Emotions of God

[Byblos]

I said it once to Byblos and I'll say it again, oh that Protestants were as well schooled in their theology as Catholics. And to that, I'd imagine he would respond that being well schooled in theology points one towards Catholicism!

Hey, you said it, I didn't (ok, I did think it though).

In any case, it is clear to me (and hopefully to others as well) that this is a much deeper topic than originally thought. I will have to get a crash course in philosophy in general, and Aquinas' in particular to even begin to get a firm grasp on the subject. Right now I am simply dizzy.

[jlay]

I tend to be with Jac on this issue.

God is not like us. "As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways."

It is very dangerous to suggest ideas about God based on what we experience as emotion. Especially in a culture where we allow emotions to lead us around by the nose. The bible uses hyperbole. Take Jesus' parables. Is the Kingdom of God really like a mustard seed? To pick up a mustard seed, eat it, and then declare you have the Kingdom of God within you is absurd. We KNOW that is not what Jesus was teaching.

When the Bible says, "God is love" what does it mean? Does it mean God is a feeling? Certainly not.

Jesus experienced human emotions because He "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." (phil 2:6) He experienced the human condition. He was surprised, amazed, angered, frustrated in all the human senses. But was without sin. God the Father is not surprised.

We we read that God was angry, and then try to attach human emotions to this, we tread a dangerous path. We are bringing God down to human level.
God is not on some emotional roller coaster. He is angry with the wicked every day. He is loving every minute. He is pleased with the righteous always. Even if God is an emotional being, we can rest assured that it is beyond what we can comprehend.

We have to know that God's character is immutable, constant, and unchanging. It is we who change. And thus we experience these traits of God (love, anger, etc.) based on our repsonse to who HE is. What we do doesn't change God. What we do simply manifest the truth of who God is to our understanding. If God is managed by emotions in anyway like humans, then this is bad news for us. If the flood was the result of God getting ticked and throwing a tantrum, then this doesn't bode well for us.

The cross isn't an emotional reaction. It is the plan. Always was the plan. A culmination of everything God is doing, woven into the fallen fabric of mankind.

[ageofknowledge]

Whatever makes you think that God must have imperfect control over His emotions, like we do, in order to have emotions? The fruit of the Holy Spirit God includes love, joy, and peace but also self-control and the Holy Spirit is spirit, can move in and out of time, etc... Obviously, God's emotions are perfect and perfectly in balance.

George Finney got it right when he asserted "that God really exercises all the affections and emotions ascribed to Him in the Bible." http://www.gospeltruth.net/1839OE/39100 ... of_god.htm

[erawdrah]

One day it occurred to me that nothing occurs to God.

[Gman]

How can you disagree that this is a logical point and then completely and totally ignore my logical argument (all three of them)? Your own statements prove my case. You knew your father was going to die, and when he did, you felt even more remorse. Thus, you went from one state to another based on your response to temporal reality. At one point in time, your father was alive. Your cognitional knowledge that at another point in the future caused you emotional distress. When that point in the future came, you then experienced an increase in emotional distress. Do you see all the temporal words there? Do you see that emotional response is, in essence, a temporal response?

You don't have a logical argument.. Your argument is:

1. If something has emotions, then it must be temporal.
2. God is not temporal.
3. Therefore, God cannot have emotions.

or

1. p ) q
2. ~ p
3. .: ~q

As another example of an invalid argument ..

1. If there is fire here, then there is oxygen here.
2. There is no fire here.
3. Therefore, there is no oxygen here.

It's a common invalid argument called "denying the antecedent." Invalid (Deductive) arguments doesn't succeed in achieving this logically necessary relation between premises and conclusion. An invalid argument is one in which the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Another way to put this: it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Basically God never meets a legitimate action that prompts an involuntary reaction from Him. He is in control of all ends and means regardless of time as I have stated before..

Unless, then, you show me that God is temporally responsive, you cannot argue that God also has emotions. You can, of course, reject God's timelessness and assert His temporality. You can go on to reject His immutability (in the classical sense of the word) and His simplicity, all for the sake of keeping this anthropomorphisms literal. Just know that in doing so, you are rejecting classical theism.

Well call me a rebel then.. I really don't care what it's called.. There is a point where it breaks exegetics.. Gen 6:6 is specifically talking about the heart of God. We are not talking about wings here.. These are visual things.. We are talking about the very heart of God.

