden.

Perhaps they were kicked out not because Eve was deceived, but because Adam was not?

 

[spockrates]

Here a few excerpts from the Catechism. To me these indicate there is no equaling our potential perfection with that of God’s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCC 1709
He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God. This filial adoption transforms him by giving him the ability to follow the example of Christ. It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good. In union with his Savior, the disciple attains the perfection of charity which is holiness. Having matured in grace, the moral life blossoms into eternal life in the glory of heaven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCC, 2013
"All Christians in any state or walk of life are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity."65 All are called to holiness: "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."66 In order to reach this perfection the faithful should use the strength dealt out to them by Christ’s gift, so that . . . doing the will of the Father in everything, they may wholeheartedly devote themselves to the glory of God and to the service of their neighbor. Thus the holiness of the People of God will grow in fruitful abundance, as is clearly shown in the history of the Church through the lives of so many saints.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCC, 2028
“All Christians . . . are called to the fullness of Christian life and to the perfection of charity” (LG 40 § 2). “Christian perfection has but one limit, that of having none” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, De vita Mos.G 44, 300D).

Perhaps you are correct, David, for I’ve always thought it true that no one is perfect–especially not as perfect as God! Then again, a Catholic Thomist would say that Thomas Aquinas would disagree with you me.

I suppose considering whether moral perfection is possible is not as important ask knowing how to become more morally perfect than we are. The important thing, I think, is to follow Saint Paul the Apostle’s advice:

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and 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)

The current question I’ve been trying to answer is this: If I am to love as God loves, then how does He love? For instance, does He love without compassion, or is His love devoid of all emotion and merely action?

 

[davidv]

Perhaps you are correct, David, for I’ve always thought it true that no one is perfect–especially not as perfect as God! Then again, a Catholic Thomist would say that Thomas Aquinas would disagree with you me.

I suppose considering whether moral perfection is possible is not as important ask knowing how to become more morally perfect than we are. The important thing, I think, is to follow Saint Paul the Apostle’s advice:
Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and 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)
The current question I’ve been trying to answer is this: If I am to love as God loves, then how does He love? For instance, does He love without compassion, or is His love devoid of all emotion and merely action?

How does God love? Which complete unselfish self-giving, with the ultimate good of the recipient in mind. If we attempt to label this with human words, that mostly express emotion, they will fall far short of describing God’s love.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Perhaps you are correct, David, for I’ve always thought it true that no one is perfect–especially not as perfect as God! Then again, a Catholic Thomist would say that Thomas Aquinas would disagree with you me.

I suppose considering whether moral perfection is possible is not as important ask knowing how to become more morally perfect than we are. The important thing, I think, is to follow Saint Paul the Apostle’s advice:Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and 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)The current question I’ve been trying to answer is this: If I am to love as God loves, then how does He love? For instance, does He love without compassion, or is His love devoid of all emotion and merely action?

You have to separate the intellect from the body. Love is a movement of the intellect (pure soul). The angels love too. Love is to will the ultimate good of others and work towards it if it is within your power. The feeling of love is the effect on the body that the movement of Love in the intellect makes. Thus, we feel love. Notice that when I speak of the intellect i say will and when I speak of the body I say feel. This is because feeling is attached to the body, and willing is attached to the soul/intellect. Since God has no body He has no emotions. So any words He uses, such anger or jealousy, are metaphorical. Anger can prefigure what God will do if things do not change and jealousy prefigures that God wishes to reclaim is rightful place as the object of our hearts and minds.

So, thus in Ephesians we are to love as Christ loves us. That does not mean we are to love without emotion, but that we are to love regardless of emotion. That means our wills should be turned toward the ultimate good of others, no matter if we feel the affects of that turning. That is how Christ loved us. Christ has a body, and thus emotions, but He didn’t always feel all “lovey dovey” towards his apostles (He called Peter Satan once, thus calling him an enemy). But He loved them always, everything He did was toward their ultimate good. Christ’s emotions are also completely subject to His intellect now that He is glorified as it will be for us all.

Remember, emotion is not the love itself, but the effect of love. Since our bodies are fallen, we will not always feel the effects. Regardless anyway we are to love. Grace makes it possible, emotions make it easier.

So though God the Son may have emotions (may!), God the Father and Spirit definitely do not.

