Nature of God (The Emotion Issue)

[Writer]

I’m looking for some strong apologists out there who may be able to assist me in understanding one particular aspect of God.

Earlier in the week, I heard and read comments concerning the nature of God by both Patrick Madrid and Father Serpa which have been really thought-provoking for me (and my family, too). What I’m trying to get my brain around is how God can love us and be grieved by our sins, which I believe He must be, yet not have emotions in any sense of the word. Here is a revised version of my line of thinking.

"…Maybe the simplest way to explain my perspective is seen with Adam and Eve–before the Fall. Would you agree that they were made in God’s image, and that they were essentially perfect physical beings? Are we suggesting, in their pre-fall form, that they had no emotions? I don’t think anyone would suggest this. Likewise, I think it’s inaccurate to suggest that emotions (in some sense) would necessarily make God “imperfect”. Adam and Eve were as perfect as we can grasp for human creatures. (Of course, as the CCC reminds us, “God is not in the image of man”.)

While we have biblical examples galore of God’s anger and “jealousy” and, most importantly, His deep and profound Love, I think what is being suggested is that external factors will not change God. That, however, is not precisely the same thing as emotion. I , instead, would suggest that emotions in us may represent imperfect reflections of the nature of God–that is, His empathy, love, anger, etc.

Recently at a trip to the library Mt. Angel abbey, I thumbed through an old book that even made an interesting case for the humorous side of our creator. Simply look at creation to recognize this aspect of God–or me before my morning coffee. In fact, I’m told that G.K. Chesterton may make a similar argument in Orthodoxy.

I suggest we may be mixing-up the unchanging nature of God, and our Creator’s ability to interact and empathize with us. After all, Christ suffered in all things as we suffer. To say that God has no emotion, seems further to discount the human nature of our Savior. In fact, if Jesus has emotion in some sense, wouldn’t God the Father share the same attributes–or have access to them in some mysterious way?

I would also suggest that God, outside of our time and space, may still be grieved at actions taking place on earth. Look at abortion, for example. What, for instance, does the following Chesterton paragraph evoke?

…For Carthage fell because she was faithful to her own philosophy and had followed out to its logical conclusion her own vision of the universe. Molloch had eaten his children.

Carthage engaged it the ritualistic killing of its infants, sacrificing them to their false gods, “whispering of the love that is more terrible than hate”. I can’t help but think that this manner of sin always grieves God–whether He is outside of time, or not."

Tonight I was made aware of something new which I find fascinating. Someone suggested that I look up “emotion” in my *Oxford English Dictionary. *To my surprise, I learned that the meanings pertaining to feelings is rather modern. The primary meaning through the history of the English language appears to be more accurately described as moving or effecting change upon. That, however, is not what we understand when we say “emotion” today.

To bring things to a conclusion here, could someone help me find the Saint Thomas reference to God’s lack of any “emotion” or feeling? I’ve combed through what I have and an online search tool, but I can’t find the section. Also, if there are any language scholars out there, was the word used by Saint Thomas best translated as “emotion” of today?

I think I have other questions, too, but this will do for now! Thank you.

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

I won’t volunteer myself as a “strong apologist”, but here’s my crack at your question until someone comes up with something better:

If, as you said, “emotion” used to mean changing something, then I could see why many saints would say that God can’t have emotions. God does not change: He is. Change implies imperfection and time, neither of which have any bearing on Him. The book you read may have been talking about this concept of emotion.

Which all becomes a real brain twister when we start discussing Jesus, since, at one point, He had not yet been Incarnate, but later, He was, and he obviously loved, suffered, got angry, etc.

Anyways, I think it would be safe to say that God has emotions, but is not ruled by them like we are. The Bible tells us that God hates sin and loves the just. Unlike us, however, God’s will is perfectly connected to his emotions so that they act in perfect concert. He is Love, but He is also Just.

