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

[spockrates]

First. I think meaning 5 best exemplifies hatred.

I hope you won’t hate me for saying so, Questioner, but I’m thinking the object of hatred is the one hated, not the one doing the hating. For example, if I were to say God is the object of my faith, I’d be referring to Him, but not to me. Please explain how (5) applies to the Devil, since he is not the object of his own 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.

My apologies. I tell you the truth that it is not my intention to make you look bad, but I can see how using the dictionary might bring you to that false impression. In fact, I do not disagree with you, but I need more information before I can agree. The dictionary, I thought, was a good starting point to coming to an understanding of why you believe, as the dictionary definitions are something on which most people find common ground to agree.

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.

It sounds like you are saying the Catholic Church’s definition of hatred is different from the dictionary’s definition of hatred. Do you have an example from the Catechism or from some other source?

Still, number 5 is the best, it shows no hint of emotion, just an extreme aversion.

But wouldn’t that mean that hate is you and me? For you and me are the objects of the Devil’s hatred.

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.

Perhaps it would be best to say that you and I are capable of hatred, but the Devil is not? Perhaps it is better to say the Devil feels no emotion, which makes him even more evil. Rather that losing self-control and acting out of rage, he is cold and calculating and completely unemotional in his attempts to destroy you and I. And as the one they follow, demons might also be cold and calculating and unemotional in their efforts to harm us. For example, I can imagine a demon (if there is one) trying to keep you or I from the truth calmly and rationally working to keep us from coming to an understanding of one another.

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?

I imagine that Spock would say the following words do describe emotions:

• dislike
• feel
• aversion
• hostility
• detest

But do you disagree, Questioner?

 

[TheQuestioner]

I hope you won’t hate me for saying so, Questioner, but I’m thinking the object of hatred is the one hated, not the one doing the hating. For example, if I were to say God is the object of my faith, I’d be referring to Him, but not to me. Please explain how (5) applies to the Devil, since he is not the object of his own hatred.

You are right on the dot. When people say they “hate” someone, they often are referring to their feelings about that person. But those feelings have a background. When we say we hate someone it has to do with our “aversion” to them, that is, how they stand in comparison to us. This is what it means when Satan “hates” something. He is comparing that person’s standing in regard to his own.

My apologies. I tell you the truth that it is not my intention to make you look bad, but I can see how using the dictionary might bring you to that false impression. In fact, I do not disagree with you, but I need more information before I can agree. The dictionary, I thought, was a good starting point to coming to an understanding of why you believe, as the dictionary definitions are something on which most people find common ground to agree.

Yes, but the common dictionary does not work in all situations. For example, if I were to say BLAST you would think of an explosion, when really I would be referring to the program that sequences DNA and Proteins and compares them to other genome sequences. You need the right dictionary.

It sounds like you are saying the Catholic Church’s definition of hatred is different from the dictionary’s definition of hatred. Do you have an example from the Catechism or from some other source?

Gain, you have to watch which dictionary you are using. From the Catholic Encyclopedia on hatred as a passion:
Hatred in general is a vehement aversion entertained by one person for another, or for something more or less identified with that other. Theologians commonly mention two distinct species of this passion.

• One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.
• The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.

To establish and preserve harmony in the individual, it is necessary that the spirit rule, and that the flesh be made obedient to it. The spirit must set itself free from the tyranny of the passions in the flesh. It must free itself by the renunciation of all those unlawful things which our lower nature craves, that right order may be established and preserved in the relations of our higher and lower nature. The flesh and its appetites, if allowed, will throw everything into confusion and vitiate our whole nature by sin and its consequences. It is therefore man’s duty to control and regulate it by reason and a strong will aided by God’s grace.

However, our passions can be used toward good when controlled.

I was going to post some excerpts of this, but but it is too long. Please read it on your own time. You may find it informative: newadvent.org/cathen/01656a.htm

You have to separate “passions” from “appetites”. You see them as the same thing. Hopefully this article can clear it up.

