From an Abrahamic perspective, Why is God emotional?

[arthra]

Thanks for your post Meghan..

Unsure at this point how I can respond to your note but pray that your search will soon be rewarded and God will bless you!

- Art

 

[Thanda]

You are conflating the motivator with the state here. The things that motivate G-d to anger remain constant. Becoming the state of angry would be a change from His previous state of being happy. That's what you're describing. This is changing.

It is not changing. Like I have said you cannot have it both ways. If God becoming angry at a thing that his nature dictates must make him angry is a sign that he is not unchangeable, then you must also accept that God flooding the earth when he hadn't done so before also violates his nature of unchangeableness. You must accept that God not liberating the Israelites from Egypt 100 years before he did was also a sign that he is changeable.

But I argue that it is ridiculous to expect God to react in the same way to different situations. If the God you conceive of has no feelings, that is okay. But it is not okay to say that God having feelings would violate his characteristic of being unchangeable as such a train of thought would lead logically to assuming that God must always do the same thing no matter what happens or else he has changed.

I have a question for you: since you believe God has no feelings, do you also believe he has no thoughts?

There is a huge difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying. By me, G-d doesn't Himself become angry or happy and so His state never changes. The motivators (ie. the things that seem to change G-d's mood), don't affect G-d Himself, but the lenses through which we perceive Him.

Can you elaborate on these lenses? What are they really?

 

[Tumah]

It is not changing. Like I have said you cannot have it both ways. If God becoming angry at a thing that his nature dictates must make him angry is a sign that he is not unchangeable, then you must also accept that God flooding the earth when he hadn't done so before also violates his nature of unchangeableness. You must accept that God not liberating the Israelites from Egypt 100 years before he did was also a sign that he is changeable.

But I argue that it is ridiculous to expect God to react in the same way to different situations. If the God you conceive of has no feelings, that is okay. But it is not okay to say that God having feelings would violate his characteristic of being unchangeable as such a train of thought would lead logically to assuming that God must always do the same thing no matter what happens or else he has changed.

What you've done here is shift the burden. Rather than defending your position, you're trying to argue against mine. I have a response to answer your accusation, which I'll add after this. But you need to address the point that I'm making.
I've pointed out to you that you are conflating the state of being angry with the thing that motivates G-d to become angry. You are saying that the things that motivate G-d to anger always remain the same and therefore G-d is unchanging. I am explaining to you that you are speaking about the things that motivate G-d to anger. Those things remain constant. But what is changing is His state. If yesterday I was a good boy and G-d was happy with me, and today I'm bad and G-d is angry with me, G-d has changed states from happy to angry. This is a change. It may be that whenever I do that thing that made G-d angry with me, He gets angry. And so the motivator remains constant. But when He becomes angry, that is a change of state from happy to angry. It contradicts G-d's unchanging-ness.

With regard to my theological position. There is no contradiction because G-d always remains in the same state of being G-d. He doesn't become angry or sad. He just is G-d and that naturally causes a bounty to flow to the universe. As a metaphor I've been using here, If G-d is a white light, then it can be used to create a number of different colored lights even though it is none of them. It has the potential for everything, but it is not any color. So G-d is His "white light" and when it shines through a "red lens" you get a flood. When it shines through a "blue" one, you get a redemption. G-d is above all these qualities, but He is the Cause of all of them. So too, when we speak about G-d becoming happy or angry, we are not referring to G-d Himself, but to the manifestation of the "white light" through a specific "lens".

I have a question for you: since you believe God has no feelings, do you also believe he has no thoughts?

Yes and no.
Yes, He does not have thoughts as a separate part of Him. He doesn't "think" because that would create a division between Him and His thoughts and G-d is One.
No, because He is not a rock.

In other words, G-d doesn't need "thoughts" in order to accomplish the things we need thoughts for. Applying the word "thoughts" to G-d is binding Him to our concepts and G-d is beyond anything we can comprehend. We simply can't say anything about G-d because it wouldn't be true. With the exception of G-d's Oneness, since that's essentially a negative quality (ie. implying a "not")

Can you elaborate on these lenses? What are they really?

Only a little.
They are created concepts with which G-d interacts with the world and through which we can gain some tiny inkling of perception of Him as the potential of everything.

 

[Thanda]

What you've done here is shift the burden. Rather than defending your position, you're trying to argue against mine. I have a response to answer your accusation, which I'll add after this. But you need to address the point that I'm making.
I've pointed out to you that you are conflating the state of being angry with the thing that motivates G-d to become angry. You are saying that the things that motivate G-d to anger always remain the same and therefore G-d is unchanging. I am explaining to you that you are speaking about the things that motivate G-d to anger. Those things remain constant. But what is changing is His state. If yesterday I was a good boy and G-d was happy with me, and today I'm bad and G-d is angry with me, G-d has changed states from happy to angry. This is a change. It may be that whenever I do that thing that made G-d angry with me, He gets angry. And so the motivator remains constant. But when He becomes angry, that is a change of state from happy to angry. It contradicts G-d's unchanging-ness.