Our human concept of emotion is too often related to being driven by fear or lust, or memories of people who abandonned all logic the instant you gave them a sappy story about someone who allegedly needed help. Think of the entire abortion debate; pro-aborts rely mostly on fear and sympathy. “What if this child ruins your life?! What if this was you?! Don’t you want to help this poor, abused woman?!” In a right sense, however, emotion can pair with our logic to encourage us to do good, too.

Many saints give us images of God (particularly Jesus) being loving, concerned for us, angered by sin, etc. If we understand that God does not change, He is perfection as He is, and try to combine that with the somewhat anthropomorphic language in certain Bible passages, I think we’re pretty close.

 

[Writer]

I won’t volunteer myself as a “strong apologist”, but here’s my crack at your question until someone comes up with something better:

If, as you said, “emotion” used to mean changing something, then I could see why many saints would say that God can’t have emotions. God does not change: He is. Change implies imperfection and time, neither of which have any bearing on Him. The book you read may have been talking about this concept of emotion.

Which all becomes a real brain twister when we start discussing Jesus, since, at one point, He had not yet been Incarnate, but later, He was, and he obviously loved, suffered, got angry, etc.

Anyways, I think it would be safe to say that God has emotions, but is not ruled by them like we are. The Bible tells us that God hates sin and loves the just. Unlike us, however, God’s will is perfectly connected to his emotions so that they act in perfect concert. He is Love, but He is also Just.

Our human concept of emotion is too often related to being driven by fear or lust, or memories of people who abandonned all logic the instant you gave them a sappy story about someone who allegedly needed help. Think of the entire abortion debate; pro-aborts rely mostly on fear and sympathy. “What if this child ruins your life?! What if this was you?! Don’t you want to help this poor, abused woman?!” In a right sense, however, emotion can pair with our logic to encourage us to do good, too.

Many saints give us images of God (particularly Jesus) being loving, concerned for us, angered by sin, etc. If we understand that God does not change, He is perfection as He is, and try to combine that with the somewhat anthropomorphic language in certain Bible passages, I think we’re pretty close.

Thank you for the post! I think we’re approaching the issue from a similar perspective.

 

[grandfather]

I’m looking for some strong apologists out there who may be able to assist me in understanding one particular aspect of God.

Earlier in the week, I heard and read comments concerning the nature of God by both Patrick Madrid and Father Serpa which have been really thought-provoking for me (and my family, too). What I’m trying to get my brain around is how God can love us and be grieved by our sins, which I believe He must be, yet not have emotions in any sense of the word

Anything that exists outside of time can not change. Change requires time, a before, present and future. Whether we see emotions as feelings we experience or simply changes in ourselves of any kind, in order for this to happen there has to be time. But Jesus is God who took on humanity in every way except sin. That means He experienced all of what we experience other than participation in evil. We say that at the point of death the soul is fixed. It can no longer change and its eternal fate is sealed. This is when time ends for us and we enter a timeless, eternal place. But we also say souls are purified by purgation, presuming some change after death. The question asked is more about whether there can be change outside this realm of time, rather than are their emotions. When Mary appears in apparitions she is often crying over our sins. Heaven is supposed to be a place where there are no tears. Tears are an outward manifestation of inner emotion. Is Mary eternally crying? Will she stop after time ends? We say that God saves us, became man and died to save us, because He pitied us. An attempted explanation of God’s emotion is that it is a metaphorical expression. We impute our emotions on God. If that is true, then what did cause God to move to save us? He entered time to do what He did for a reason, a purpose. Why did He come among us if not for the desire to free us from evil? God is infinite meaning lacking nothing. Desire implies lacking something. If He pitied or pities us that means He is unhappy over our condition so that motivates Him to act. Jesus said, “with desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you”. God is unchangeable by definition. The infinite can not change, gain or lose something it had not always been or it would not be always infinite. Yet He is moved to change our plight. Man in his helplessness changes the omnipotent, or so it appears.