 

[TheQuestioner]

here is a small excerpt anyway, though I encourage you to read the whole thing

. Finally, in conscious beings, it is not restricted to organic needs or lower tendencies, but extends to the highest and noblest aspirations. Two main kinds of appetite are recognized by the scholastics; one unconscious, or naturalis; the other conscious, or elicitus, subdivided into sensitive and rational. From their very nature, all beings have certain tendencies, affinities, and forms of activity. The term natural appetite includes all these. It means the inclination of a thing to that which is in accord with its nature, without any knowledge of the reason why such a thing is appetible. This tendency originates immediately in the nature of each being, and remotely in God, the author of that nature (Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxv, art. 1). The appetitus elicitus follows knowledge. Knowledge is the possession by the mind of an object in its ideal form, whereas appetite is the tendency towards the thing thus known, but considered in its objective reality (Quæst. disp., De veritate, Q. xxii, a. 10). But as knowledge is of two specifically different kinds, so also is the appetite (Summa Theol., I, Q. lxxx, a. 2). The appetitus sensitivus, also called animalis, follows sense-cognition. It is an essentially organic faculty; its functions are not functions of the soul alone, but of the body also.

 

[spockrates]

You are right on the dot. When people say they “hate” someone, they often are referring to their feelings about that person. But those feelings have a background. When we say we hate someone it has to do with our “aversion” to them, that is, how they stand in comparison to us. This is what it means when Satan “hates” something. He is comparing that person’s standing in regard to his own.

Thank you for saying so.

Yes, but the common dictionary does not work in all situations. For example, if I were to say BLAST you would think of an explosion, when really I would be referring to the program that sequences DNA and Proteins and compares them to other genome sequences. You need the right dictionary.

Agreed.

Gain, you have to watch which dictionary you are using. From the Catholic Encyclopedia on hatred as a passion:
Hatred in general is a vehement aversion entertained by one person for another, or for something more or less identified with that other. Theologians commonly mention two distinct species of this passion.

• One (odium abominationis, or loathing) is that in which the intense dislike is concentrated primarily on the qualities or attributes of a person, and only secondarily, and as it were derivatively, upon the person himself.
• The second sort (odium inimicitiae, or hostility) aims directly at the person, indulges a propensity to see what is evil and unlovable in him, feels a fierce satisfaction at anything tending to his discredit, and is keenly desirous that his lot may be an unmixedly hard one, either in general or in this or that specified way.

Yes, let’s use your dictionary. The question we are currently trying to work together to answer is whether hate is an emotion, or an action, or both. I believe you are trying to demonstrate that hate is action, and is never in any way nor at any time, emotion. In trying to wrap my head around that idea, I have to come to grips with two premises:

1. • The dictionary definitions of hate are false and never true in any circumstance
   • Passion, aversion, dislike, hostility, *satisfaction *–and other expressions of desire, or lack of desire–are never feelings, but are something else besides emotions
   I want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you. Are you saying you believe that (1) and (2) are true?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Yes, let’s use your dictionary. The question we are currently trying to work together to answer is whether hate is an emotion, or an action, or both. I believe you are trying to demonstrate that hate is action, and is never in any way nor at any time, emotion. In trying to wrap my head around that idea, I have to come to grips with two premises:

1. 
   *]The dictionary definitions of hate are false and never true in any circumstance
   *]Passion, aversion, dislike, hostility, *satisfaction *–and other expressions of desire, or lack of desire–are never feelings, but are something else besides emotions
   
   I want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you. Are you saying you believe that (1) and (2) are true?

1. 1. When did I make the claim that hate is never an emotion? I merely said love was more than an emotion. You asked me if that would make it true for the opposite (hate) to which I said yes.
   2. If you want premises ask me, don’t ever try to guess the other person’s premises, especially when based off false assumptions.

 

[spockrates]

1. When did I make the claim that hate is never an emotion? I merely said love was more than an emotion. You asked me if that would make it true for the opposite (hate) to which I said yes.
2. If you want premises ask me, don’t ever try to guess the other person’s premises, especially when based off false assumptions.

My apologies, Questioner!



When you said this

… 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. …

I thought you were saying hate, like love, is not emotion, but is pure action. Let me try not to misunderstand you again. Are you actually saying that hate, like love, is both emotion and action?

 

[TheQuestioner]

My apologies, Questioner!



When you said this

I thought you were saying hate, like love, is not emotion, but is pure action. Let me try not to misunderstand you again. Are you actually saying that hate, like love, is both emotion and action?

