God's emotions

[Who Shot JR]

Simplistically speaking: God is happy when we obey him, and unhappy/angry when we disobey (sin). If God has the capacity to be angry and sad then can we assume that God has emotions? And if so what is the cause or source of these emotions?

In us humans emotions are provably chemical. Evidence of this is that a labadomy significantly decreases emotional response. Also, victims of terrible car crashes often have diminished emotions. Ingesting Prozac makes one happier. Valium or Xanax calms one down. So how does it work for God? Is there a biology or a physics of God that explain how this can be?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Simplistically speaking: God is happy when we obey him, and unhappy/angry when we disobey (sin). If God has the capacity to be angry and sad then can we assume that God has emotions? And if so what is the cause or source of these emotions?

In us humans emotions are provably chemical. Evidence of this is that a labadomy significantly decreases emotional response. Also, victims of terrible car crashes often have diminished emotions. Ingesting Prozac makes one happier. Valium or Xanax calms one down. So how does it work for God? Is there a biology or a physics of God that explain how this can be?

[/ QUOTE ]
How could anyone possibly answer this question? I agree he probably does have emotions because he's also capable of love, but no one could possilby know what would cause God's emotions.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
In us humans emotions are provably chemical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because emotions are affected by chemicals doesn’t mean emotions are mere chemistry.

[Who Shot JR]

The underlying question is that if God's emotions are governed by something, is there is something that God obeys? Is God's emotional response beyond his control, like it is for us humans? If God is absolute then it is a contradiction that God obeys or is governed by something. But emotions must stem from somewhere...

[Who Shot JR]

So if one can completely loose the ability to feel an emotion due to a chemical change - which happens to people who are victims of terrible accidents - then what evidence is there that emotions are anything but chemical?

[Sharkey]

When has an emotion ever been constructed out of chemicals?

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
When has an emotion ever been constructed out of chemicals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Physically speaking, emotions are constructed out of neurotransmitters (chemicals) in every living being that has ever lived and is capable of feeling emotions. You and I are perfect examples.

[Sharkey]

Since that has not been proven in the laboratory, it is merely an article of faith, not science.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
Since that has not been proven in the laboratory, it is merely an article of faith, not science.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think this has been proven in both laboratories through years of animal experimentation, as well as through observations of damaged or altered (e.g., labadomized) humans. The fact that effective mood-altering drugs have been developed is proof of this.

For the sake of argument, let's say that emotions stem from somewhere nonchemical. Even so, certain neurotranmitters and brain pathways are required in order for one to actually feel these emotions. Lose the chemicals or sever the pathways and the emotion is gone, at least in the physical sense.

If you disagree please provide evidence to the contrary.

[Sharkey]

I agree with the basic sense of your modified version.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that effective mood-altering drugs have been developed is proof of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... I think we are getting somewhere... If only we could get god to take some mood-altering drug, there may be a chance yet.

[Sharkey]

You better hope God doesn’t undo you.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You better hope God doesn’t undo you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning???

[Sharkey]

You seem dissatisfied with God’s work, yet presumably you’re not regretting your own existence.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem dissatisfied with God’s work, yet presumably you’re not regretting your own existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am extremely dissatisfied, that is one of the reasons I don't believe in god. The concept is monstruous to me.

Don't presume. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You seem dissatisfied with God’s work, yet presumably you’re not regretting your own existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am extremely dissatisfied, that is one of the reasons I don't believe in god. The concept is monstruous to me.

Don't presume. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope whatever it is gets better somehow.

[madnak]

Hmm. Being undone sounds rather nice. Particularly when compared to hell.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope whatever it is gets better somehow.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Sharkey, you hope and I face reality... I guess I made the choice not to deny, that's the difference.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. Being undone sounds rather nice. Particularly when compared to hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s being overdone.

[madnak]

I'll take the un-, please.

[bunny]

Without addressing whether emotions in humans are completely determined by chemistry or not (it is possible that they are affected by them but that there is something else as well - this would still fit the facts of the experiements you refer to) - it seems to me that God is just different. After all he is deemed to exist with no physical presence, he knows things before they happen, he can break the laws of physics (or change them temporarily perhaps). Given all of this - it doesnt seem much of a puzzle as to how he can have emotions without chemicals.