 

[spockrates]

How does God love? Which complete unselfish self-giving, with the ultimate good of the recipient in mind. If we attempt to label this with human words, that mostly express emotion, they will fall far short of describing God’s love.

Agreed, David! And thank you for answering.



And if this were only about Him, I suppose I could leave it a mystery, shrug my shoulders, and say, “Guess I won’t really know till I see His face!”

But it’s not just about Him. It’s about me. Jesus made it personal when He said,

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

(John 13:34-35)

As Jesus loved you and me, so I must love you. That is, I am to love others in the same way that God loves me. But if how God loves me remains a mystery, how is knowing how to love you the way He wants me to even possible?

The most compelling mystery about His love, at the moment, is whether He loves with compassion, or without. One Catholic here believes He loves with compassion, and so he agrees that means I should be compassionate, too. Other Catholics here tell me love is not compassion, but only action, and thus God has no compassion. From them I gather that I should live like my teacher Spock, and do my best to remove all feelings of love from my acts of love, for emotion is illogical, and only gets in the way of reason and morality.

To which camp of Catholics do you belong? The feel-love group, or the stoic rationalists? Or the still trying to figure it outs? (I’ve currently pitched my tent in camp three, but would like to break camp and join one of the other two.)

 

[spockrates]

You have to separate the intellect from the body. Love is a movement of the intellect (pure soul). The angels love too. Love is to will the ultimate good of others and work towards it if it is within your power. The feeling of love is the effect on the body that the movement of Love in the intellect makes. Thus, we feel love. Notice that when I speak of the intellect i say will and when I speak of the body I say feel. This is because feeling is attached to the body, and willing is attached to the soul/intellect. Since God has no body He has no emotions. So any words He uses, such anger or jealousy, are metaphorical. Anger can prefigure what God will do if things do not change and jealousy prefigures that God wishes to reclaim is rightful place as the object of our hearts and minds.

So, thus in Ephesians we are to love as Christ loves us. That does not mean we are to love without emotion, but that we are to love regardless of emotion. That means our wills should be turned toward the ultimate good of others, no matter if we feel the affects of that turning. That is how Christ loved us. Christ has a body, and thus emotions, but He didn’t always feel all “lovey dovey” towards his apostles (He called Peter Satan once, thus calling him an enemy). But He loved them always, everything He did was toward their ultimate good. Christ’s emotions are also completely subject to His intellect now that He is glorified as it will be for us all.

Remember, emotion is not the love itself, but the effect of love. Since our bodies are fallen, we will not always feel the effects. Regardless anyway we are to love. Grace makes it possible, emotions make it easier.

So though God the Son may have emotions (may!), God the Father and Spirit definitely do not.

Fascinating, Questioner! I never considered that before now. Here I was thinking that love might possibly be an emotion in the soul and body that cause acts of benevolence done by the soul and body. Yet, you’ve turned that idea on its head! You now tell me that love has two categories–love in the body (which is emotion without action) and love in the soul (which is action without emotion). I’ll say it again: Fascinating!



Now I’m eager to determine whether this is the truth. For if it is, I should certainly become more like Spock (who did his best to rid himself of all emotional hindrances) and less like Socrates (who placed great value on expressing compassion and passion governed by reason).

With the goal of proving the truth of your idea, please let me ask this question: The Devil–does he feel hate? Or is hatred, like love, pure action without emotion?

 

[davidv]

Agreed, David! And thank you for answering.



And if this were only about Him, I suppose I could leave it a mystery, shrug my shoulders, and say, “Guess I won’t really know till I see His face!”

But it’s not just about Him. It’s about me. Jesus made it personal when He said,
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

(John 13:34-35)
As Jesus loved you and me, so I must love you. That is, I am to love others in the same way that God loves me. But if how God loves me remains a mystery, how is knowing how to love you the way He wants me to even possible?

The most compelling mystery about His love, at the moment, is whether He loves with compassion, or without. One Catholic here believes He loves with compassion, and so he agrees that means I should be compassionate, too. Other Catholics here tell me love is not compassion, but only action, and thus God has no compassion. From them I gather that I should live like my teacher Spock, and do my best to remove all feelings of love from my acts of love, for emotion is illogical, and only gets in the way of reason and morality.