Now, that may not be a big deal to you. You may believe classical theism is in error, but it only proves my point that this is a logical argument, for classical theism was developed out of a rigorous study of metaphysics and being. Classical theism is a logical conclusion, so your rejection of that position would be a rejection of the logic. I can't get around it, so I accept classical theism.

Not everyone agrees with it.. So to put a "classical" stamp on it is fruitless imo.. There is a point were man injects his reasoning's into the word and can also make mistakes. Such as the sun revolving around the earth or a global flood.

As for Gen 6:6, again, it's an anthropomorphism, like all the other verses talking about God's wings and hands and eyes, etc.

As far as God decreeing Himself to have emotions, He cannot do so for the same reason He cannot declare Himself no longer omniscient or omnipotent. As I've demonstrated several times no, emotions require complexity of being, but God is simple in being; ergo, God cannot declare Himself to have emotions without fundamentally changing His being, which would mean He is, after all, mutable!

I'm sorry but you can't claim a logical victory here.. Man barely understands his own heart so to go around and think we understand God's heart is pushing our luck. But if you feel confident that you do, then that is fine by me. You can't claim a logical victory however... To be honest I really don't know how God works, and I doubt you do too...

Remember the first post I made in this thread. I'm not saying God is devoid of anything similar to emotions. It is very fair to describe God as being angry or sad or happy or whatever. But those words are based on our emotions, and our emotions are analogous to God in that way. On what basis do you assert that they are anything more, but then at the same time, deny that words like "wings" "eyes" and "hands" are literal?

Not really.. Those are visual things, not things of the heart. You stated depending on how we are in relation to Him will determine how we perceive Him. So really God is simply a sounding board. Nothing more and nothing less... He has no soul, heart, compassion, or anything else. We control he emotions, we control his demeanor.. I'm sorry but I believe this to be unscriptural.

I would perhaps consider it, however, but we can't say that this is the absolute truth. That would be preposterous..

[ageofknowledge]

Fantastic post Gman. Well said.

[jlay]

Whatever makes you think that God must have imperfect control over His emotions, like we do, in order to have emotions? The fruit of the Holy Spirit God includes love, joy, and peace but also self-control and the Holy Spirit is spirit, can move in and out of time, etc... Obviously, God's emotions are perfect and perfectly in balance.

George Finney got it right when he asserted "that God really exercises all the affections and emotions ascribed to Him in the Bible." http://www.gospeltruth.net/1839OE/39100 ... of_god.htm

Are you speaking to me? If so, that is why I stated, "Even if God is an emotional being, we can rest assured that it is beyond what we can comprehend."

[Jac3510]

How can you disagree that this is a logical point and then completely and totally ignore my logical argument (all three of them)? Your own statements prove my case. You knew your father was going to die, and when he did, you felt even more remorse. Thus, you went from one state to another based on your response to temporal reality. At one point in time, your father was alive. Your cognitional knowledge that at another point in the future caused you emotional distress. When that point in the future came, you then experienced an increase in emotional distress. Do you see all the temporal words there? Do you see that emotional response is, in essence, a temporal response?

You don't have a logical argument.. Your argument is:

1. If something has emotions, then it must be temporal.
2. God is not temporal.
3. Therefore, God cannot have emotions.

or

1. p ) q
2. ~ p
3. .: ~q

As another example of an invalid argument ..

1. If there is fire here, then there is oxygen here.
2. There is no fire here.
3. Therefore, there is no oxygen here.

It's a common invalid argument called "denying the antecedent." Invalid (Deductive) arguments doesn't succeed in achieving this logically necessary relation between premises and conclusion. An invalid argument is one in which the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. Another way to put this: it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false. Basically God never meets a legitimate action that prompts an involuntary reaction from Him. He is in control of all ends and means regardless of time as I have stated before..

You misread my argument. My second premise doesn't negate P. It negates Q. I'm saying that if P is true, Q must FIRST be true, and yet Q is not true, then it follows that P cannot be true. Thus, your fire analogy is wrong. For you do not say "If fire (P) then oxygen (Q); no oxygen (~Q); therefore, no fire (~P)" (which would be a correct representation of my argument). YOU said, "if fire (P) then oxygen (Q); no fire (~P), therefore, no oxygen (~Q)." This is a strawman, because whereas it negates P (there is no fire), I negate Q.