My answer (purely a faith-based opinion) would be yes he feels emotion - it is part of his nature. I have no evidence for the claim though.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]

In us humans emotions are provably chemical. Evidence of this is that a labadomy significantly decreases emotional response. Also, victims of terrible car crashes often have diminished emotions. Ingesting Prozac makes one happier. Valium or Xanax calms one down. So how does it work for God? Is there a biology or a physics of God that explain how this can be?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well according to the bible, man is made in the image of God. Or it could be that the Christian God & Zeus & Thor & any others are made in the image of Man, which would work just as well.

It does bring up the interesting question, of whether God is perfectly rational or does his emotions override fairness/justice.

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]

It does bring up the interesting question, of whether God is perfectly rational or does his emotions override fairness/justice.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and this point was one of my reasons for posting this question in the first place. According to the The American Heritage Dictionary, the definition of emotion is:

"A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling."

So if God's emotions arise spontaneously isn't it fair to say that any such emotional response is beyond God's control? But isn't it a contradiction to suggest that anything is beyond God's control, since God is absolute? It would seem to me that because of this contradiction God's emotions could not be spontaneous, and thus God does not experience emotions at all, at least none in accordance with the above definition.

[Prodigy54321]

I was under the impression that emotions and uch were electrical impulses, not chemical

which is it?

and what do these medications do (anyone who knows)

sry for the hijack..just wondering

[purnell]

You guys are taking the scripture too literally IMO. God is given emotions metaphorically, to help us understand, but to assume that God's "feelings" work the same way as a human's is an error. IMHO.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are taking the scripture too literally IMO. God is given emotions metaphorically, to help us understand, but to assume that God's "feelings" work the same way as a human's is an error. IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe plenty people would argue that we are made in God's image. Therefore we must experience emotions in some degree related to the way God experiences emotions, or in the image of the way God experiences emotions.

Also, in most religious texts God rewards when he is happy, and punishes when he is mad. So God's happy and God's mad seem to coincide largely with a human's happy and a human's mad.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are taking the scripture too literally IMO. God is given emotions metaphorically, to help us understand, but to assume that God's "feelings" work the same way as a human's is an error. IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya purnell,

Could there be a remote possibiliy that god was devised as a metaphore to enable simple minds understand the tragic human condition more easily.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe plenty people would argue that we are made in God's image. Therefore we must experience emotions in some degree related to the way God experiences emotions, or in the image of the way God experiences emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't follow. And if you follow this line of reasoning, you would have to conclude that God needs food, water, sleep, and a place to piss/[censored]. Do you believe God needs all those things? If not, why would you assume God functions the same way we do when it comes to emotions?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys are taking the scripture too literally IMO. God is given emotions metaphorically, to help us understand, but to assume that God's "feelings" work the same way as a human's is an error. IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya purnell,

Could there be a remote possibiliy that god was devised as a metaphore to enable simple minds understand the tragic human condition more easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. But that's not what I believe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that emotions and uch were electrical impulses, not chemical

which is it?

and what do these medications do (anyone who knows)

sry for the hijack..just wondering

[/ QUOTE ]

It's both. Nerves send electrical signals that cause the release of chemicals that bind with receptors and trigger electrical signals. Most mood-altering chemicals enter the synapse between nerve cells and either bond with receptors triggering electrical signals that release neurotransmitters or bond with reuptake transporters and prevent the neurotransmitters in a synapse from being reabsorbed.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course. But that's not what I believe.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't trump belief. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't trump belief.

[/ QUOTE ]

Including your own.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If God is absolute then it is a contradiction that God obeys or is governed by something. But emotions must stem from somewhere...


[/ QUOTE ]

God is governed by Himself, by His nature. He loves the good and hates sin. In a sense He has no choice about that because He can't deny Himself.

As far as emotion, I believe human emotion is a very dim reflection of what is original with God. I think it's impossible to go beyond that. Whatever is analogous in God to our emotion is a response from His character, not from anything outside Himself that controls Him.

[Alex-db]

This question is the same as asking:

How can a unicorn have a horn, when horns are made of real matter, but unicorns are a fantasy?