 

[Writer]

“Bump” back onto new post list…

 

[Writer]

Anything that exists outside of time can not change. Change requires time, a before, present and future. Whether we see emotions as feelings we experience or simply changes in ourselves of any kind, in order for this to happen there has to be time. But Jesus is God who took on humanity in every way except sin. That means He experienced all of what we experience other than participation in evil. We say that at the point of death the soul is fixed. It can no longer change and its eternal fate is sealed. This is when time ends for us and we enter a timeless, eternal place. But we also say souls are purified by purgation, presuming some change after death. The question asked is more about whether there can be change outside this realm of time, rather than are their emotions. When Mary appears in apparitions she is often crying over our sins. Heaven is supposed to be a place where there are no tears. Tears are an outward manifestation of inner emotion. Is Mary eternally crying? Will she stop after time ends? We say that God saves us, became man and died to save us, because He pitied us. An attempted explanation of God’s emotion is that it is a metaphorical expression. We impute our emotions on God. If that is true, then what did cause God to move to save us? He entered time to do what He did for a reason, a purpose. Why did He come among us if not for the desire to free us from evil? God is infinite meaning lacking nothing. Desire implies lacking something. If He pitied or pities us that means He is unhappy over our condition so that motivates Him to act. Jesus said, “with desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you”. God is unchangeable by definition. The infinite can not change, gain or lose something it had not always been or it would not be always infinite. Yet He is moved to change our plight. Man in his helplessness changes the omnipotent, or so it appears.

This is a wonderfully thought-provoking post. There is a great deal to think about here, but here is one more little thought to consider. I don’t think that simply being outside of time implies no change is possible in a created thing. Look at the fall of the angels, for example. Lucifer was outside of time (wasn’t he?), and he changed to oppose God in his thoughts and actions.

A friend once suggested, however, that the reason Satan broke with God was over the creation of Man. I don’t know whether that’s right, or not, but there could be the possibility that Satan, then, is inside our time? I need to give it some further thought; my brain hurts!

 

[mpb74]

In no way am I an apologist. I do not see how we as people can understand any of God’s nature or ways barring his directly telling us or giving divine revelation. If I could wrap my head around God’s thinking I would be like God. That ain’t happenin’. Good luck Dan

 

[Writer]

In no way am I an apologist. I do not see how we as people can understand any of God’s nature or ways barring his directly telling us or giving divine revelation. If I could wrap my head around God’s thinking I would be like God. That ain’t happenin’. Good luck Dan

You’re right! At some point, we have to throw up our hands, smile, and move on. (For me, this is particularly true in regards to the mysterious nature of the Trinity.) This particular line of thinking has been significantly explored by the great saints of the past (Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas, for example). One aspect of this discussion that is of particular interest to me concerns trying to understand the writings of the saints and Fathers of the Church in this regard. When I first was tying to explain my thoughts on this topic to someone, I mentioned that there was a hint of modernism in our thinking, but that I couldn’t put my finger on it at that time. Part of that modernism, it seems to me, is perhaps found in the declarations of some (with absolute certainty) regarding the mysterious nature(s) of God; it’s almost like we put Him in a box, the box of our minds. If we can’t understand Him, we limit Him.

As I mentioned, the word “emotion” has undergone a bit of a “sea change” with regards to its meaning. At the time of Saint Thomas, the word did not mean what it means or conveys to us today. It was more concerned with “change” than feelings. Therefore, what did they mean–and where is that particular passage from Saint Thomas, anyway? It is my humble suggestion that perhaps Saint Thomas was emphasizing more the unchanging nature of God than he was trying to say that God has no feelings, that He has no emotional consciousness. The latter assumption, suggested by many great Catholic minds out there, just doesn’t ring quite true to me; it changes the whole concept (for me) of a saviour who loves and cares about us, and, it suggests a Creator who would not have sacrificed His Son on a tree for our sins. Still…I could (and very likely) am utterly in error. I’m just trying to get some semblance of understanding of whether I am, or not.