Thus, your rendering of my argument is: If P then Q; Not P, therefore, not Q. This is, of course, invalid.
But my argument actually is: If P then Q; not Q; therefore, not P. This is valid.

Observe again:

1. For something to have emotions (P) it must be temporal (Q);
2. God is not temporal (~Q);
3. Therefore, God does not have emotions (~P).

To put it formally, my argument is

1. p ) q
2. ~ q
3. .: ~p

Thus, you have it backwards . . . and you still haven't dealt with the other arguments!

Well call me a rebel then.. I really don't care what it's called.. There is a point where it breaks exegetics.. Gen 6:6 is specifically talking about the heart of God. We are not talking about wings here.. These are visual things.. We are talking about the very heart of God.

Do you believe that God has to discover things? Because Gen 18:21 also seems to talk about God's internal state. The fact is both internal and external references to God are usually anthropomorphic.

Not everyone agrees with it.. So to put a "classical" stamp on it is fruitless imo.. There is a point were man injects his reasoning's into the word and can also make mistakes. Such as the sun revolving around the earth or a global flood.

Like I said, feel free to reject it. I don't. I just wish you would be consistent, which you aren't. If you reject this position, you should stop using things like the Cosmological argument or the Teleological argument for God's existence, because they only work in a classical framework. Further, your view implies that God is contingent, which means that He cannot necessarily exist, which means that He also must have a necessary cause outside of Himself. Further, you then here say that this is all man's reasoning, which you then assert can't be applied to God. And yet your statement is self-defeating, because you have to use reason to prove that reason can't be applied to God! It's also hypocritical, because you do use reason when talking about God. All the time.

Like I said, feel free to reject classical theism, but be intellectually honest enough to stop using reason AT ALL when it comes to God.

I'm sorry but you can't claim a logical victory here.. Man barely understands his own heart so to go around and think we understand God's heart is pushing our luck. But if you feel confident that you do, then that is fine by me. You can't claim a logical victory however... To be honest I really don't know how God works, and I doubt you do too...

See above.

Not really.. Those are visual things, not things of the heart. You stated depending on how we are in relation to Him will determine how we perceive Him. So really God is simply a sounding board. Nothing more and nothing less... He has no soul, heart, compassion, or anything else. We control he emotions, we control his demeanor.. I'm sorry but I believe this to be unscriptural.

I would perhaps consider it, however, but we can't say that this is the absolute truth. That would be preposterous..

See above.

Besides all that, you tried to answer one of the arguments--which you misinterpreted to do so--and yet left the other two untouched. Your argument here is tantamount to a Christian/Atheist debate in which the Christian offers the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral arguments, along with the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, to which the atheist replies to the well known straw-man version of the cosmological argument (everything must have a cause... then what caused God?!?) as a refutation, and then doesn't bother to answer the others, and then claims victory. Still worse, you've gone so far as to say these logical arguments can't really prove anything about God, because that would be presumptuous! That's obviously, again, self-defeating, because you can't use reason to prove reason doesn't work.

So, yes, I can, and do, claim logical victory here. And because I believe that we can use logic to prove that God exists (i.e., all the arguments we use on these boards), I conclude that my position is correct and says something abotu God. You're rejection of the conclusion is nothing more than blind faith based on your own questionable interpretation of a few verses, a method that, if consistently applied, would take away God's omniscience (as noted above).

[ageofknowledge]

Whatever makes you think that God must have imperfect control over His emotions, like we do, in order to have emotions? The fruit of the Holy Spirit God includes love, joy, and peace but also self-control and the Holy Spirit is spirit, can move in and out of time, etc... Obviously, God's emotions are perfect and perfectly in balance.

George Finney got it right when he asserted "that God really exercises all the affections and emotions ascribed to Him in the Bible." http://www.gospeltruth.net/1839OE/39100 ... of_god.htm

Are you speaking to me? If so, that is why I stated, "Even if God is an emotional being, we can rest assured that it is beyond what we can comprehend."

Yes. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Why phrase it as completely beyond our comprehension when it is observable that is not so? We don't say that because we don't know everything there is to know about our planet, we can't know anything about it.

[B. W.]

