How God could be love and impassible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sometimes we need to learn to love despite our feelings. For example, the love between a husband and wife may not be based on feelings after the original feelings no longer remain. But on the will to love the other. Or even Jesus said to love your enemies. But how could we love our enemies if our love is based solely on our feelings? How can we love someone who has hurt us? Really, what is the essence of love? It doesn’t seem to be feeling, but something more. For to love often goes against feelings. Feelings can sometimes get in our way. Not that feelings are not good. But that they are at times imperfect and unreliable as to how to direct our actions. One day I may feel like doing something. Another day I may not feel like doing it. Those feelings don’t tell me however whether the thing is itself worth doing. My feelings do not ascribe its worth or ascribe worth to a person. A thing has merit based on what it is and its purpose, regardless of what my feelings are.

The love that passion that we feel which can motivate us to take action is itself a process of discovery and is thus not yet perfect. Unlike God whose love is already fully actualized for which no human emotion could improve upon.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
What do you mean?
Click to expand...
Collins Dictionary: passionate, adj.
2. capable of, revealing, or characterized by intense emotion.

Jesus Christ, and the prophets, in their human nature may be passionate.

What I posted before was referring to divine nature: “God is immutable so he is impassible, that is, not subject to moods and passions. But God is not impassive.”
 
Vico said:
Collins Dictionary: passionate, adj.
2. capable of, revealing, or characterized by intense emotion.

Jesus Christ, and the prophets, in their human nature may be passionate.

What I posted before was referring to divine nature: “God is immutable so he is impassible, that is, not subject to moods and passions. But God is not impassive.”
Click to expand...
God in the Old Testament was anything but impassive. Prophets were the Mouthpieces for God. Jesus IS God. I stand my ground. God has emotions. I think the present state of his created world must make Him very sad.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
God in the Old Testament was anything but impassive. Prophets were the Mouthpieces for God. Jesus IS God. I stand my ground. God has emotions. I think the present state of his created world must make Him very sad.
Click to expand...
The reason that I post that is because The Fourth Lateran Council and the Vatican Council teach that dogma of faith that God is immutable (incommutabilis). This means there is no passion as in creatures.
 
Vico said:
The reason that I post that is because The Fourth Lateran Council and the Vatican Council teach that dogma of faith that God is immutable (incommutabilis). This means there is no passion as in creatures.
Click to expand...
Aside from the 4th Lateran Council, what do you think?
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Aside from the 4th Lateran Council, what do you think?
Click to expand...
The divine nature is uncreated, and so does not undergo any kind of change whatsoever such as emotions which require having a body. God does love mankind. Jesus Christ in human nature can undergo change and emotions.

The Old Testament depiction of God’s emotions are metaphorical.
 
Bahman said:
Impassible means that God lack feeling. How God could be love then?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t mean that. It simply means he can’t be manipulated by wheedling like we often try on those we want to get something out of!

🙂

Now I’d like to ask you a favour Bahman. It will help us to help you further.

The word God as we all know is a general vocabulary item. Now you mix with people that use it, and you ask questions about it (implied) - or rather you make statements about it, and you are nervous of nuancing and deepening your viewpoint.

So far so good, we all start somewhere.

Now I think you have got this word God from two places:
  • some religions have a flat, hollow view of a God without dimensions as a slogan to make people be under their power and don’t want anyone to think
  • some Protestants have fallen into the same trap of copying those others.
Now, you don’t have to say if you got your vision or philosophy of God from an other religion. If you got it from Protestants, they won’t mind if you tell us but you don’t have to. What I’d like you to do is say whether you got your view from someone (or maybe saw it on an internet page or in a philosophy book, again you may choose not to say which if you don’t want to).

Then please will you explicitly tell us whether you want to ask us for information because you want to add to and develop your viewpoint into something fuller and more accurate. It’s not for us to say how accurate your thinking is after you have read what we post (which you have to check out against other sources if you can, or ask us again) - though we may give an opinion on that if you ask for one - but it’s for you to work it out as sincerely as you can in relation to what information you elicit from us. In other words, an expression of sufficient open-mindedness to offer you information you want to mull over.

I think the topic of God is the most exciting and tremedous philosophical topic ever.

What will confuse both you and me personally is when someone responds with something that’s not quite pertinent, but that’s just normal life, OK?

I’m sorry I had technical problems and couldn’t join in your threads.

The Churches both Catholic and Protestant have gone completely out of practice at accompanying people on a journey in faith from where they are at, which is a huge grief for me. Do you think that is why you have been given the statements about God that you sometimes relate to us here?

The more dimensions, the more paradox!
 
An example of what I have in mind would be:

“I read somewhere that God is impassible. I worry, or wonder, whether it means He cannot love (which the word sometimes means in other contexts). In the opinion of any of the forum members is there more you would like me to know, or think about, on this subject?”

That way you will signal to us that you haven’t already painted yourself into a corner as to the conclusions you are going to draw.
 
Vic_Taltrees_UK said:
It doesn’t mean that. It simply means he can’t be manipulated by wheedling like we often try on those we want to get something out of!

🙂

Now I’d like to ask you a favour Bahman. It will help us to help you further.

The word God as we all know is a general vocabulary item. Now you mix with people that use it, and you ask questions about it (implied) - or rather you make statements about it, and you are nervous of nuancing and deepening your viewpoint.

So far so good, we all start somewhere.

Now I think you have got this word God from two places:
  • some religions have a flat, hollow view of a God without dimensions as a slogan to make people be under their power and don’t want anyone to think
  • some Protestants have fallen into the same trap of copying those others.
Now, you don’t have to say if you got your vision or philosophy of God from an other religion. If you got it from Protestants, they won’t mind if you tell us but you don’t have to. What I’d like you to do is say whether you got your view from someone (or maybe saw it on an internet page or in a philosophy book, again you may choose not to say which if you don’t want to).

Then please will you explicitly tell us whether you want to ask us for information because you want to add to and develop your viewpoint into something fuller and more accurate. It’s not for us to say how accurate your thinking is after you have read what we post (which you have to check out against other sources if you can, or ask us again) - though we may give an opinion on that if you ask for one - but it’s for you to work it out as sincerely as you can in relation to what information you elicit from us. In other words, an expression of sufficient open-mindedness to offer you information you want to mull over.

I think the topic of God is the most exciting and tremedous philosophical topic ever.

What will confuse both you and me personally is when someone responds with something that’s not quite pertinent, but that’s just normal life, OK?

I’m sorry I had technical problems and couldn’t join in your threads.

The Churches both Catholic and Protestant have gone completely out of practice at accompanying people on a journey in faith from where they are at, which is a huge grief for me. Do you think that is why you have been given the statements about God that you sometimes relate to us here?

The more dimensions, the more paradox!
Click to expand...
I become familiar with impassibility in one post in this forum. I did some reading and then decide to open a thread on this subject because the idea was confusing to me.
 
He doesn’t flip His lid just because we panic Him into it.

To use my favourite phrase, He can’t be manipulated by wheedling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top