 

[Writer]

bump thread…

 

[grandfather]

As I mentioned, the word “emotion” has undergone a bit of a “sea change” with regards to its meaning. At the time of Saint Thomas, the word did not mean what it means or conveys to us today. It was more concerned with “change” than feelings.

Let’s try again. It does not matter whether you think of emotions as feelings, or change or both. Emotion implies change. I am made happy or sad or whatever by a thing, an experience, an event. That means I changed. I have changed, will change and am changing. So are we all. There is a before, present and future implied in any change, meaning time is necessary for there to be a change. Does God change? He can not change. The concept of infinity says God is unchangable. If God changed, took on some new quality or characteristic, then previous (implying time) to that He would have lacked that quality, meaning He would not have been infinite by nature, and that He would be in time, experiencing a before state when he lacked the quality. We say God is merciful. We also say God is pure act and has no potency. He has nothing in reserve. All that the Father has or is, is infinitely being poured out into the Son, and vice versa, eternally. He holds nothing of Himself back, or the Son would not be infinite. The object of God’s mercy is us, mankind. Mankind did not eternally exist. We are creatures with a beginning. Before we existed who was the object of God’s mercy? There was no object of mercy. We are the recipients of mercy and we had a beginning, meaning that divine mercy had a beginning. Mercy then, is a new quality or perfection of God. That means God changed, which is impossible. The Infinite One can not change or He would not be eternally infinite and would be in time, since change presupposes time. But speculating that mercy is a new perfection of God, then why did God become merciful? It is because He pitied us. We are indeed pitiful creatures. A much more powerful spiritual being than us, tricks us, decieves us, tortures us. We haven’t a chance, so God took pity on us helpless ones. If this is so, then the helpless weak creature changed the all powerful Creator by his helplessness. What power do we have to change the All Powerful? Our weakness and helplessness. This is the essence of salvation. The soul recognizes it is lost and unable to do anything for itself and cries out to God for help. If God moves to help the soul, then the helpless soul moved God, by its plea. God moved is the same as God changed.

By the way this is not about strong apologetics. It has nothing to do with apologetics.

 

[Writer]

Let’s try again. It does not matter whether you think of emotions as feelings, or change or both. Emotion implies change. I am made happy or sad or whatever by a thing, an experience, an event. That means I changed. I have changed, will change and am changing. So are we all. There is a before, present and future implied in any change, meaning time is necessary for there to be a change. Does God change? He can not change. The concept of infinity says God is unchangable. If God changed, took on some new quality or characteristic, then previous (implying time) to that He would have lacked that quality, meaning He would not have been infinite by nature, and that He would be in time, experiencing a before state when he lacked the quality. We say God is merciful. We also say God is pure act and has no potency. He has nothing in reserve. All that the Father has or is, is infinitely being poured out into the Son, and vice versa, eternally. He holds nothing of Himself back, or the Son would not be infinite. The object of God’s mercy is us, mankind. Mankind did not eternally exist. We are creatures with a beginning. Before we existed who was the object of God’s mercy? There was no object of mercy. We are the recipients of mercy and we had a beginning, meaning that divine mercy had a beginning. Mercy then, is a new quality or perfection of God. That means God changed, which is impossible. The Infinite One can not change or He would not be eternally infinite and would be in time, since change presupposes time. But speculating that mercy is a new perfection of God, then why did God become merciful? It is because He pitied us. We are indeed pitiful creatures. A much more powerful spiritual being than us, tricks us, decieves us, tortures us. We haven’t a chance, so God took pity on us helpless ones. If this is so, then the helpless weak creature changed the all powerful Creator by his helplessness. What power do we have to change the All Powerful? Our weakness and helplessness. This is the essence of salvation. The soul recognizes it is lost and unable to do anything for itself and cries out to God for help. If God moves to help the soul, then the helpless soul moved God, by its plea. God moved is the same as God changed.

By the way this is not about strong apologetics. It has nothing to do with apologetics.