Jac, it is you that are missing the point. For the argument you pose to be true these will deny these truths about God:

Deu 32:3-4, "For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe greatness to our God! 4 "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." ESV

Job 34:10, 12, "Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong. 12 Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice." ESV

You must measure your argument against who and what God is: By doing so, if you remain honest with the truth, will discover that the argument posed will not stand. Why? You are missing the point — God emotions are related to his own nature, not ours.

The Lord will never do wickedly and all his ways are perfect. God's emotions belong to his own nature (who he is) and therefore his own emotions will likewise never do wickedly, never pervert justice, have no iniquity in them, and are perfect. In other words, he has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature. Emotions lead to actions. God so loved..., How can love act if there is not a cause / call to action first?

Likewise, we, as human beings have emotions peculiar to our own nature. Our nature is a sin nature and therefore our emotions lead us to pervert justice, do iniquity, and are not-perfect. Emotions lead to actions. Our actions result in sin with a bit of good tossed in from time to time that never eases the sin we do.

For God never will do wickedly, never will pervert justice, has no iniquity, and remains perfect in all his ways. His emotions are likewise leading him to act and do what he does. God is true to his own nature — he is God and not man. The argument posed reduces God to man's either / or terms.

Jac, what I hear you say is this: emotions are for human's only and always bad; therefore, only humans have emotions and act bad. God never acts bad so he doesn't have emotions. This is based on human assumption and human pride.

Have you encountered the Lord Jac? Seen him face to face? I do not think you have for if you did you would understand that the Lord does indeed have emotions peculiar to his own nature that makes all his ways and actions true and without iniquity. His nature is not ours and must never be judged by our own; however, the paradox is that we can relate to God's emotions that create his actions with our own. How else can one learn who the Lord is?

What I am saying is this — bottom line: God has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature, if not, he could never act on love, justice, mercy, grace perfectly. God is a complex being — way beyond our human understanding.

God has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature that makes him uniquely God Almighty. He conveys his emotions to man so man may come to understand who he is. It is not a crime to say God has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature. His emotions belong to him alone and make his nature, who he is uniquely God.

Human beings have our own emotional makeup peculiar to our own nature that makes him uniquely human beings. These help us understand and relate to God. It is not a crime for us to have emotions makeup peculiar to or own nature. God's emotions will never act wickedly, never pervert justice, have no iniquity, and are all perfect for He is perfect in all His ways. If perfect in all his ways — then his own emotional makeup is likewise perfect.

1 Co 15:38, “But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.” ESV

You see Jac, the Bible does not agree with your argument. It is not iron clad as it, according to its bottom line, denies God of being who and what he is according to his own nature. If what you say is true, then God could never act and is incapable of actions, judgments, of any type.

When you see him Jac, you'll laugh at your own argument you posed for the ignorance it suggest about God. I'll be laughing with you. I can assure you — He has emotions peculiar to his own nature!

Lastly, having emotions does not prove Temporality.

God judged ancient Israel many times and was grieved and angry at their behavior. His emotions caused him to be slow to anger, then exhibit anger in a just and perfect way without iniquity. After that, Israel would repent and the process repeated itself for a time. Each time, the anger was but for a moment in order for them to change their ways. This disproves your argument as it is written:

Psalm 30:5, "For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning." ESV

Isa 54:8, "In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you," says the LORD, your Redeemer." ESV
-
-
-

[B. W.]

-
Additional from above thread:

I take in then Jac that you adhere to a blend of Gnostic Christianity beliefs along with a blend of stoicism that instructs God is but a mere force easily manipulated by the works of secret philosophic knowledge because God is just an amoral force neither bad or good, without feeling, without reason, etc and etc… Such teachings did infect Christian thought long ago and continue on today..

Col 2:8-9, "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily..." ESV

Fact is, God did change and yet remains unchanging. After all he (the Word, Messenger, 2nd person of the Trinity) came as Christ in the form of humanity sharing our humanity and since shared in our humanity he also shared in our emotions; Jesus wept, moved with compassion… Yes, God experienced emotions Jac, even humanities! You deny this???

(His work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. God will never do wickedness, and the Almighty will never do wrong. Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.)

This change mentioned in John 1:1-3, 14 does not prove God changes his will, plans, or purposes — these are what are unchanging immutable. God having his own emotions peculiar to his own nature does not make him change his nature, will, plans, or purposes either.