Don’t worry, I see where you (and I admittedly) got confused. I think it would be best to say this. Hate, and Love, are movements of the will. These movements elicit emotions which we associate with them, which we call love, hate, etc. However, these emotions in and of themselves are not those movements. So, even if you may feel like you “hate” your wife, your constant devotion to her would say otherwise.

Why then do you feel “hate” for someone when your actions prove otherwise? Simple. Ever since the falls our emotions can go (for lack of a better word) out of wack. They are fickle. It is important to separate the emotion of hate from turning of the will towards it.

This is why so many marriages fail today. They feel like they “love” their partner even though they are being selfish, or they feel that they “hate” their partner and no longer want to try hard. Real love is more than the emotion.

hmmm on second thought it does seem I am saying love and hate are not mere emotions. However, the “emotion of love” is often used to describe love, and the “emotion of hate” is used to describe hate.

From the Catholic encyclopedia

Love: Its seat, in the human will. Although charity (also called love) is at times intensely emotional, and frequently reacts on our sensory faculties, still it properly resides in the rational will a fact not to be forgotten by those who would make it an impossible virtue.

So though love can be a passion, it is more than that. In other words, it the “turning of the will”, though this is complimented as an emotion. Since we are human it is hard to characterize it as one or the other. However, the action proceeds the emotion, and so even if the emotion is there, only the “turning of the will” makes it really “hate” or really “love”. Hence, Christ tells you to “love your enemy”. If love were only an emotion this commandment would be unfair.

Thus, pride and envy are two ways to turn your will toward yourself at the expense of others (hate) and humility and kindness are two ways to turn your will toward God (who is love).

 

[spockrates]

Don’t worry, I see where you (and I admittedly) got confused. I think it would be best to say this. Hate, and Love, are movements of the will. These movements elicit emotions which we associate with them, which we call love, hate, etc. However, these emotions in and of themselves are not those movements. So, even if you may feel like you “hate” your wife, your constant devotion to her would say otherwise.

Why then do you feel “hate” for someone when your actions prove otherwise? Simple. Ever since the falls our emotions can go (for lack of a better word) out of wack. They are fickle. It is important to separate the emotion of hate from turning of the will towards it.

This is why so many marriages fail today. They feel like they “love” their partner even though they are being selfish, or they feel that they “hate” their partner and no longer want to try hard. Real love is more than the emotion.

hmmm on second thought it does seem I am saying love and hate are not mere emotions. However, the “emotion of love” is often used to describe love, and the “emotion of hate” is used to describe hate.

From the Catholic encyclopedia

Love: Its seat, in the human will. Although charity (also called love) is at times intensely emotional, and frequently reacts on our sensory faculties, still it properly resides in the rational will a fact not to be forgotten by those who would make it an impossible virtue.

So though love can be a passion, it is more than that. In other words, it the “turning of the will”, though this is complimented as an emotion. Since we are human it is hard to characterize it as one or the other. However, the action proceeds the emotion, and so even if the emotion is there, only the “turning of the will” makes it really “hate” or really “love”. Hence, Christ tells you to “love your enemy”. If love were only an emotion this commandment would be unfair.

Thus, pride and envy are two ways to turn your will toward yourself at the expense of others (hate) and humility and kindness are two ways to turn your will toward God (who is love).

Sounds reasonable to me, Questioner!



I suppose then you’d agree that when Saint John the Apostle writes this,

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

(1 John 4:8)

he is saying that whoever does not feel compassion and act compassionately does not know God, because God feels compassion and acts compassionately. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Sounds reasonable to me, Questioner!



I suppose then you’d agree that when Saint John the Apostle writes this,
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

(1 John 4:8)he is saying that whoever does not feel compassion and act compassionately does not know God, because God feels compassion and acts compassionately. Am I understanding you correctly?

If that is what he meant then we as Christians would all be doomed. I think he meant “whoever does not turn their will towards the ultimate fulfillment of the other in God does not feel God” because that is what love is. If he meant “whoever does not feel and act compassionately” then it would reduce God to an emotion. You don’t “feel” like God, you accept Him into your heart and life, sometimes whether you feel like it or not.

 

[TheQuestioner]

Think of it like this working backward.