[godBoy]

I think it follows, of course that depends on our understanding of that scripture 'made in God's image'.
I think it explains that we hold 'some' similar characteristics with God..love, happiness, anger, ...desire for family, community.. I think it eludes many times throughout the scriptures that God feels. Of course we cannnot expect him to have the same 'feelings' but I think the scriptures suggest a most passionate untamable being that is crazy about humans. It also says God is spirit, He isn't contained to the physics we know and understand so doesn't need a lavvy..

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it follows, of course that depends on our understanding of that scripture 'made in God's image'.
I think it explains that we hold 'some' similar characteristics with God..love, happiness, anger , ...desire for family, community.. I think it eludes many times throughout the scriptures that God feels. Of course we cannnot expect him to have the same 'feelings' but I think the scriptures suggest a most passionate untamable being that is crazy about humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I get it! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[godBoy]

It doesn't surprise me that you would overlook 98% of my post... Your fitting your norm.

But I will address them anyways.. Why should God not feel angry?

being crazy about someone implies love to most...

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Simplistically speaking: God is happy when we obey him, and unhappy/angry when we disobey (sin). If God has the capacity to be angry and sad then can we assume that God has emotions? And if so what is the cause or source of these emotions?

In us humans emotions are provably chemical. Evidence of this is that a labadomy significantly decreases emotional response. Also, victims of terrible car crashes often have diminished emotions. Ingesting Prozac makes one happier. Valium or Xanax calms one down. So how does it work for God? Is there a biology or a physics of God that explain how this can be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe God designed the human body and mind to make us capable of understanding things about his spirit. We can't expect to be able to understand his spirit entirely though. I think a lot of our desires, emotions, capabilites were intended to give and understanding of Him.

yes, God feels. But not in the same way, he isn't limited to a physical container. IMO.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't surprise me that you would overlook 98% of my post... Your fitting your norm.

But I will address them anyways.. Why should God not feel angry?

being crazy about someone implies love to most...

[/ QUOTE ]
Pay no attention to MidGe. He's a bigot.

[godBoy]

The majority of human beings believe in a higher power.
An extreme minority believe in unicorns.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it follows, of course that depends on our understanding of that scripture 'made in God's image'.
I think it explains that we hold 'some' similar characteristics with God..love, happiness, anger, ...desire for family, community..

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course we cannnot expect him to have the same 'feelings'

[/ QUOTE ]
The poster said that because we are made in God's "image" we must therefore think the same way. I don't think that follows and it appears you agree.

[madnak]

I believe that anger in humans comes from two sources and only two sources. The first is when they perceive some threat. The second is when the world fails to meet their expectations.

I have yet to encounter a human example of anger that doesn't correspond, according to my view, to one of these two categories.

Why shouldn't God be angry? Well, I suppose he could if and only if human free will somehow violates his expectations.

However, anger to me also necessitates a lack of acceptance. It's rather a petty and desperate emotion. So even if God can feel anger, the idea of an angry God is still an indictment of Christianity as far as I'm concerned.

[godBoy]

What about unforgiveness.
Someone hurts a close friend of yours.
You are not threatened.
Is your expectation of the world that no-one will ever hurt those you love? If so this a very unrealistic/false expectation.
You still remain very much angry at this person.

I think god loves justice, when someone get ripped off or cheated out of something of treated unfairly. Because what he loves is being crossed.

I get pissed off with racists, it is shockingly unjust. Should I accept these people who hurt others. No I won't accept injustice. I think it's a very honest emotion the only time not is when we have false expectations or misunderstanding.
I think anger is very helpful if it can be controlled, it is powerful and makes us stand up for what we know to be right. It's helped a lot of people make the world a better place IMO.

[madnak]

I consider hurt to be a variation of threat perception. I classify it as a feeling of vulnerability. But hurt definitely can cause anger. So can direct fear, incidentally, but it's probably much easier for you to see threat perception in fear.

If there were no feeling of vulnerability and unexpected loss, then I would simply be sad if a friend were hurt. Not angry. Vengeful, maybe. But I hope not, because I consider that perhaps the most ugly and horrible of human emotions. A lot of people seem to equate vengefulness and anger. I believe there is a clear distinction.