God offered a call to all so people can repent and return to him on his terms. This offer is part of his unchanging plan. The argument posed denies this offer as valid because God had to change in order to fulfill his own plan thus causing God to act unjustly. I wonder if such arguments posed are just used to justify the error of Hyper Predestination that denies God's preordained call? Who knows???

However, this is where the logic tree you like to lead using emotions as temporal too ends up as this:

1-God is immutable
2-God cannot Change
3-God cannot became a man for that is change
4-Jesus is not God manifested in the flesh
5-to do so would mean God changed

The argument posed denies that God can decide to withhold (change) judgment for a time, for he is slow to anger, all according to his own plan, will and purposes... Think on you own man! God can change things, if not, the universe would never have been created out of nothing! This type of change God does to change things has no-bearing on his unchanging nature, plans, will, judgments, purposes, etc…He remains immutable.

The argument posed misinterprets Malachi 3:6 by not taking in the context of Mal 3:6: "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." ESV

Gills Commenaty sum this verse up nicely:

Mal 3:6 For I am the Lord,.... Or Jehovah; a name peculiar to the most High, and so a proof of the deity of Christ, who here speaks; and is expressive of his being; of his self-existence; of his purity and simplicity; of his immensity and infinity; and of his eternity and sovereignty:

I change not; being the same today, yesterday, and forever; he changed not in his divine nature and personality by becoming man; he took that into union with him he had not before, but remained the same he ever was; nor did he change in his threatenings of destruction to the Jews, which came upon them according to his word; nor in his promises of his Spirit, and presence, and protection to his people; nor will he ever change in his love and affections to them; nor in the efficacy of his blood, sacrifice, and righteousness; wherefore, as this is introduced to assure the truth and certainty of what is said before, concerning his being a swift witness against the wicked, so also for the comfort of the saints…

Again, the type of change God does to change things has no-bearing on his unchanging nature, plans, will, judgments, purposes, etc…He remains immutable.
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Jac, it is you that are missing the point. For the argument you pose to be true these will deny these truths about God:

Deu 32:3-4, "For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe greatness to our God! 4 "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." ESV

Job 34:10, 12, "Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong. 12 Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice." ESV

I have REPEATEDLY answered this statement, B.W. The biblical statements with reference to God's emotions are anthropomorphic representations so that we may relate to Him. They are not statements of His actual nature or being, just as statements about Him having wings or not knowing the future don't.

You must measure your argument against who and what God is:

Yes, and how do you know what God is? By reason and by Scripture, which is all I've done here.

By doing so, if you remain honest with the truth, will discover that the argument posed will not stand. Why? You are missing the point — God emotions are related to his own nature, not ours.

That's circular reasoning. You assume God's emotions to prove them. If the arguments don't stand, point out the fault in them.

The Lord will never do wickedly and all his ways are perfect. God's emotions belong to his own nature (who he is) and therefore his own emotions will likewise never do wickedly, never pervert justice, have no iniquity in them, and are perfect. In other words, he has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature. Emotions lead to actions. God so loved..., How can love act if there is not a cause / call to action first?

1) When did I ever say the Lord would act wickedly, and what does wickedness have to do with emotions?
2) Your repeated assertion that God's emotions belong to His nature is just an assertion. It doesn't prove--it only assumes--God has emotions. I've shown the logically impossibility of that, though.
3) Can actions ONLY come out of emotions? I've done plenty of things based on rational choice and not emotions. Have't you? So while actions may come out of emotions, emotions are not required for actions.

Likewise, we, as human beings have emotions peculiar to our own nature. Our nature is a sin nature and therefore our emotions lead us to pervert justice, do iniquity, and are not-perfect. Emotions lead to actions. Our actions result in sin with a bit of good tossed in from time to time that never eases the sin we do.

There's that phrase again . . . "emotions lead to actions." Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, and sometimes actions come from emotions, and sometimes actions come from the intellect. THERE IS NO NECESSARY CORROLATION.

For God never will do wickedly, never will pervert justice, has no iniquity, and remains perfect in all his ways. His emotions are likewise leading him to act and do what he does. God is true to his own nature — he is God and not man. The argument posed reduces God to man's either / or terms.