In every human being there is a hole of infinite size in our hearts. This hole is created because we are supposed to fill it with the infinite God. Nothing else would fill it. And so, when we choose to fill it, even a little bit at a time, what happens is love. And when we reject his fulfillment, we choose hate, that is, the absence of love. And so in this way, yes, God is love, but also, love is God. And when we fill ourselves with God, we love.

 

[spockrates]

If that is what he meant then we as Christians would all be doomed. I think he meant “whoever does not turn their will towards the ultimate fulfillment of the other in God does not feel God” because that is what love is. If he meant “whoever does not feel and act compassionately” then it would reduce God to an emotion. You don’t “feel” like God, you accept Him into your heart and life, sometimes whether you feel like it or not.

But I’m confused. I thought you just agreed that love is both action and compassion. Now you appear to be saying love is only action. Please tell me plainly what love is so that I too can know. Is she action alone, or is she action plus compassion?

 

[TheQuestioner]

But I’m confused. I thought you just agreed that love is both action and compassion. Now you appear to be saying love is only action. Please tell me plainly what love is so that I too can know. Is she action alone, or is she action plus compassion?

Theologically speaking God is love. To turn toward God is “to love”. The emotion (called compassion) is a result of this turning, but not always anymore because of the fall.

So, “to love” someone does not necessarily mean that you have the emotion towards them.

I realize now i was confused because I equated hate with “turning away from love/God”. It is not. Turning away from love/God is “to sin”. However, depending on the reason, “hate” as an emotion can be good or bad. Depending on the type of sin “hate” can be the cause or result.

 

[spockrates]

Theologically speaking God is love. To turn toward God is “to love”. The emotion (called compassion) is a result of this turning, but not always anymore because of the fall.

So, “to love” someone does not necessarily mean that you have the emotion towards them.

I realize now i was confused because I equated hate with “turning away from love/God”. It is not. Turning away from love/God is “to sin”. However, depending on the reason, “hate” as an emotion can be good or bad. Depending on the type of sin “hate” can be the cause or result.

Yes, I often confuse myself! I suppose I’m akin to my mentor Socrates that way, who said of himself,

The world in general has not found me out, and therefore they only say of me that I am the strangest of mortals and drive men to their wit’s end!

(Theaetetus, 149)



My hope, however, is that my questions will lead both of us to a better understanding of love, hate, God and ourselves.



It seems, then that now you are saying hate is an emotion, and perhaps always so. Love, on the other hand, is sometimes an emotion, but not always so. Is this so?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Yes, I often confuse myself! I suppose I’m akin to my mentor Socrates that way, who said of himself,
The world in general has not found me out, and therefore they only say of me that I am the strangest of mortals and drive men to their wit’s end!

(Theaetetus, 149)

My hope, however, is that my questions will lead both of us to a better understanding of love, hate, God and ourselves.



It seems, then that now you are saying hate is an emotion, and perhaps always so. Love, on the other hand, is sometimes an emotion, but not always so. Is this so?

If by that you mean love may sometimes elicit emotion, but this is not necessary to love, then yes. As for hate, since it doesn’t necessarily seem to be the absence of love (sin is) then maybe. Since it represents an aversion or distaste to something, it would mean that when the devil “hates” us he wishes and end to us (in hell), and when God “hates” our sin He wishes and end to our wrong doing. Though hate may be an emotion (whether it is only an emotion or not, i am not sure anymore, but I am starting to think it is), God uses the word to metaphorically represent how He “feels” about our actions (or the course of action He wishes us to take).

Don’t quote me on the part about “hate”, but I know the “love” part is accurate.

 

[spockrates]

If by that you mean love may sometimes elicit emotion, but this is not necessary to love, then yes. As for hate, since it doesn’t necessarily seem to be the absence of love (sin is) then maybe. Since it represents an aversion or distaste to something, it would mean that when the devil “hates” us he wishes and end to us (in hell), and when God “hates” our sin He wishes and end to our wrong doing. Though hate may be an emotion (whether it is only an emotion or not, i am not sure anymore, but I am starting to think it is), God uses the word to metaphorically represent how He “feels” about our actions (or the course of action He wishes us to take).

Don’t quote me on the part about “hate”, but I know the “love” part is accurate.

