toldailytopic: Is it always wrong to hate?

[Lovejoy]

So now we are on to the impassibility of God? Good luck with that one, it has only been a point of argument for, well, forever.

I dislike trying to prove the emotional state of God based on certain biblical statements for the same reason that I do not describe God's physicality that way. Just because His finger or His posterior are described in the bible does not mean that He has them. At least, not in the manner that such language implies to us. Same thing with the earth. The earth, in the bible, is described as having four corners, and as having a sun going around it. Clearly, the earth is not flat, and it is not the center of the universe. The bible is made to lead people to salvation and is, I believe, exhaustive in soteriology. I don't find it to teach exhaustively on theology, though, anymore that it does so on geology, or astronomy.

While God may not be impassible, to imply that He feels in the human manner leaves us with the possibility of His being a hedonist, ala Zeus. I rather cringe even at the idea of God that is intrinsically changed by the actions of people, and a reactive emotional state (such as we have) certainly would leave Him open to that. Certainly, TJ Oord, or even the Mormons, would disagree with me on this, but I don't my cues from the emerging church or the LDS.

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

So now we are on to the impassibility of God? Good luck with that one, it has only been a point of argument for, well, forever.

I dislike trying to prove the emotional state of God based on certain biblical statements for the same reason that I do not describe God's physicality that way. Just because His finger or His posterior are described in the bible does not mean that He has them. At least, not in the manner that such language implies to us. Same thing with the earth. The earth, in the bible, is described as having four corners, and as having a sun going around it. Clearly, the earth is not flat, and it is not the center of the universe. The bible is made to lead people to salvation and is, I believe, exhaustive in soteriology. I don't find it to teach exhaustively on theology, though, anymore that it does so on geology, or astronomy.

While God may not be impassible, to imply that He feels in the human manner leaves us with the possibility of His being a hedonist, ala Zeus. I rather cringe even at the idea of God that is intrinsically changed by the actions of people, and a reactive emotional state (such as we have) certainly would leave Him open to that. Certainly, TJ Oord, or even the Mormons, would disagree with me on this, but I don't my cues from the emerging church or the LDS.

For me to define God is, of necessity, for me to qualify God according to my understanding. Yet, if I do not define God, who or what am I to worship and obey?
The interjection of God into human history in the form of Messiah proves to me that God loves His children.
No need to cringe. God is not intrinsically changed by outside activity. In Love He responds to our need and our love.
peace, bybee

 

[Lovejoy]

For me to define God is, of necessity, for me to qualify God according to my understanding. Yet, if I do not define God, who or what am I to worship and obey?
The interjection of God into human history in the form of Messiah proves to me that God loves His children.
No need to cringe. God is not intrinsically changed by outside activity. In Love He responds to our need and our love.
peace, bybee

Part of Oords problem with the impassible God is His inability to "relate" with humans, that is, have a real two way relationship. He has written plenty on that, and I really have nothing to add to it. My difficulty, I think, is that we tend to given God emotions that make Him manipulable, ie, to allow Him to hate or love who we hate or love (and the way that we hate or love). I find that a very, very human thing to do, and a great hindrance to Christian objectives.

I rather like the way that the eastern O Church plays the defining of God game, the apophatic approach. We seem to be better at figuring out what God is not, as opposed to what He is.

I would never challenge the notion that God loves us, has always loved us (since the foundation of the earth). I think it is a perfect love, that contains no meaness or jealousy, and does not require anything from us. We seem to love best where we are loved, and some can only love when loved first. I don't think that is at all true of God. His is a love that comes entirely from within Himself, and is unchanged by our actions. I may feel some of that some of the time, but I could never have kept it up with complete consistency from the the foundation of all things!

 

[MaryContrary]

Lighthouse's answer was a non-answer. I don't take scripture as my starting point. It's not necessary to do so, for obvious reasons. In fact, it's not even to be recommended. If you only "know" God through reading the Bible, then you don't know God at all. You only know a representation. The Bible isn't God. It's a book. It's a verbal image. That's it.

Just as everything you say here is only a representation, a verbal image, of this idea you expect me to respond to. At what point can we reasonably assume we've understood what is being communicated? Frankly, I assume God is better at communicating than you or I.

I accept that scripture was inspired by God and meets with His approval. It is intended as a direct, established communication to humanity, with one of the things communicated being a description of His character. As I also accept that God is both honest and capable, I assume then that scripture is reliable. So I think you'll have to address that and explain why all that's unreasonable before you can expect me to accept it is so.

In point of fact, I think you'll have to explain why scripture is less reliably understandable than, say, your post here. You clearly assume it is.

If you want to insist that God is able to feel emotions, then please explain to me how it is possible for Him to do so. The way I see it, either the God of the Bible is The One or He is not The One.

If He is, then either He can't feel emotions, or else you're going to have to show me how it's metaphysically/logically possible for him to do so. Note, I'm not asking for a proof that he feels emotions. That means that I don't want scripture. I'm wanting a proof that he's able to feel emotions. That means that you'll have to go beyond scripture. I'm asking for an explanation. "How is it possible?" I don't think it is, for obvious reasons.

If He is not, then He's not God. Plain and simple. :idunno:

Somehow, though, I very seriously doubt that either you or Lighthouse will be able to rise to the challenge. It requires more of you than blindly quoting scripture passages that you don't understand. It'll actually require you to do some thinking. (I know, I know: God forbid!)

.

But Lighthouse, think about what an emotion is. It's an adventitious non-rational inclinination. It's an affect based on exterior circumstances. None of those things can apply to a God who's very name is "The One."

He can't possibly love you in the sense that He feels all warm and fuzzy whenever he thinks about you...for obvious reasons. :mmph:

He loves you in the sense that He willed you into existence, that He guides the word according to His Divine Providence according to the Rule of the Best, that He willed that, at the appropriate time, that the Incarnation should occur and that He should die on the cross for you, that He forgives sins, etc.

Hmm. I don't think that's a reasonable way to go about things. You've so far presented the idea that God cannot experience emotion, nor form emotional relationships with human beings, as a given. I think you should establish that before expecting me to respond to it. Especially considering, again, that scripture paints entirely the opposite picture of His character and already established interactions with humanity.

Honestly, if you require that I first shrug off scripture as any source of insight into God's character and accept it as a given that He cannot experience emotion or emotional relationships, then you'll need to give me good reason to. You haven't offered anything to establish either point and this comes across as a heavy handed bit of deck stacking.

Nevertheless, I'll reiterate that I think you accept all these things because they allow you to reject both scripture and the God it describes. But I at least offer you the opportunity, quite gladly, to prove me wrong.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse, your "God" is an anthropomorphic lie that you created in your own image. Your "God" is dead.

At what point did I describe God as having humanoid physical traits? Maybe you need to look up the definition of your big words before you use them.

And I have emotions because I was made in His image, not the other way around. God is not less than we are. He is more. And if God is not jealous then the liar here is He. Are you calling God a liar?

 

[5tograma]

I hate monday