And the assertion again, which, again, simply isn't true. In any case, I'll ask you the same thing I've asked others. If you don't think you can "reduce God to man's either / or terms" (viz., can't know Him by logic), then what are you doing trying to come up with rational discussions about God. Either reason applies to God or it doesn't. You can't say that reason works when you want it to and then, when reason leads you to a conclusion you don't like, say it doesn't apply in those situations.

Jac, what I hear you say is this: emotions are for human's only and always bad; therefore, only humans have emotions and act bad. God never acts bad so he doesn't have emotions. This is based on human assumption and human pride.

I'll appreciate a quote from you where I ever said or implied that emotions were bad. When you can't do that, I'll appreciate the apology for the judgment you passed on me with reference to my motives (pride, apparently).

Have you encountered the Lord Jac? Seen him face to face? I do not think you have for if you did you would understand that the Lord does indeed have emotions peculiar to his own nature that makes all his ways and actions true and without iniquity. His nature is not ours and must never be judged by our own; however, the paradox is that we can relate to God's emotions that create his actions with our own. How else can one learn who the Lord is?

Have you encountered Him face to face? If not, then you have no more experiential argument than I do, and if so, I'll shrug and simply say that if you can't show the error the logic, then you were simply deluded. That's the problem with arguments based on experience, B.W. Our faith is a rational faith based on objective facts. This subjective faith that so many people buy into is rather dangerous.

As far as how to learn who the Lord is, its rather easy. You study His Word and watch Him work in your life, but what that says about His emotions or lackthereof is beyond me.

What I am saying is this — bottom line: God has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature, if not, he could never act on love, justice, mercy, grace perfectly. God is a complex being — way beyond our human understanding.

Tell me something, B.W. You believe that God is incomprehensible--if you take that to mean beyond the realm of reason, then how, pray tell, would you prove that? Can you use reason to prove that reason doesn't exist? Even if you had a Bible verse that said "Reason does not apply," you still would be shackled by reason, for:

1. The Bible says reason does not apply to God
2. The Bible is true
3. Therefore, reason does not apply to God

You see, the ONLY way to know God is through your reason, unless, of course, you believe in direct revelation. But to the extent that you believe in special revelation as recorded in Scripture, you are bound to follow reason, and reason expressly states that God can have no emotions, and that the emotions that are referred to in Scripture are, like God's wings and eyes and inability to know the future, anthropomorphisms.

Further, I notice you never answered my question about simple vs. complex. Now, this is hardly a fair "discussion" if I am responding to you and you are not responding to me. I am enjoying discussion, B.W., but I have no interest in being "preached" at. So, again, for discussion:

How do you understand the terms "simple" and "complex being"? If you don't understand them, then perhaps rather than employing them, you should ask what I mean by them. I am using them in a very specific way--exactly the way they have been employed by philosophers for 2500 years.

God has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature that makes him uniquely God Almighty. He conveys his emotions to man so man may come to understand who he is. It is not a crime to say God has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature. His emotions belong to him alone and make his nature, who he is uniquely God.

Human beings have our own emotional makeup peculiar to our own nature that makes him uniquely human beings. These help us understand and relate to God. It is not a crime for us to have emotions makeup peculiar to or own nature. God's emotions will never act wickedly, never pervert justice, have no iniquity, and are all perfect for He is perfect in all His ways. If perfect in all his ways — then his own emotional makeup is likewise perfect.

I see a lot of assertions in these paragraph, but not a scrap of evidence . . .

1 Co 15:38, “But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.” ESV

I'm not sure how this applies to anything? Do you believe God has a body?

You see Jac, the Bible does not agree with your argument. It is not iron clad as it, according to its bottom line, denies God of being who and what he is according to his own nature. If what you say is true, then God could never act and is incapable of actions, judgments, of any type.

Prove that last sentence, B.W. On what basis do you say a person is incapable of acting or judging without emotions? I do it on a daily basis. Don't you? Of course you did. What emotion caused you to choose to sign on to your account today, or to read this, or to wake up, or to get your breakfast, or to blink a few seconds ago, or anything else? Precious few of your decisions are rooted in emotions, and even then, those are influenced by them, but is your WILL that does the action.

What you fail to understand, B.W., is that one can have a WILL without having EMOTIONS.

When you see him Jac, you'll laugh at your own argument you posed for the ignorance it suggest about God. I'll be laughing with you. I can assure you — He has emotions peculiar to his own nature!