I can see that you are more comfortable in these deep waters than I. I think you have made some powerful observations, but I can’t accept that the Creator can be changed by His creation. I can understand some perfected sense of emotion or an ability to understand or empathize (an emotional awareness). This connection to His creation would not mean He was being being moved or changed Himself; the idea of us changing God in any way does not ring true for me.

Here’s one way I would look at it… God’s mercy for us did not suddenly begin at the moment we were created. I’d suggest that the mercy had always existed with Him–waiting for the “time” to be right for our creation. Nothing new was put into effect, except the time to take action on His perfect quality of mercy.

I think this discussion may hinge a great deal on our concept of time. If we take things to such an extreme that nothing outside of time changes or feels anything, then we’re going to have a problem in heaven, For example, if this were the case, wouldn’t words like “then” cease to have any inherent meaning in the afterlife? Look at it this way… One is in heaven speaking to a long lost friend. There could be no communication as we understand it, because its start would be at the same point as its begining. Nothing could be completed, because nothing could be begun. I have to think, at this point, that God will sort this out. It’s a mystery, but I think we can trust in God’s love that the place He has prepared is one that won’t seem alien to us, but will be more like coming home than anything we can imagine. I guess that’s part of the reason I’m struggling with this idea, because it would change, at least in a small way, my understanding of who God is.

 

[Benadam]

Anything that exists outside of time can not change. Change requires time, a before, present and future. Whether we see emotions as feelings we experience or simply changes in ourselves of any kind, in order for this to happen there has to be time. But Jesus is God who took on humanity in every way except sin. That means He experienced all of what we experience other than participation in evil. We say that at the point of death the soul is fixed. It can no longer change and its eternal fate is sealed. This is when time ends for us and we enter a timeless, eternal place. But we also say souls are purified by purgation, presuming some change after death. The question asked is more about whether there can be change outside this realm of time, rather than are their emotions. When Mary appears in apparitions she is often crying over our sins. Heaven is supposed to be a place where there are no tears. Tears are an outward manifestation of inner emotion. Is Mary eternally crying? Will she stop after time ends? We say that God saves us, became man and died to save us, because He pitied us. An attempted explanation of God’s emotion is that it is a metaphorical expression. We impute our emotions on God. If that is true, then what did cause God to move to save us? He entered time to do what He did for a reason, a purpose. Why did He come among us if not for the desire to free us from evil? God is infinite meaning lacking nothing. Desire implies lacking something. If He pitied or pities us that means He is unhappy over our condition so that motivates Him to act. Jesus said, “with desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you”. God is unchangeable by definition. The infinite can not change, gain or lose something it had not always been or it would not be always infinite. Yet He is moved to change our plight. Man in his helplessness changes the omnipotent, or so it appears.

Your thoughts bring to mind something I read late Pope JPII say in one of his weekly sermons. “Eternity entered time”. It seems to me that God allows creation to reveal it’self to Him just as He reveals Himself. Revelation is an intricate part of a meaningfull relationship. On some level for the sake of the creatures need for Him perhaps the Creator sets aside His omniscience in some way and experiences creation not as something already known but in fellowship of mutual revelation of self…

 

[Pier]

Didn’t God say that He is a jealous God regarding worshiping false idols? Didn’t Jesus show compassion, & weep when He was suffering?

Since we are made in God’s image, wouldn’t/couldn’t our emotional wants and needs be considered part of the nature He bestowed on us, that can be used or abused like our other appetites - urges that in this world, should be kept under control with the gifts of His grace through the Sacraments, thereby enabling us to keep them harnessed by our wills, rather than giving in to them with extreme actions or reactions?

 

[Writer]

Those are great ideas… Maybe another way to look at it is as a “knowing” rather than a “feeling”. For example, perhaps those qualities of mercy, compassion, love were always present–waiting for us to ask for aid? I am not saying just in a general sense, because understanding that the character of God is love seems clear enough. I’m saying that answers to prayer (petitions that seemed to bring a special kind of mercy from God) were always there–simply waiting for us to ask. I don’t think I’m quite articulating it right. Maybe someone else would like to do better?