It seems to me that the disagreement comes where we define what it means for God to be unchangeable. What is it about God that doesn't change? You say it is his state, everything about him never changes. I say that it is his character that never changes. God will never surprise you - he doesn't repent from the person he was before because he realises he could have been better. If what he does today is different from what he did yesterday then it is because today's situation called for a different response than yesterday's situation, not because God changes.

With regard to my theological position. There is no contradiction because G-d always remains in the same state of being G-d. He doesn't become angry or sad. He just is G-d and that naturally causes a bounty to flow to the universe. As a metaphor I've been using here, If G-d is a white light, then it can be used to create a number of different colored lights even though it is none of them. It has the potential for everything, but it is not any color. So G-d is His "white light" and when it shines through a "red lens" you get a flood. When it shines through a "blue" one, you get a redemption. G-d is above all these qualities, but He is the Cause of all of them. So too, when we speak about G-d becoming happy or angry, we are not referring to G-d Himself, but to the manifestation of the "white light" through a specific "lens".

Now here you are (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my position. I have not said that God changes from being God one day to being something other than God the next. And since God just is as you say, who are we to judge what he can and can't do in order to remain God? Who are we to say that for him to be God he must have no feelings? Who are we to say that he has changed into something other than God when he feels anger about a certain situation, or love, or hate or sadness?

As to your analogy, you say God is a white light. I agree. You say that lenses change the color of that light and again I can agree. God is God. Different situations bring out different manifestations of his nature.
Where I am losing you is when you say God is above his qualities. I say that without his qualities there is no God. There is no object without properties. God is the sum of his qualities (and we don't obviously know all of them) as an object is the sum of it's properties. So a square for example, is not a 90 degree angle. Nor is it four equal sides. But you cannot define a square without including 90 degree angles and for equal sides. A square is not independent of those properties since it is in fact the sum and culmination of those properties. Likewise God is not anger or happiness. But God is not independent of those attributes either. He is the sum of all those qualities in their ultimate and perfect form. He is love, anger, hate (of sin), justice, mercy, tolerance, discrimination etc. This is what makes him omnipotent - because he possesses within him every quality necessary to deal with any conceivable challenge that could ever be thrown against him.

Lastly I sense in your concept of God more a force than an actual, personal being. Your resistance to assigning to him motivations, feelings and even thoughts seems to indicate that you are more inclined to see him more as some power or force, more an it than a him. Am I correct in this estimation?

Yes and no.
Yes, He does not have thoughts as a separate part of Him. He doesn't "think" because that would create a division between Him and His thoughts and G-d is One.
No, because He is not a rock.

In other words, G-d doesn't need "thoughts" in order to accomplish the things we need thoughts for. Applying the word "thoughts" to G-d is binding Him to our concepts and G-d is beyond anything we can comprehend. We simply can't say anything about G-d because it wouldn't be true. With the exception of G-d's Oneness, since that's essentially a negative quality (ie. implying a "not")

Thinking does not create a division. My thoughts arise from me. They are a characteristic of me being me. Through them I evaluate my environment and decide my response. But me and my thoughts are one - if I was someone other than me my thoughts would differ.

For me God's changing ways of dealing with man, the different commandments he has given over time for people in different circumstances shows a being who can and does think and who is thus able to respond appropriately to his environment.

Only a little.
They are created concepts with which G-d interacts with the world and through which we can gain some tiny inkling of perception of Him as the potential of everything.

Who is the creator of the concepts.

 

[Tumah]

It seems to me that the disagreement comes where we define what it means for God to be unchangeable. What is it about God that doesn't change? You say it is his state, everything about him never changes. I say that it is his character that never changes. God will never surprise you - he doesn't repent from the person he was before because he realises he could have been better. If what he does today is different from what he did yesterday then it is because today's situation called for a different response than yesterday's situation, not because God changes.

I don't think that its "unchanging-ness" that we disagree on. I think its G-d's Oneness that we disagree on. I believe that G-d is One in the most elemental way. While you believe that His Oneness is restricted to only certain aspects.

Now here you are (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my position. I have not said that God changes from being God one day to being something other than God the next. And since God just is as you say, who are we to judge what he can and can't do in order to remain God? Who are we to say that for him to be God he must have no feelings? Who are we to say that he has changed into something other than God when he feels anger about a certain situation, or love, or hate or sadness?

I don't think I misrepresented them. I didn't mean to say that G-d changes from being G-d to not being G-d. But from being a happy G-d to being an angry G-d. That's a change in emotional state.
I think because of the lack of familiarity with my position, you are having some trouble understanding what I'm saying. I'm not making a judgement call about G-d. In fact my position comes from not being able to say anything about G-d. Its because G-d is so far beyond our comprehension that we can't apply any type of adjective to G-d that we can comprehend. I am not saying that G-d has no feelings because G-d can't have feelings, but because I can understand the concept of feelings and G-d is something I can't comprehend at all. Therefore applying such a concept to G-d is basically not relating to our inability to understand G-d.