Or perhaps we'll be laughing at your argument? The silliness of using reason to say that reason doesn't apply . . . the silliness of saying that God gave us reason that He didn't expect would be used to understand Him . . . the silliness of saying that Jesus was mistaken when He told us to love God with our minds! Ah, the silliness . . . that can be funny, too.

Lastly, having emotions does not prove Temporality.

So, I read this sentence, and was excited that you were finally going to respond to one of my arguments! Finally, you were going to look at my logic on temporality and show which of my premises were wrong! And, sadly, I got not such . . . I got this:

God judged ancient Israel many times and was grieved and angry at their behavior. His emotions caused him to be slow to anger, then exhibit anger in a just and perfect way without iniquity. After that, Israel would repent and the process repeated itself for a time. Each time, the anger was but for a moment in order for them to change their ways.

Now see, this is funny. There will definitely be a lot to laugh about.

1) I've already talked about anthropomorphisms, so this doesn't help you;

2) Let me quote you again and add certain emphases:

• God judged ancient Israel many times and was grieved and angry at their behavior. His emotions caused him to be slow to anger, then exhibit anger in a just and perfect way without iniquity. After that, Israel would repent and the process repeated itself for a time. Each time, the anger was but for a moment in order for them to change their ways

B.W., do you see this? Times, slowness (which requires time--there's no such thing as slow or fast in eternity), "then", after that, repeated processes, moments??? These are all TEMPORAL terms. So, you set out to prove that emotions don't require temporality by giving me multiple examples of temporal emotional (not unrighteous) responses?

That doesn't make very much sense, now does it? Of course, if reason isn't applicable, then maybe none of this matters. But if reason doesn't matter, I can't imagine why it is that you would be trying to use reason to prove that God has emotions. On that note:

Are you saying that man's reason can't be used to argue God doesn't have emotions, but that man's reason can be used to argue that He does (as you've been doing in this thread)?

Seems a little . . . hypocritical . . . doesn't it?

This disproves your argument as it is written:

Psalm 30:5, "For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning." ESV

Isa 54:8, "In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you," says the LORD, your Redeemer." ESV

This may prove God is temporal, B.W., but it certainly doesn't prove emotions are not temporal!

NOW

If you don't mind, a few questions for you, since I've been so kind as to deal with everything you said:

1. Can mankind use reason to discover things about God? Why or why not?
2. What is your definition of "simple", "immutable", and "temporal"?
3. Can you give me an example of any response that is not temporal?
4. What is your response to my three arguments that prove God has no emotions?
5. How do you know that the emotions are attributed to God are literal, but the physical characteristics (hands, eyes, wings) and mental states (ignorance of the future, of the present) are not?

Looking forward to your answers.

God bless

edit: I see you added another repsponse . . . let's work on that now . . .

[Jac3510]

I take in then Jac that you adhere to a blend of Gnostic Christianity beliefs along with a blend of stoicism that instructs God is but a mere force easily manipulated by the works of secret philosophic knowledge because God is just an amoral force neither bad or good, without feeling, without reason, etc and etc… Such teachings did infect Christian thought long ago and continue on today..

You know, it isn't good manners to accuse someone of heresy. It's really sad that you have to stoop to such low levels. I think you owe me an apology. I have repeatedly said, IN THIS THREAD, that God is a person and not a force. I can think of several heresies I could accuse you of. Tell me, would that make this any more productive?

I believe moderators are supposed to enforce the rules, not break them. Ad hominems don't fly around here, right? So, how about instead of accusing me of such a thing, you ASK me how my position is different from them?

Col 2:8-9, "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily..." ESV

Christ is God. He is a person. Have no problem with that. What ever made you think I do? You have made a LOT of assumptions about me, B.W. It's very rude.

Fact is, God did change and yet remains unchanging. After all he (the Word, Messenger, 2nd person of the Trinity) came as Christ in the form of humanity sharing our humanity and since shared in our humanity he also shared in our emotions; Jesus wept, moved with compassion… Yes, God experienced emotions Jac, even humanities! You deny this???

I already dealt with this ealier in the thread. I take it you didn't bother reading the paper I posted, either. Jesus, a human being, had emotions in the human sense of the word. No one, not I, not anyone, denies that. But God did NOT change with the incarnation. That, again, has been established as long ago as the second century A.D.

