Nature of God (The Emotion Issue)

[grandfather]

But we’re not trying to make God warm and fuzzy, like a talking caterpiller in a children’s book.

The point of using such anthropomorphisms is that we are unable to capture God’s essence in our language. It’s not that God “lacks” emotions – it’s that He transcends them.

Peace,
Dante

When Jesus teaches about eternity, the kingdom of God, He uses analogy. Aquinas said that God is so far above us that we can have no direct knowledge of Him, but can only learn by analogy. Jesus says, “the kingdon of heaven is “like” unto a farmer who went out to sow seed, a housewife who lost a coin, a husbandman who planted a vineyard…” It is not simply that we take human qualities like emotions and project them on God. Jesus does this Himself, because we can not relate to anything that is beyond our own experience.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

When Jesus teaches about eternity, the kingdom of God, He uses analogy. Aquinas said that God is so far above us that we can have no direct knowledge of Him, but can only learn by analogy. Jesus says, “the kingdon of heaven is “like” unto a farmer who went out to sow seed, a housewife who lost a coin, a husbandman who planted a vineyard…” It is not simply that we take human qualities like emotions and project them on God. Jesus does this Himself, because we can not relate to anything that is beyond our own experience.

Bingo!

Peace,
Dante

 

[Writer]

There’s a subtle, but important, difference thouugh with the types of language examples you cite and the way God describes Himself in the Old and the New Testaments. If we look at the example of Matthew 23:37, for instance, we have something akin to anthropomorphic thinking in reverse. The point, though, is that if this passage concerning the hen gathering her chicks points to a set of emotional characteristics–not just broad generalities. What I am trying to quickly articulate (maybe not too clearly) is that the language used to describe the nature of God throughout the Bible suggests something more specific than allegorical use of language or anthropomorphic techniques. God really is trying to tell us about the nature of Himself.

In case I have missed anyone, thank you very much for everyone sharing their thoughts on this issue. It’s appreciated!

 

[Contarini]

Aquinas would say that God does not have emotions because emotions involve the body (and because they involve change). However, God acts in ways that correspond to what we know as emotions, and so Scripture uses emotional language about God.

I think DanteAlighieri put it best–we are using language to describe a reality that goes beyond our language. I think (and I am probably disagreeing with Aquinas here) that it’s more adequate to say that God has emotions than that He hasn’t, because in our minds not having emotions would mean being static and cold. God is Pure Act–for us action always results from passion (in the technical, traditional sense–being acted on), but for God it doesn’t. So it’s not entirely true to say that God has emotions, but God is much less like any of the things we know that don’t have emotions (robots, rocks, trees, abstract concepts, washing machines) than He is like us emotional creatures.

We were just discussing this today in the systematic theology class I teach (filling in for a colleague–my field is church history rather than systematics).

Edwin

 

[Writer]

Aquinas would say that God does not have emotions because emotions involve the body (and because they involve change). However, God acts in ways that correspond to what we know as emotions, and so Scripture uses emotional language about God.

I think DanteAlighieri put it best–we are using language to describe a reality that goes beyond our language. I think (and I am probably disagreeing with Aquinas here) that it’s more adequate to say that God has emotions than that He hasn’t, because in our minds not having emotions would mean being static and cold. God is Pure Act–for us action always results from passion (in the technical, traditional sense–being acted on), but for God it doesn’t. So it’s not entirely true to say that God has emotions, but God is much less like any of the things we know that don’t have emotions (robots, rocks, trees, abstract concepts, washing machines) than He is like us emotional creatures.

We were just discussing this today in the systematic theology class I teach (filling in for a colleague–my field is church history rather than systematics).

Edwin

Great post… I just finished an article attempting to articularte my own thoughts on this hard topic when a friend mentioned Peter Kreft’s book “Everything You Wanted to Know About God, but Never Dreamed of Asking” (EYWTKAGBNDOA for short). He makes suggests that there are passive and active emotions, and that active or perfected emotions are present within the nature of God.

 

[arthur_powers]

1. Who says God does not feel emotion? Christ wept several times in scripture. We know that if we have seen Christ we have seen the Father. Therefore, the Father must also be able to experience grief (and joy - there is more joy in heaven over one repentent sinner…)
2. Love is not an emotion. Love is a decision, an act of the will. When Christ tells us to love our enemies, he is not telling us to feel all cuddly about them. He is telling us to will good things for them, to act in a loving manner toward them.

 

[Writer]

1. Who says God does not feel emotion? Christ wept several times in scripture. We know that if we have seen Christ we have seen the Father. Therefore, the Father must also be able to experience grief (and joy - there is more joy in heaven over one repentent sinner…)
2. Love is not an emotion. Love is a decision, an act of the will. When Christ tells us to love our enemies, he is not telling us to feel all cuddly about them. He is telling us to will good things for them, to act in a loving manner toward them.

Good points!