 

[RC_Eagle]

God is Light. Light is made up of an infinite number of colors (you could say emotions), all present at the same “time”, so to speak. This is of course merely an analogy, as God is eternal and does not live in time. We human beings, however, do live in time, and so our emotions are sequential. Like prisms, we “diffract” God’s light, and thus separate his colors in time. When we say God is “angry”, we really mean that we are diffracting the emotion “anger” by the way we are behaving. God eternally loves Judas, who betrayed Christ, despite the fact that Judas diffracted and perhaps continues to diffract for all eternity God’s wrath. But the day Judas was born as a little innocent baby diffracting God’s tender love and mercy is still the present to God.

As for the possibility of change when we die, in my opinion there are infinitely many degrees of eternity. God’s own degree of eternity surpasses all others, so even in eternity we “grow” towards God, entering more closely into the center of his being. What is locked in at the moment of death is our basic orientation towards (or away from) God. Eternity is still dynamic, not static, and in it we are multiplied tremendously in our capacity for being, able to communicate “simultaneously” with an infinite number of souls with a greater and greater degree of intimacy as we move closer into the center of the Light. Time ceases to be in the earthly sense, but it does not rule out growth towards God, otherwise there would be no difference between creatures in heaven and God Himself. That difference is precisely what defines our degree of eternity.

Ad majorem Dei gloriam.

 

[Benadam]

Those are great ideas… Maybe another way to look at it is as a “knowing” rather than a “feeling”. For example, perhaps those qualities of mercy, compassion, love were always present–waiting for us to ask for aid? I am not saying just in a general sense, because understanding that the character of God is love seems clear enough. I’m saying that answers to prayer (petitions that seemed to bring a special kind of mercy from God) were always there–simply waiting for us to ask. I don’t think I’m quite articulating it right. Maybe someone else would like to do better?

Hopefully I don’t just muddy the waters but I’ll give it a try. In rergardsd to answer to prayer. An answer to a prayer is a good and God is all Good and all that is good He has already prepared for us. But, in a fallen state the good prepared can’t be received because it’s purpose which is ordered to the good is reordered to an end that lacks good. The tree of life is an example. Mercy can only be given to the mercifull for this reason. Given to the merciless it’s end becomes reordered to an end that lacks good. Ever forgive someone and it just make the person you forgive think you need them for something? Forgiveness can’t be received because that person doesn’t ‘know’ forgiveness. Knowledge in it’s deepest sense is a union of likeness. To know something fully one must be that something. So Jesus say’s to know the Father is our proper end. the passage also " We will see Him as He ias because we will be like Him."

 

[DanteAlighieri]

We are made in the image and likeness of God – we are not His clones. In other words, everything about our nature (except our concupiscence) reflects a similar quality in God. It is our concupiscence that turns our emotions from love into lust, from anger into wrath, from kindness into malice.

“Emotions” as we experience them are not truly part of God’s nature, it would seem; rather, they reflect aspects of His nature. God loves us; God is grieved by our sins; God is jealous of our love, etc. – these are all anthropomorphisms whose purpose is to portray an unfathomable God using fathomable imagery.

In other words, the only way we can discuss and understand God is through use of our intellect, which cannot truly apprehend His nature – so we must project humanesque qualities on Him in order to have a frame of reference.

Capisce?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Writer]

We are made in the image and likeness of God – we are not His clones. In other words, everything about our nature (except our concupiscence) reflects a similar quality in God. It is our concupiscence that turns our emotions from love into lust, from anger into wrath, from kindness into malice.

“Emotions” as we experience them are not truly part of God’s nature, it would seem; rather, they reflect aspects of His nature. God loves us; God is grieved by our sins; God is jealous of our love, etc. – these are all anthropomorphisms whose purpose is to portray an unfathomable God using fathomable imagery.

