A
atassina
Guest
God does not change. If God becomes angry, therefore, he changes. How did St. Augustine explain God’s anger?
- Status
J
juliamajor
Guest
God,being Pure Spirit cannot in reality have emotions.That is giving God human characteristics .Anthropomorphizing is common in the OT.-It was an attempt to know and understand the unknowable through human traits.the sacred writer , being human could only write in his cultural and human frame of reference. He was interpreting actions of God by giving God the Father emotions. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah - therefore He must have been angry or why else would He do it?Just like we interpret what animals do , and give them human emotions- which they don’t have.
N
Nita
Guest
Julia’s answer is right on - so I’m not intending to contradict that. Just want to give another perspective to think about when we do “anthropomorphize” God - a sense in which we humans may seem to change when in actuality we remain the same. Can then apply this analogously to God.
Consider how a parent loves their child. (Love is doing what is for the true good of another.) That love is the constant that never changes. In order to keep it constant however, the parent’s words and actions towards the child may have to vary.
For example, when the child is good - the parent is pleased and responds with joy. This response reflects the parent’s love (because it encourages the child to continue such behavior).
When the child is bad, the parent is displeased and responds in a disciplinary manner. This response also reflects the parent’s love (because it is given in order to discourage such behavior and influence the child to change this bad behavior which harms him and is not for his good).
So, altho the interactions between parent and child changed because of the child’s behavior, the love of the parent never changed and it was that very nonchanging love which necessitated the different responses. The different responses actually verify the love. (Love does not respond to bad behavior in a manner that would encourage it’s continuation.)
J
John7
Guest
but
Jesus wept (John 11)
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I agree here.
N
Nita
Guest
That is the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate - united to a human body and soul. The weeping takes place in this human nature.
Generally, when we use the term “God”, we are referring to the Triune God in His Divine nature. “God” is Spirit.
Although we cannot equate human emotions to God, it would be wrong to then think of Him as some sort of impersonal, static, entity. God Himself uses these human terms to convey to us a sense of Himself - His mind and will. Thus there can be nothing wrong in accepting them as accurate guides.
P
PJM
Guest
Very interesting perspective!
I certainly agree that God is “Spirit” and thus lacks emotions.
However that is not to say that God does not comprehend, understand emotions.
God speaks in “emotional” terms in the Old Testament, for our understanding, NOT His!
We can know this as God is our Designer / Creator, and Jesus who too is of God’s One -shared -Divine -Nature, clearly experienced human emotions first hand. What One experienced; All Experienced!
It is not God’s wrath or anger, that wrought destruction in Isreal. No, it was and is God’s Justice and Fairness comming into play.
Love and prayers,
D
Daedelus76
Guest
You don’t know they don’t have some of the same emotions as people. People have fear, animals seem to have fear. People are happy… I’ve seen animals that seemed happy. In truth, I don’t know if anybody else at all experienecs emotions, but it seems reasonable.
I know scholars in the Middle Ages were big on the aesity and impassability of God, but it is something that has been questioned by modern theologians (not explicitly Catholic), OTOH, I can also understand philosophically why they did what they did. Perhaps some things, like how God feels, are beyond human understanding. The apophatic theology is getting away from the ordinary human dimension and into the mystical dimension
L
LilyM
Guest
That’s just it - it seems. You might see a dog with an expression that resembles a human smile - mouth stretched wide but relaxed, teeth exposed a bit but not fully bared, eyes partially closed. So you assume that means it’s happy because humans smile when they’re happy. Why? Just because it LOOKS like it is.
Monkeys do the same ‘smile’ thing - it isn’t a sign of happiness at all for them, in fact it’s a gesture to make themselves look as unthreatening as possible to a potential rival, so they’re probably scared if they feel any human-like emotion.
S
Scar
Guest
…righteous anger… the same type of anger felt when the rest of the world watched as Nazi Germany attemp to stamp-out the Jews. The same type of anger felt by many, at this and other countries torture of their enimies. Lots of righteous anger when it means the strong wield their power over the weak…IMHO of course:thumbsup:
J
juliamajor
Guest
Counterpoint- How do we explain God’s love?
R
rocketrob
Guest
I don’t think that I agree with the premise of the original post. God displays righteous (ie, just) anger when His covenants have been broken. That makes God perfectly consistent, not changing.
