I think it depends on the question of what names or terms we apply to God to use to describe him, who he is, and his nature.
In Christian, Jewish and Islamic thought words can be applied to describe God in a number of ways. Terms can be derived either from scripture or from sacred tradition or from philosophical theology to describe who God is, what he does, and what he is like in terms of his Being.
From a Philosophical point of view, we can predicate names on God which try to describe some divine attribute or property of God’s Being or Essence (i.e. goodness, wisdom, beauty, perfection, mind, spirit, etc) which tell us clearly something about what God is, his relations or operations in the world, and who he is. These attributes can be positive terms (goodness, wisdom, power, beauty) or can be negative (incorporeal, invisible, ineffable, unknowable, infinite, etc).
Theologians and philosophers in the monotheistic faiths have had different approaches to naming God, including attributing emotions to him. The problems which Christian philosophers encountered was very much mirrored in Judaism and Islam; how do we properly describe God who scripture likens to a human being but also insists is almighty, omnipotent, loving, merciful, angry, sad, unchanging and holy at the same time? Are the names scripture gives to God applicable in a direct way to God (God really has a body, hands, eyes, etc) or metaphorical (hands means power, eyes means all encompassing knowledge, etc)? What are the limits of concepts and names and words and language when it comes to talking about God’s essence or nature and his operations with the world?
St Thomas and St Augustine defended and argued for the notion we can say a lot about God, while Eastern Christians tended to emphasize more the experiental/mystical approach to God. St Thomas (who probably achieves a better synthesis of the influence of Plato and Aristotle on Christian thought) says words about God tell us, by analogy from creatures, what God is like, but they do not express the full beauty, depth and richness of the divine nature as it is in itself.
For St Thomas, it is right to apply words with emotions to God and also affirm God is unchanging and eternal. His reasons for this are fairly complex and too long to repeat here.
It is also useful to consider that many philosophers and theologians tend to try and affirm God can have emotions, especially love, towards us, and God in a way also changes. In a way the notion that God is statically perfect is a creation of Greek metaphysics which demanded that perfection is simple and unchanging, which goes back to Parmenides’s concept of pure Being. The God of the Bible is more living and dynamic, reacts to prayer and history, rather than totally motionless and alone. Future Christian and other monotheistic philosophers should consider how they can bring a more dynamic understanding of God’s nature and his relationship with the world, which is more consistent with the Bible and other Abrahamic scripture.