(His work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he. God will never do wickedness, and the Almighty will never do wrong. Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice.)

What ever gave you the idea I have any idea other than God being perfect and just?

This change mentioned in John 1:1-3, 14 does not prove God changes his will, plans, or purposes — these are what are unchanging immutable. God having his own emotions peculiar to his own nature does not make him change his nature, will, plans, or purposes either.

See above. The incarnation does not make God mutible.

Would you care to offer me the definitions of "person" and "nature" (notice that, BW: no assumptions!)?

God offered a call to all so people can repent and return to him on his terms. This offer is part of his unchanging plan. The argument posed denies this offer as valid because God had to change in order to fulfill his own plan thus causing God to act unjustly. I wonder if such arguments posed are just used to justify the error of Hyper Predestination that denies God's preordained call? Who knows???

I know, since I'm the one offering the argument. I don't believe in Calvinistic predestination, so obviously, that can't be the motivation here. Thanks, again, for making such an assumption.

To your point, what makes you think that God has to change in order to fulfill His plan? I would be more than interested in a proof for THAT.

However, this is where the logic tree you like to lead using emotions as temporal too ends up as this:

1-God is immutable
2-God cannot Change
3-God cannot became a man for that is change
4-Jesus is not God manifested in the flesh
5-to do so would mean God changed

See above. The Incarnation has no problem with God's immutability. We can talk about why when you give me the definitions I asked for above.

The argument posed denies that God can decide to withhold (change) judgment for a time, for he is slow to anger, all according to his own plan, will and purposes... Think on you own man! God can change things, if not, the universe would never have been created out of nothing! This type of change God does to change things has no-bearing on his unchanging nature, plans, will, judgments, purposes, etc…He remains immutable.

The argument posed misinterprets Malachi 3:6 by not taking in the context of Mal 3:6: "For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." ESV

Think on my own? What do you think I'm doing? You are the one who has been telling me that logic and reason lead a person down the wrong path and cannot lead to God. In any case, your statement is false. God can act and still be immutable. But, we can't have that conversation until we know we are using the words the same way, so feel free to give me your definition. I won't assume so lowly of you to think that you don't know what they mean. So, please, explain to me how you use the terms, and once we are on common ground, we can move on from there. Unless, that is, you are already familiar with the arguments of how the Incarnation and God's plans generally don't affect His immutability. If so, feel free to critique them as well now to save us some time.

Gills Commenaty sum this verse up nicely

I appreciate e-sword as much as the next person, but would you do me the kind favor, sir, of making the arguments yourself? I am talking with you, not Gill or Barnes or anyone else. I'm not quoting from sources. I'm making the arguments myself. Thanks much!

[ageofknowledge]

I guess jac will have to die and see God emoting himself before he'll stop insisting God can't emote. But why argue with people who already have? It makes no sense to me.

[Jac3510]

Or you could explain where my arguments are deficient and present me with a logical argument as to why we should believe that God does have emotions, just as I've done for why He doesn't. And what, if I may ask, do you mean by "why argue with people who already have [died]?"

I've also said that if you are willing to give up classical theism, then you can have an emotional God. But then we'll have to figure out how such a God is coherent, because it seems to me that a temporal, complex, contingent being cannot be the God of the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments.

edit: For those who still disagree with me, I really want to know on what basis you do. Clearly, you see verses in Scripture that describe God in emotional language, but on what basis do you assert those verses are not anthropomorphisms?

Look, I ask the same questions of people who reject the resurrection of Jesus. I show them all the evidence for its historicity, and when they can't refute it, I ask them do they, then, believe it. Many do, some don't. And the ones that don't, I ask them: "Why not?"

The answer is usually revealing. They just don't. They don't have a reason for it. They just can't believe that a dead man would be resurrected. It's nothing but good, old fashioned, irrational incredulity. Now, I pose the same challenges to you. I've presented hard, irrefutable logic on this. If you accept classical theism, then on what basis do you refuse to believe the conclusions? And if you choose to reject classical theism on the basis that God has emotions, on what basis do you distinguish the anthropomorphic characterics I've talked about, both with reference to body parts and internal states, and the literal language of emotions? Would not a person be justified in rejecting God's omniscience since there are places that describe God as not knowing something?

These are the questions I keep asking, and these are the ones for which I am gettig no answers.