To which camp of Catholics do you belong? The feel-love group, or the stoic rationalists? Or the still trying to figure it outs? (I’ve currently pitched my tent in camp three, but would like to break camp and join one of the other two.)

The problem, as presented, is a false dilemma. Neither camp is completely right or completely wrong. So I won’t claim any of the proposed labels for myself.

How do you define “compassion” as you used it above?

For me love in not just action. It is however always active, that is, it is an act of the will, which preceeds any action. The first result of this act of will is the attitude of desiring the best for the beloved.

 

[spockrates]

The problem, as presented, is a false dilemma. Neither camp is completely right or completely wrong. So I won’t claim any of the proposed labels for myself.

How do you define “compassion” as you used it above?

For me love in not just action. It is however always active, that is, it is an act of the will, which preceeds any action. The first result of this act of will is the attitude of desiring the best for the beloved.

I’d agree with that. I’d say love is a feeling of good will toward the one loved. But are not attitude and desire synonyms for feelings? I’m thinking that love is both a feeling of the will and an act of the will–it’s both compassion and action.

It seems to me that compassion without action is not true love, but a kind of false love.

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

(1 John 3:18)

It also seems to me that committing an act of love without any feeling of good will is not genuine love, but a disingenuous love.

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.

(Romans 12:9-10)

Can a love devoid of any feeling of good will be sincerely love?

So if you are saying that both are necessary to love sincerely, David, then I’d see no logical way to disagree with you.

 

[davidv]

I’d agree with that. I’d say love is a feeling of good will toward the one loved. But are not attitude and desire synonyms for feelings?

They might be, not not exclusively. One can take on the attitude of love without the feelings. Could you have the feelings necessary to love your enemy as the Lord commands?

I’m thinking that love is both a feeling of the will and an act of the will–it’s both compassion and action.

Defining love as a feeling sells it short in my mind. It also confuses the intellective aspect of the soul with the passions (desires) of the soul.

It seems to me that compassion without action is not true love, but a kind of false love.
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

(1 John 3:18)

I don’t understand how one could have compassion without love.

It also seems to me that committing an act of love without any feeling of good will is not genuine love, but a disingenuous love.
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love.

(Romans 12:9-10)

I agree. It isn’t any kind of love and in fact may be a sin.

Can a love devoid of any feeling of good will be sincerely love?

No, I believe that good will is a necessary component of love.

So if you are saying that both are necessary to love sincerely, David, then I’d see no logical way to disagree with you.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Fascinating, Questioner! I never considered that before now. Here I was thinking that love might possibly be an emotion in the soul and body that cause acts of benevolence done by the soul and body. Yet, you’ve turned that idea on its head! You now tell me that love has two categories–love in the body (which is emotion without action) and love in the soul (which is action without emotion). I’ll say it again: Fascinating!



Now I’m eager to determine whether this is the truth. For if it is, I should certainly become more like Spock (who did his best to rid himself of all emotional hindrances) and less like Socrates (who placed great value on expressing compassion and passion governed by reason).

With the goal of proving the truth of your idea, please let me ask this question: The Devil–does he feel hate? Or is hatred, like love, pure action without emotion?

Love is not a physical action, but an action of the will (non-physical). Don’t get those two things mixed.

According to Aquinas, Satan and his angels can only commit two of the seven deadly sins, envy and pride. This is because the rest are linked to the body. Wrath, lust, greed, gluttony, sloth, are all linked to bodies. So satan too does not get angry, but hates God and all mankind. Just as to love is a turning of the will toward God, so to hate is a turning of the will away from God, who is Love. So hatred too is an action of the will. It is to wish someone’s worst end and work towards it whenever necessary. Why do you think John says “God is Love”? To turn away from God is to turn away from Love. Hatred is a deficiency in love.

Also, the goal is not to cut yourself off from your feelings. We are human beings and have both passions and intellect. Our passions are not evil, they are made by God, but due to the fall they became rebellious and fluctuate (like when you are angry at someone when you know you have no real reason to be). Still, feelings of joy, happiness, calm, excitement and even the emotional aspect of love are good things, and if you cut yourself off from feelings then you lose apart of what makes you human. You must rather learn how to subdue them with God’s help, but when they become too much ask God to help you to subdue them or ignore them. Why do you think there is a resurrection? We humans must have our bodies to be complete. Spockrates is a good place to be. One cannot be a slave to ones emotions, neither should one be a cold and unfeeling being.