In other words, the only way we can discuss and understand God is through use of our intellect, which cannot truly apprehend His nature – so we must project humanesque qualities on Him in order to have a frame of reference.

Capisce?

Peace,
Dante

I think this is almost the same point at which the discussion began, but it’s good to look at the starting point again in relation to the ground we’ve covered in between. What you’re saying makes sense–to a point. Something about the anthropomorphic language is bothersome–perhaps on account that when we usually consciously employ this technique it’s relating to things inferior than ourselves. As a guy who has tried his hand at children’s books, for example, I use this method to infuse human-like qualities into my characters, a silly collection of rodents, birds, etc. Just seems that the language is a bit reversed. It’s not God who is inferior, but we humans who are. I’d suggest that God’s understanding of our own emotions is greater than our own; there is no lack of empathy or understanding. Also, these are the words God has used to describe Himself in the Bible. Are we saying that He can’t describe Himself to us–even given limits of language? Like I said, our emotions seem like imperfect reflections of the perfect nature of God.

Perhaps my problem with this whole line of reasoning is a bit less in its ultimate conclusions than the argument directing how we arrive there. I can agree that God is outside of time and can’t be moved or changed. I do believe, however, that our actions, petitions, etc can bring forth action on the part of God–whether these actions or responses were always there in some sense is another question. I also believe that it is misleading to necessarily suggest that emotions or feelings (that is, understanding or interaction in response to Man) would themselves make God imperfect. I also find the language issue to possibly be of major importance here. That is, that word “emotion” has not been used to refer to feelings until fairly recently in the history of the English language.

This (seems to me) to simply be a case of our brains not being able to go very far one particular direction, so we lay down the mysterious nature of God in simple(r) terms our minds can more easily grasp. It’s kind of like trying to give a hug to a large relative when you’re a small child–as hard as you try, you can’t get those arms around the person.

 

[Benadam]

I think a more easily understood meaning for emotion is ‘to be moved’ rather than ‘to change’. There is no doubt in my mind that God can be moved and experience emotion when it pertains to Him. That is proved by The Second Person of the Trinity who experienced emotion because it pertains to being human. I would speculate that there are other situations, or conditions that God has placed Himself in that would be served by emotions. I think relating intimately with humanity places God in a place that emotion, or the ability ’ to be moved’ pertains to Him.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I think this is almost the same point at which the discussion began, but it’s good to look at the starting point again in relation to the ground we’ve covered in between. What you’re saying makes sense–to a point. Something about the anthropomorphic language is bothersome–perhaps on account that when we usually consciously employ this technique it’s relating to things inferior than ourselves. As a guy who has tried his hand at children’s books, for example, I use this method to infuse human-like qualities into my characters, a silly collection of rodents, birds, etc. Just seems that the language is a bit reversed. It’s not God who is inferior, but we humans who are. I’d suggest that God’s understanding of our own emotions is greater than our own; there is no lack of empathy or understanding. Also, these are the words God has used to describe Himself in the Bible. Are we saying that He can’t describe Himself to us–even given limits of language? Like I said, our emotions seem like imperfect reflections of the perfect nature of God.

Perhaps my problem with this whole line of reasoning is a bit less in its ultimate conclusions than the argument directing how we arrive there. I can agree that God is outside of time and can’t be moved or changed. I do believe, however, that our actions, petitions, etc can bring forth action on the part of God–whether these actions or responses were always there in some sense is another question. I also believe that it is misleading to necessarily suggest that emotions or feelings (that is, understanding or interaction in response to Man) would themselves make God imperfect. I also find the language issue to possibly be of major importance here. That is, that word “emotion” has not been used to refer to feelings until fairly recently in the history of the English language.

This (seems to me) to simply be a case of our brains not being able to go very far one particular direction, so we lay down the mysterious nature of God in simple(r) terms our minds can more easily grasp. It’s kind of like trying to give a hug to a large relative when you’re a small child–as hard as you try, you can’t get those arms around the person.

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