Anger has its uses, certainly. But they are highly limited. And anger can be empowering in a crude way. But God doesn't need any extra power. I firmly believe that anger has done much more harm to society as a whole than good. And the people I respect the most are slow to anger, and become slower and slower to anger as they learn and grow.

I thought the Christian doctrine advocated universal acceptance? Love thine enemies? So, yes, by my morals and by yours you should accept them. Or at any rate if you can love them without accepting them, you are capable of contortions I am not.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Anger has its uses, certainly. But they are highly limited. And anger can be empowering in a crude way. But God doesn't need any extra power. I firmly believe that anger has done much more harm to society as a whole than good. And the people I respect the most are slow to anger, and become slower and slower to anger as they learn and grow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee wiz, I've read that in the bible! you mean it's true!
But on this point: "I firmly believe that anger has done much more harm to society as a whole than good." I could also argue that getting out of bed has been a greater harm to society, it's what we do with the anger that's important.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the Christian doctrine advocated universal acceptance? Love thine enemies? So, yes, by my morals and by yours you should accept them. Or at any rate if you can love them without accepting them, you are capable of contortions I am not.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can be angry and loving at the same time, similarly accepting and angry. What's important is that we learn how to control our bodies, and are "slow to anger" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[madnak]

I agree with you there, as it applies to humans.

But I can't see it applying to God. Dissapointment I might see, even a certain kind of stern wrath designed to help us along. But anger? I can't see how an omnibenevolent, all-powerful God could actually be angry.

[godBoy]

Would your children being raped and murdered make you angry?

[madnak]

Probably. But if I were my ideal self, no. It would make me very sad.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I can be angry and loving at the same time, similarly accepting and angry. What's important is that we learn how to control our bodies, and are "slow to anger"

[/ QUOTE ]

Slow? How slow is slow when the punishment is eternal?

[godBoy]

hmmm,
An example of anger in the bible is shown in Moses,
watching one of his people get beaten by a guard.
He got so angry that he killed the guard.
Moses was a murderer, a sinner, but a good man. Who knew what was right and knew that he could not let the injustice continue and he set his whole people free of slavery. Don't focus on his bad response to anger, anger can promote good actions. I'm thankful that I can get angry at injustice.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]

The poster said that because we are made in God's "image" we must therefore think the same way. I don't think that follows and it appears you agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, well I didn't mean to suggest that we think/feel exactly the same as God, just that according to sacred texts we were made in some likeness of him. In any case I imagine that he functions quite differently from us humans.

What I am suggesting though is that how God expresses emotion seems very similiar to the way humans do. When God is happy good things happen, and when God is unhappy bad things happen. Perhaps this is only done so that we can understand what God wants in the only capacity that we have. I don't know. However, these seem very human-like reactions.

But getting back the original point of this post: if God is angry, what causes him to be angry? Does he have an emotional reaction or is it some extension of reason? Emotions are a side of consciousness that are not under one's control, so does God similarly have emotions that arise out of his control from input about the word? One cannot choose to experience love/happiness/anger/etc.. If it is a choice then it is no longer emotion.

I hope the point I am driving at is clear.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
God is governed by Himself, by His nature. He loves the good and hates sin. In a sense He has no choice about that because He can't deny Himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if he has no choice then it is beyond his control. But it can't be beyond his control because God is absolute. So how can this be? How can God obey something (i.e., love the good and hate the sin) and be master of the universe, including himself, at the same time?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So if he has no choice then it is beyond his control. But it can't be beyond his control because God is absolute.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's the old answer - God can't make a square circle. He has no choice but to be righteous because that's His nature - His absoluteness doesn't mean He can do that which violates His nature. Omnipotence means the power to do anything that's possible.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the old answer - God can't make a square circle. He has no choice but to be righteous because that's His nature - His absoluteness doesn't mean He can do that which violates His nature. Omnipotence means the power to do anything that's possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

But he has the power to create independent creatures who can go against his nature? It doesn't seem possible that an all-knowing, all-seeing, and otherwise omnipotent being who is only capable of righteousness can do something which is ultimately unrighteous.