As per proofs, I think this should help.

newadvent.org/cathen/11534a.htm

 

[spockrates]

They might be, not not exclusively. One can take on the attitude of love without the feelings. Could you have the feelings necessary to love your enemy as the Lord commands?

Thanks again for replying, Davie. It might help to consider the definitions of attitude:

**at·ti·tude
 **
 /ˈætɪˌtud, -ˌtyud/ Show Spelled[at-i-tood, -tyood]
–noun

1. manner, disposition, feeling, position, etc., with regard to a person or thing; tendency or orientation, esp. of the mind: a negative attitude; group attitudes.
2. position or posture of the body appropriate to or expressive of an action, emotion, etc.: a threatening attitude; a relaxed attitude.
3. Aeronautics. the inclination of the three principal axes of an aircraft relative to the wind, to the ground, etc.
4. Ballet. a pose in which the dancer stands on one leg, the other bent behind.

It seems that the only definitions of attitude that apply to you and me indicate that attitude is (1) a feeling or (2) an emotion.

Is it possible to have a feeling or emotion of compassion for an enemy? I believe it is possible with God’s empowerment. I’m somewhat ignorant of Church history, but I imagine there are many martyrs who followed Christ’s example in praying, at the hours of their executions,

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

(Luke 23:24)

Isn’t such a prayer an example of expressing the feeling and emotion of compassion for one’s enemies?

Defining love as a feeling sells it short in my mind. It also confuses the intellective aspect of the soul with the passions (desires) of the soul.

I don’t understand how one could have compassion without love.

Yes, and I’m trying to understand how one can have love without compassion.

I agree. It isn’t any kind of love and in fact may be a sin.

No, I believe that good will is a necessary component of love.

Yes, logic and Sacred Scripture indicates genuine love is both action and compassion. Although I’m a new Catholic and ignorant of Church tradition and teaching, I imaging both would say the same.



Do you also agree, then, that God loves you and me with both action and compassion?

 

[spockrates]

Love is not a physical action, but an action of the will (non-physical). Don’t get those two things mixed.

According to Aquinas, Satan and his angels can only commit two of the seven deadly sins, envy and pride. This is because the rest are linked to the body. Wrath, lust, greed, gluttony, sloth, are all linked to bodies. So satan too does not get angry, but hates God and all mankind. Just as to love is a turning of the will toward God, so to hate is a turning of the will away from God, who is Love. So hatred too is an action of the will. It is to wish someone’s worst end and work towards it whenever necessary. Why do you think John says “God is Love”? To turn away from God is to turn away from Love. Hatred is a deficiency in love.
…

Fascinating. Until this moment, I never considered the idea that hate was anything but an emotion. Are you saying these common dictionary definitions of hate are incorrect? Or do you think that our hatred is an intense feeling but the Devil’s hatred is stoic?

hate
 
 /heɪt/ Show Spelled [heyt] verb,hat·ed, hat·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
   –verb (used without object)
3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
   –noun
4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Fascinating. Until this moment, I never considered the idea that hate was anything but an emotion. Are you saying these common dictionary definitions of hate are incorrect? Or do you think that our hatred is an intense feeling but the Devil’s hatred is stoic?
hate
 
 /heɪt/ Show Spelled [heyt] verb,hat·ed, hat·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
   –verb (used without object)
3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
   –noun
4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.

First. I think meaning 5 best exemplifies hatred.

Second, your method of debate is somewhat dishonest. Instead of outright saying you disagree, you try to set up a false dichotomy to make your opponent seem ridiculous. Theological meanings differ from everyday usage, so trying to compare my words with the dictionary in hopes to make me look ridiculous does not phase me. Still, number 5 is the best, it shows no hint of emotion, just an extreme aversion.

Whereas the devil’s hatred is stoic, ours can be both stoic and passionate since we are humans. Number 5 works for spirit creatures, but the rest works well for all humans.

EDIT: In fact as I look at these again, only meaning 1 implies that emotion (passionate) is part of hatred. The rest do not. So I’ll have to ask you, do your definitions of hatred match up the the dictionary?