Don’t worry. I won’t hold you to that. We’re both just speculating here. Well, to be fair, you are doing most of the speculating and I’m doing most of the second guessing!



Not second guessing with this question, however–just trying to understand you: When you say love elicits emotion, are you saying that for one to say she feels love for another is inaccurate? That is, is the feeling we commonly call love not love at all but merely a result of love? Or is it a different kind or category of love from the Divine Love?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Don’t worry. I won’t hold you to that. We’re both just speculating here. Well, to be fair, you are doing most of the speculating and I’m doing most of the second guessing!



Not second guessing with this question, however–just trying to understand you: When you say love elicits emotion, are you saying that for one to say she feels love for another is inaccurate? That is, is the feeling we commonly call love not love at all but merely a result of love? Or is it a different kind or category of love from the Divine Love?

No, its accurate. The emotion is still itself called “love”, but there must be a distinguished view between love as an emotion and love as a devotion.The emotion can only truly be called “love” if it follows from the turning toward God. To say you love a girl but then hide her away from the world and do things with her you shouldn’t isn’t love at all. To say you love her and then seek to give yourself within moral and responsible means to her to complete her and fulfill her as a person of God and come closer to God as well, it is love. So it seems that the turning of the will fulfills the emotion here, and not the other way around (as we see it in our society).

The seat of Love is in our ration, not in our nature/body, so love truly does transcend physical existence. And it should, because God is Love.

 

[spockrates]

No, its accurate. The emotion is still itself called “love”, but there must be a distinguished view between love as an emotion and love as a devotion.The emotion can only truly be called “love” if it follows from the turning toward God. To say you love a girl but then hide her away from the world and do things with her you shouldn’t isn’t love at all. To say you love her and then seek to give yourself within moral and responsible means to her to complete her and fulfill her as a person of God and come closer to God as well, it is love. So it seems that the turning of the will fulfills the emotion here, and not the other way around (as we see it in our society).

The seat of Love is in our ration, not in our nature/body, so love truly does transcend physical existence. And it should, because God is Love.

Love that quote, “… there must be a distinguished view between love as an *emotion *and love as a devotion.”

Yes, I quite agree!



The difficulty, then in speaking about love is in properly communicating of what type of love we are speaking. I see at least three:

1. 
   *]Love that is selfish *desire. *(For example, “I love philosophy!”)
   *]Love that is unselfish *compassion. *(For example, “I feel love for drug addicts and want to help them.”)
   *]Love that is unselfish *action. *(For example, “I love my enemies by being kind to them even though I don’t like them.”)
   
   But you appear to be speaking of a fourth, and perhaps most holy kind of love:
   
   Love that is grateful appreciation shown to God and demonstrated by unselfish action toward others.
   
   Do you think I’m starting to understand, Questioner?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Love that quote, “… there must be a distinguished view between love as an *emotion *and love as a devotion.”

Yes, I quite agree!



The difficulty, then in speaking about love is in properly communicating of what type of love we are speaking. I see at least three:

1. 
   *]Love that is selfish *desire. *(For example, “I love philosophy!”)
   *]Love that is unselfish *compassion. *(For example, “I feel love for drug addicts and want to help them.”)
   *]Love that is unselfish *action. *(For example, “I love my enemies by being kind to them even though I don’t like them.”)
   
   But you appear to be speaking of a fourth, and perhaps most holy kind of love:
   Love that is grateful appreciation shown to God and demonstrated by unselfish action toward others. Do you think I’m starting to understand, Questioner?

1. 
   You do.

 

[spockrates]

You do.

Yes, thank you for that!



Now, if it is OK with you, let’s try to apply what I’ve learned. Jesus said:

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

(Luke 6)

Of the three kinds of love–desire, compassion and action–which of these do we use to do good to our enemies who hate us?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Yes, thank you for that!



Now, if it is OK with you, let’s try to apply what I’ve learned. Jesus said:

27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ‘sinners’ lend to ‘sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

(Luke 6)

Of the three kinds of love–desire, compassion and action–which of these do we use to do good to our enemies who hate us?

It would be better to say love works itself out in three ways, desire, compassion and action. Jesus wanted us to work out our love in action, and desire the ultimate good of our enemies. Compassion cannot be controlled.