Side question: Can God see the future? If yes: then God knows that his creation is unrighteous, and since he can only be righteous he could not have created something unrighteous in the first place. If no: then God is not the master of the universe, because God is then subject to time.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Can God see the future?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
If yes: then God knows that his creation is unrighteous, and since he can only be righteous he could not have created something unrighteous in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]
Adam was righteous. But he also had free will. And he chose sin.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can God see the future?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
If yes: then God knows that his creation is unrighteous, and since he can only be righteous he could not have created something unrighteous in the first place

[/ QUOTE ]
Adam was righteous. But he also had free will. And he chose sin.

[/ QUOTE ]

God can see the future.
God created Adam.
Adam chose to sin.

It should then follow that therefore God knew that by creating Adam that Adam would choose to sin. So if God is only capable of righteousness, and he knew unrighteousness would ensue as a consequence of his own actions, how could he possibly take those actions?

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
When has an emotion ever been constructed out of chemicals?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have used chemicals to construct various emotions on numerous occassion. Sheesh, were you a member of D.A.R.E. growing up?

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
When has an emotion ever been constructed out of chemicals?

[/ QUOTE ]

The causation of emotions is complex. Emotion are feelings which are based on sensations, which are based on brain chemicals interacting with the brain. You can cause those interactions with drugs, or they can be caused by outside events interacting with your point of view. You also can cause emotions, by muscle movement (smiling), or intensify or decrease the level of emotions by choice.

But we do feel emotion on a chemical basis.

I think most people's view of God's emotions are based solely on events interacting with his point of view but exclude the other causes of emotions that happen in humans.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It doesn't seem possible that an all-knowing, all-seeing, and otherwise omnipotent being who is only capable of righteousness can do something which is ultimately unrighteous.


[/ QUOTE ]


He doesn't. It isn't God who is sinning.

[ QUOTE ]

Can God see the future? If yes: then God knows that his creation is unrighteous, and since he can only be righteous he could not have created something unrighteous in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says that God called the creation good when He had finished. It also says He created man upright. Therefore the creation was not unrighteous in the first place.

[Lestat]

This to me, is just further evidence for atheism.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It doesn't seem possible that an all-knowing, all-seeing, and otherwise omnipotent being who is only capable of righteousness can do something which is ultimately unrighteous.


[/ QUOTE ]


He doesn't. It isn't God who is sinning.

[ QUOTE ]

Can God see the future? If yes: then God knows that his creation is unrighteous, and since he can only be righteous he could not have created something unrighteous in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says that God called the creation good when He had finished. It also says He created man upright. Therefore the creation was not unrighteous in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are missing my point.

It may not be God who is sinning, but it was God who created the being who can sin, and - since it was established already that God can see the future - God knew in advance that his creation would sin. So therefore God created the sin, because he knew before creating man that man would sin. He could have chosen to create something else with free will that he knew (again, because he could see his creation's future) wouldn't sin.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So therefore God created the sin


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a sense in which this is true. God created everything that isn't God, so He is the cause in fact or sine qua non of everything. But that doesn't make Him morally responsible for sin. There are many analogies I could give, none are perfect, but illustrate the idea. If you have children you must know some of them will sometime do something wrong. That makes you the cause in fact of the wrong, but not morally responsible.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So therefore God created the sin


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a sense in which this is true. God created everything that isn't God, so He is the cause in fact or sine qua non of everything. But that doesn't make Him morally responsible for sin. There are many analogies I could give, none are perfect, but illustrate the idea. If you have children you must know some of them will sometime do something wrong. That makes you the cause in fact of the wrong, but not morally responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying.

However, if I was conceiving a child and I knew before he/she was conceived that he/she would eventually do something spiritually and/or celestially terrible, I might think twice about conceiving that child and instead try to conceive one with less grave consequences.

Unfortunately this isn't possible for us humans because we can't see into the future. But God can see the future, so again, he must have known in advance that his creation was going to disobey him.

Is this untrue?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Is this untrue?


[/ QUOTE ]

He knew. The generic answer is that it's better that God created than not. We know this primarily because God tells us in His Word. In other words, it comes down to trusting God as being wiser than us. I can't satisfy unbelieving human reason but I believe God is good and just. There's just some things He hasn't told us. Faith is required.