In addition, I don’t agree that God doesn’t have emotions. We were created in His image, and our greatest longing, or emotion, is to love and be loved by God. He longs for us in the same way. I think the Catechism makes this clear in the following articles from “The Life in Christ” section:
Chapter 1, Article 1: Man: The Image of God
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1.shtml#art1
Chapter 1, Article 5: The Morality of the Passions
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art5.shtml
rocketrob
In addition, I don’t agree that God doesn’t have emotions. We were created in His image, and our greatest longing, or emotion, is to love and be loved by God. He longs for us in the same way. I think the Catechism makes this clear in the following articles from “The Life in Christ” section:
Chapter 1, Article 1: Man: The Image of God
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1.shtml#art1
Chapter 1, Article 5: The Morality of the Passions
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art5.shtml
rocketrob
A
atassina
Guest
Thank you for looking up some references. I went to the first one. Yet, that still does not explain how God can at one instant be angry and then loving. This is a change. Change is defined as: “One thing stops. Another starts.” If God changes into something that he was not, he can’t be God. Why? Change implies lack. God lacks nothing.
R
rocketrob
Guest
God is a mystery Who can’t be fully grasped by the human mind and expereience, especially in our fallen state. The Catechism states in article 212 that “In God ‘there is no variation or shadow due to change.’ God is ‘He who Is,’ from everlasting to everlasting, and as such remains ever faithful to himself and to his promises.”Thank you for looking up some references. I went to the first one. Yet, that still does not explain how God can at one instant be angry and then loving. This is a change. Change is defined as: “One thing stops. Another starts.” If God changes into something that he was not, he can’t be God. Why? Change implies lack. God lacks nothing.
And yet God is a living being…He is certainly not static.
And He is also the ultimate Father. From my own human experience as a father, which is merely a shadow of God’s Fatherhood, I know that even though I become angry with my children, I don’t stop loving them. In fact, its my love for them that often causes me to care enough to be angry…or to discipline them, which they may perceive as anger. In addition, my anger as a loving father is typically a response to my children’s behavior of transgressing boundaries (or rules) that I’ve established for their own good or safety. Therefore, my anger results from a change or transgression in their behavior, not my own. (Of course, I’m human and obviously not this perfect…but hopefully the analogy makes some sense.)
I’m not sure exactly what is troubling you, but I hope you are able to resolve it.
rocketrob
E
EmperorNapoleon
Guest
I disagree. If God cannot have emotions then God cannot love and such a stance directly challenges scripture.
M
mvorines
Guest
Just anger. 
God is Justice. God is Mercy. God cannot judge without mercy. God cannot be merciful without being just.
God is Justice. God is Mercy. God cannot judge without mercy. God cannot be merciful without being just.
A
atassina
Guest
Rob:
Thank you for staying on topic and sticking with me. :clapping: Your explanation by way of analogy is a good explanation. What I am reading into the Old Testament texts is the anger (rage) that I experienced from my own Father as a child, the punishing anger that I have experience from others as an adult. I am able to accept correction from God-- but not anger. What I want is several good explanations of how to explain God’s anger in the Old Testament. How can I explain God’s (apparent) anger and (apparent) vengeance to non-Christians or questioning Christians?
Thank, Anthony
Thank you for staying on topic and sticking with me. :clapping: Your explanation by way of analogy is a good explanation. What I am reading into the Old Testament texts is the anger (rage) that I experienced from my own Father as a child, the punishing anger that I have experience from others as an adult. I am able to accept correction from God-- but not anger. What I want is several good explanations of how to explain God’s anger in the Old Testament. How can I explain God’s (apparent) anger and (apparent) vengeance to non-Christians or questioning Christians?
Thank, Anthony
J
juliamajor
Guest
Oh please.Get a grip. If I remember correctly that God is a pure Spirit was in my Baltimore catechism.Scripture is our way of understanding God through the Sacred writer. To reduce God (YHWH) to mere emotions is to reduce Him to the level of humans and other deities.AS per Job how can we really understand who God is ?Through Scripture we just get a glimpse, a piece that our mortal minds can understand in a way that makes sense to us.Our frame of reference are human emotions, human actions- the Scripture writer can only use that which he and his audience is familiar with.Do you think God dictated to the Sacred writer?
N
Nita
Guest
Love isn’t a feeling (emotion); love is something we freely choose to do.
We love someone when we desire and do what is for the good of that person. This “good” encompasses not just what is good for their welfare here on earth, but above all, what is good for their eternal welfare. God is always working for our good.
It’s nice if pleasant loving emotions accompany these good acts, but they are not necessary. That’s why it is possible to love our enemies. Emotions are very fickle and unfortunately are often not subject to our will. They are there one day, gone the next, and back the day after.
- Status