As to your analogy, you say God is a white light. I agree. You say that lenses change the color of that light and again I can agree. God is God. Different situations bring out different manifestations of his nature.
Where I am losing you is when you say God is above his qualities. I say that without his qualities there is no God. There is no object without properties. God is the sum of his qualities (and we don't obviously know all of them) as an object is the sum of it's properties. So a square for example, is not a 90 degree angle. Nor is it four equal sides. But you cannot define a square without including 90 degree angles and for equal sides. A square is not independent of those properties since it is in fact the sum and culmination of those properties. Likewise God is not anger or happiness. But God is not independent of those attributes either. He is the sum of all those qualities in their ultimate and perfect form. He is love, anger, hate (of sin), justice, mercy, tolerance, discrimination etc. This is what makes him omnipotent - because he possesses within him every quality necessary to deal with any conceivable challenge that could ever be thrown against him.

This is part of where I believe you are wrong. G-d is the Creator of everything in existence.
Just to express that: G-d is the Creator of "dimension". And its there that your analogy falls apart. Take a cube. Remove one dimension. Now you have a square. Remove another dimension. Now you have a line. Remove the last dimension and all you have is a dot. A dot has no distinguishing features (except to us looking at the dot from an outside perspective) Take the entire universe and remove all of the physical dimensions that didn't exist before G-d created them. You no longer have room to differentiate anything. All you have is an infinite dot.
G-d is not the sum of His qualities, because qualities require differentiation and differentiation like dimension, did not exist before G-d created it. That's how G-d is the First and anything else is not also the first.

Its even kind of worse than that, because your elevating emotion to a position of power over G-d. In your theological view, anger can cause G-d to do something. Which would make G-d not the First Cause, which would probably be an issue in making a cosmological argument.

Lastly I sense in your concept of God more a force than an actual, personal being. Your resistance to assigning to him motivations, feelings and even thoughts seems to indicate that you are more inclined to see him more as some power or force, more an it than a him. Am I correct in this estimation?

You are exactly incorrect. As I keep repeating, we can't apply any sort of terminology to G-d. Calling G-d a force rather than a personal deity is again applying terminology to Him and therefore false. I have no concept of G-d because G-d is beyond conception. I know that G-d reveals to us an expression of wanting to be perceived as a personal deity and so He is. But not because He is inherently so, but because that's what He chooses to make us perceive Him as.

And again, I use "choose" and "wants" in the loosest of terms as G-d Himself has no inherent desire or will. We only use these verbs because that's what we perceive happening, even though it is not actually happening on the most fundamental level.

Thinking does not create a division. My thoughts arise from me. They are a characteristic of me being me. Through them I evaluate my environment and decide my response. But me and my thoughts are one - if I was someone other than me my thoughts would differ.

For me God's changing ways of dealing with man, the different commandments he has given over time for people in different circumstances shows a being who can and does think and who is thus able to respond appropriately to his environment.

Your thoughts sure are a division. If someone is missing their leg, do they stop thinking? What about it their head is missing? Your thoughts are clearly different than your leg. So there is a difference between your thoughts and your body.
Likewise, there is a difference between your mind and your thoughts. If you think about a baseball game and then you think about last night's supper, did you change? You did not. Thoughts take place within your mind, but they are not your mind. You can empty your mind in meditation or fill your mind with anxious thoughts. There is a difference between the mind and the thought.

Who is the creator of the concepts.

G-d.
Wisdom is one of the first of these concepts. As Prov. 8:22 says, Wisdom is the first of G-d's ways. In order to create a world that expresses G-d's Wisdom, G-d created a concept called Wisdom. Wisdom is one of the first lenses through which G-d's "light" shined when He created the world. Every subsequent action was "colored" by the "lens" of Wisdom and so we perceive the creation as an expression of G-d's Wisdom.

 

[savethedreams]

Peace be on you.
God created human at His image. It means we have imprints of our Maker.
God has numerous noble attributes, and we need to imbibe them on human level (not the ones which are exclusive for God).
Since we cannot understand God fully so God used metaphors for us to understand.

My question is where do these attributes come from? I'm not asking , if we are created in his image or not. I'm asking God and God alone, psychologically.

 

[DawudTalut]

My question is where do these attributes come from? I'm not asking , if we are created in his image or not. I'm asking God and God alone, psychologically.

Peace be on you.
In Holy Quran, God says:
[ch57:v4] He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well.

So God is the First and Final cause. Thus no one else gave the noble attributes to God. God has them. We cannot know more about such matter - according to our understanding.

 

[Nadia Faiazova]

We simply have emotions because we are created in God's image, meaning that we can reflect God's qualities. In the same time, God has emotions but he's not being controlled by them (as we, humans, often are) God's attributes such as his love wisdom, justice, power and others- just plainly show us that he wants us to draw close to him.