BTW, this doesn't prove anything, but just to extend the previous illustration. Suppose you knew your child would do something very bad but would also have a child who would discover a cure for cancer 50 years before anyone else would, thus saving millions of lives.

There's actually a whole branch of theology which explores this question called Molinism after a Catholic named Molina. It's called middle knowledge. I don't entirely buy it but the truth may be something like that. It involves the idea that not only does God know what will happen but He knows what would have happened for all possible alternatives. This quickly swamps human reason but is interesting speculation.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Is this untrue?


[/ QUOTE ]

He knew. The generic answer is that it's better that God created than not. We know this primarily because God tells us in His Word. In other words, it comes down to trusting God as being wiser than us. I can't satisfy unbelieving human reason but I believe God is good and just. There's just some things He hasn't told us. Faith is required.

There's actually a whole branch of theology which explores this question called Molinism after a Catholic named Molina. It's called middle knowledge. I don't entirely buy it but the truth may be something like that. It involves the idea that not only does God know what will happen but He knows what would have happened for all possible alternatives. This quickly swamps human reason but is interesting speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for explaining. This has been (at least for me) an interesting and enlightening thread. Perhaps I will try to read more about Molinism. Hopefully there is a Wikipedia page...


[ QUOTE ]

BTW, this doesn't prove anything, but just to extend the previous illustration. Suppose you knew your child would do something very bad but would also have a child who would discover a cure for cancer 50 years before anyone else would, thus saving millions of lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if I had infinite vision into the future and the cognitive abilities to process it all, I believe I would clearly weigh the pros and cons of having a child who himself would do something terrible but whose offspring would do something ultimately good for humanity.

I see where you are going with this line of reasoning. However, even if I had the above abilities, I did not create the universe which contains the cancer (which my future offspring may be able to somewhat alleviate) to begin with.

[godBoy]

God doesn't send people to hell, he saves those who ask to be saved.
People don't go to hell because God is angry because of their sin, they go because they refuse the god of the universe's offer of salvation. It's really simple.
An offer has been made not out of hate, anger, but love.
An offer so good that if you understood it you would glady accept.
If you reject all of this simply on the grounds that you're too proud, you don't deserve God's company.
We were made for heaven.. people reject it though. What makes you think you deserve a place like heaven? I know I don't deserve it.

[godBoy]

I think the biological chemistry in our heads God designed for us to experience things that he experiences in his spirit.
So his emotions aren't caused by chemistry, but a spiritual response to some stimuli.
He gets angry because those he loves more passionately than anyone could articulate are hurt by sin.
Be it, his child being raped and beaten. Or his son being Kicked in the teeth beacuse of the colour of his skin. I think God has reason to be angry, I think we have a lot to answer for.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
God doesn't send people to hell, he saves those who ask to be saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

God sends everyone to hell... People saves themselves by ingraciating themselves with god.

It seems very strange that you can keep on describing your theology in the reverse way of what the facts are.

[godBoy]

You don't understand the God I know.
Perhaps my view of God is correct and these 'facts about chiristianity' that you love to share are in fact untrue.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God doesn't send people to hell, he saves those who ask to be saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

God sends everyone to hell... People saves themselves by ingraciating themselves with god.

It seems very strange that you can keep on describing your theology in the reverse way of what the facts are.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, God's grace is out there for all to take. Unfortunately, people like you refuse. You chose your own fate, not God.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
God doesn't send people to hell, he saves those who ask to be saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, who is the agent? People who ask to be saved, otherwise they go to hell. God does not save people. People save themselves by ingratiating themselves with the monster.

Religion is really saying one thing to mean another. I cannot believe that many more people see this constant twisting of facts to hide the irreconciliable truth that god is a monster and not imbued with love.

I am starting to see what they mean when some say that religion is the work of the devil. He seem very clever indeed.

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the biological chemistry in our heads God designed for us to experience things that he experiences in his spirit.
So his emotions aren't caused by chemistry, but a spiritual response to some stimuli.
He gets angry because those he loves more passionately than anyone could articulate are hurt by sin.
Be it, his child being raped and beaten. Or his son being Kicked in the teeth beacuse of the colour of his skin. I think God has reason to be angry, I think we have a lot to answer for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I understand that there is a lot God could be angry about.