 

[grandfather]

1. Who says God does not feel emotion?

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor.<<<<<<<

Sort of. Acts of the will are not done by humans divorced from their emotions, most of the time. They are integral. Love is not a feeling, but you can feel it at times. It is like heat. If you put your hand on something hot you feel heat, but the feeling is not the heat. Love is a spiritual reality.

 

[Benadam]

Sort of. Acts of the will are not done by humans divorced from their emotions, most of the time. They are integral. Love is not a feeling, but you can feel it at times. It is like heat. If you put your hand on something hot you feel heat, but the feeling is not the heat. Love is a spiritual reality.

Grandfather, good analogy. The info our sense of touch sends to the brain would be atoms moving faster? Anyway you got me thinking about love and emotional feelings attached to it. Seems that about all emotion can serve a good purpose when it is love that is being served. Still, underlying all that I can’t seem to detach love from a specific feeling probably better defined as '‘experiencing’ associated with, as you mentioned, a reality. Union? God?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. Who says God does not feel emotion? Christ wept several times in scripture. We know that if we have seen Christ we have seen the Father. Therefore, the Father must also be able to experience grief (and joy - there is more joy in heaven over one repentent sinner…)
2. Love is not an emotion. Love is a decision, an act of the will. When Christ tells us to love our enemies, he is not telling us to feel all cuddly about them. He is telling us to will good things for them, to act in a loving manner toward them.

However - 1) opens the way to Patripassianism, & perjaps to Modalism: for, since the Son was crucified & suffered being crucified, how does one avoid the conclusion that the Trinity suffered ?​

 

[TOME]

In Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) essay on Pope John Paul II encyclical, " Redemptoris Mater" he comments on the writing of Pope John Paul II that in Mary we come to know something about God and whether or not God suffers and the nature of this suffering. In the section, “Hail, Full of Grace” Pope Benedict points out that as found in Pope John Paul’s letter if we study the Old Testament we find that God’s suffering is the suffering of “Compassion” and how the word used in Hebrew to describe this compassionate suffering has its roots in the word for the “Womb” or “Uterus”. We all know that the heart is equated with “Love” but as both popes point out in Semitic thought it is the uterus that is the symbol of compassion because there is no greater symbol for “Being for another” than a mother with a child in her womb.

I think if I went any further I would be doing harm to their concept so I will end here with a suggestion that those who care should read the work of Pope John Paul II “Redemptoris Mater” and Pope Benedict’s essay on this encyclical in his book “Mary, The Source of the Church”.

 

[marymol]

In Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) essay on Pope John Paul II encyclical, " Redemptoris Mater" he comments on the writing of Pope John Paul II that in Mary we come to know something about God and whether or not God suffers and the nature of this suffering. In the section, “Hail, Full of Grace” Pope Benedict points out that as found in Pope John Paul’s letter if we study the Old Testament we find that God’s suffering is the suffering of “Compassion” and how the word used in Hebrew to describe this compassionate suffering has its roots in the word for the “Womb” or “Uterus”. We all know that the heart is equated with “Love” but as both popes point out in Semitic thought it is the uterus that is the symbol of compassion because there is no greater symbol for “Being for another” than a mother with a child in her womb.

I think if I went any further I would be doing harm to their concept so I will end here with a suggestion that those who care should read the work of Pope John Paul II “Redemptoris Mater” and Pope Benedict’s essay on this encyclical in his book “Mary, The Source of the Church”.

Thank you for these suggestions ; hope to read them .

Structurally too , womb and heart share in common - both having the uniqueness of myometrium (some would even say, women have two hearts !) and use the simile of ’ temple cleansing’ to the cycles - the O.T temple with its blood sacrifices , need for cleansing , can easily provoke such an allegory ,esp.when we realise that , may be God allowed such , to bring into our awareness, our own sacredness …

And how blessed we are that our Church , teach us so well , the sacredness of this space , by proclaiming all truths regarding sancity of life and marital acts .

Returning to the original post , just to share how many, who are not 'scholarly ’ possibly deal with these …

Being made in The Image , we yearn to know … The Infinite …and esp. to be assured again and again…

And may be there are some out there , who ask - like myself at one time - how could The Father allow that for The Son …till those words could sink in more deeply - ’ Me and The Father are One’ - the incomprehensible Mystery of The Trinity …

How much does The Father love … ( as much has He has shown us in our Lord , being One with Him- even if in His Divinity death has no hold )

And conitnue to love us , even in the bliss of heaven …

How about those in hell … and that faint hope …if God is sharing in all our sufferings , then may be …may be …

…but we have to accept and submit our understanding to the teachings of The Church … and The Word , on eternity …

As to our earthly sufferings , we have words of our Lord , to St.Paul (Saul) -"why are you persecuting Me " - Immanuel …God with us …sharing our sufferings , atleast here …in what manner …unfathomable …

Again , words of St.Paul - ’ eye has not seen, ear has not heard …’

And for many , that well might be the limit …

If our Lord Himself shared with us the limitation of humanity, in knowledge, when He said about the end times -’ only The Father knows …’

Peace !