But this still begs the question, are God's emotions out of his control? These reactions that he experiences, the spiritual responses to stimuli, are they something he chooses to experience or do they just happen, like they do for us humans? If they are not beyond his control - as they shouldn't be, since God is the master of the universe, including himself - then they are not truly emotions, are they?

In response to this post, please answer: God experiences emotions which are beyond his control - that is, he has no choice but to feel them: true or false?

[godBoy]

No I don't think God experiences emotions which are beyond his control.
The other question:- then they are not truly emotions, are they?
I can't be certain..
but I think yes, they are emotions. People still have emotions but can learn to control them. I think God having much higher capabilites would surely be able to control himself.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
In response to this post, please answer: God experiences emotions which are beyond his control - that is, he has no choice but to feel them: true or false?

[/ QUOTE ]
True - his emotions are part of his nature. God must act or exist according to his nature. Thus he cant choose to not love any more than he can choose to not know what will happen next (or choose to be less powerful).

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
No I don't think God experiences emotions which are beyond his control.
The other question:- then they are not truly emotions, are they?
I can't be certain..
but I think yes, they are emotions. People still have emotions but can learn to control them. I think God having much higher capabilites would surely be able to control himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure people can learn to master their emotional reactions - that is, make it so their emotions do not get the better of them (e.g., anger management) - but they cannot learn to control their emotions. No matter how hard one tries, one cannot help but feel happy at good news and feel sad/angry/grief/etc at bad news. The feeling of emotion is simply beyond cognitive control.

So while I agree that God most likely has the ability to control his emotional reactions, can he control the fact that he is feeling the emotion in the first place?

[Who Shot JR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In response to this post, please answer: God experiences emotions which are beyond his control - that is, he has no choice but to feel them: true or false?

[/ QUOTE ]
True - his emotions are part of his nature. God must act or exist according to his nature. Thus he cant choose to not love any more than he can choose to not know what will happen next (or choose to be less powerful).

[/ QUOTE ]

So if God has no choice but to act according to his nature, is it fair to conclude that God must obey something that is beyond his control? I assume that God has free will, so how can God have free will and not have a choice to act a certain way at the same time?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
So if God has no choice but to act according to his nature, is it fair to conclude that God must obey something that is beyond his control?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it's a question of "obeying" something. God's nature is to be good so God will always be good. I guess I would say he has the power to change his nature (meaning it isnt beyond his control) but would never choose to do that.

It seems to me you are taking how things are to humans and then extending them to God. I think God is just different - he is not bound by the same limitations as we are. The reason it seems logically puzzling is you are saying God is bound by his nature then ascribing a separate existence to "God's nature" and claiming this is something external he is bound by. God's nature is a characteristic of God.

[ QUOTE ]
I assume that God has free will, so how can God have free will and not have a choice to act a certain way at the same time?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he has the ability to choose to act against his nature but will never choose to do it. I have the choice to go on a murderous rampage but, because of my nature, ethics whatever, I never will. That doesnt mean I dont have the choice to - just that I wont.

[Lestat]

How can we ascribe anything human-like to God? Is it because He made us in His image?

Are you denying that human emotion is caused by chemical reaction in our brains? Does God have a brain? Does he have legs for that matter? If so, what does he use them for?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
How can we ascribe anything human-like to God? Is it because He made us in His image?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's more how can we not? I certainly think most of our statements about God are inherently innacurate as comprehension of a non-physical, eternal, all powerful, etc etc being is pretty much impossible in my view. Nonetheless, we have to say something if we are to talk about him (even "him" is pretty irrelevant).

[ QUOTE ]
Are you denying that human emotion is caused by chemical reaction in our brains? Does God have a brain? Does he have legs for that matter? If so, what does he use them for?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think human emotion is influenced but not solely caused by chemical reactions. Philosophically, I am a dualist (it seems pretty much impossible to me to be both a theist and materialist) and believe in non-physical components of the world. The mind-body interaction is peculiar and the two are clearly extremely closely related - I stop short at identifying mind with brain though.

With regard to physical characteristics of God - I dont think he has any, no. (Obviously excluding Jesus - whatever divine claims you want to make about him fall in the category of theology for me).

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can we ascribe anything human-like to God? Is it because He made us in His image?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's more how can we not? I certainly think most of our statements about God are inherently innacurate as comprehension of a non-physical, eternal, all powerful, etc etc being is pretty much impossible in my view. Nonetheless, we have to say something if we are to talk about him (even "him" is pretty irrelevant).

[ QUOTE ]
Are you denying that human emotion is caused by chemical reaction in our brains? Does God have a brain? Does he have legs for that matter? If so, what does he use them for?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think human emotion is influenced but not solely caused by chemical reactions. Philosophically, I am a dualist (it seems pretty much impossible to me to be both a theist and materialist) and believe in non-physical components of the world. The mind-body interaction is peculiar and the two are clearly extremely closely related - I stop short at identifying mind with brain though.

With regard to physical characteristics of God - I dont think he has any, no. (Obviously excluding Jesus - whatever divine claims you want to make about him fall in the category of theology for me).

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you don't believe human emotions are not soley caused by the brain, you probably agree they need the brain to exist or at least eminate from, no? I mean, a human without a brain (or a lobotomized brain), cannot generate emotion. A human without a brain can't think, feel, or do much of anything for that matter. So this must mean you believe God has a brain. What other human attributes do you think God has? I'm also curious if you think God has a sense of humor. Can He find things funny? Can He cry?

I'm sure you know I'm trying to pound holes in your logic. Don't take it personal. I'm just trying to find out how you tie everything together.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you don't believe human emotions are not soley caused by the brain, you probably agree they need the brain to exist or at least eminate from, no? I mean, a human without a brain (or a lobotomized brain), cannot generate emotion. A human without a brain can't think, feel, or do much of anything for that matter. So this must mean you believe God has a brain. What other human attributes do you think God has? I'm also curious if you think God has a sense of humor. Can He find things funny? Can He cry?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think that God has a brain, I think God is completely non-physical. I look at it round the other way, of course, not Human's have this attribute - does God? Rather I think God has attributes - which of them do we share?

I imagine God as a being of pure thought, feeling, consciousness, etc. I think he created us as physical things, subject to physical laws and with our brains closely tied to our minds (I dont believe you can think without a brain). I dont think the brain-dependant bit is all of us though - I think the non-physical bit (I can call it a soul if you like, but it's such a loaded and multiply used term it's hard to remain clear on exactly what I'm referring to) is the "real us". If there is a life-after death and a union with God (ie heaven) then I think it is purely this bit that exists there - the nature of that existence is incomprehensible to me and this is not something I have a strong belief about either way. My world view accomodates life-after-death but doesnt require it.

I actually dont think God has a sense of humor but this goes fairly widely off topic. Suffice to say I have made a mild attempt at a philosophy of humor and I think it is completely dependant on surprise. God cant be surprised so he cant find anything funny.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you know I'm trying to pound holes in your logic. Don't take it personal. I'm just trying to find out how you tie everything together.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hah - you have to try much harder than this to offend me! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> (I dont believe you can think without a brain) </font>

So if there IS a heaven, do you believe we will not be able to think? Or that we will be able to think, but without a brain.

<font color="blue"> My world view accomodates life-after-death but doesnt require it. </font>

For some reason I find this incredibly interesting. I have a friend who believes in God, but not life after death. I ask him (and I'll ask you): Then what sense does a belief in God make? His answer, is that God can control things and intervene in our lives while we're here. I just don't get that. We are here for such an insignificant amount of time in the scheme of things. Why would God care and/or why should we care if God intervenes or not, when it's all moot anyway.

Another big problem I would have with this belief is how can you can consider God a loving God? All the suffering in the world "might" make sense if there is a larger purpose and you will be with Him for eternity. But if we die and that's it, how can you know children are dying of cancer and still say God is kind and loving? You'd have to think God lets the good suffer for no reason or reward. I'd really like your explanation on this.

I have another friend who has a saying anytime something goes wrong for him. "In a hundred years this ain't gonna matter anyway and I won't care". I kinda like that.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
My world view accomodates life-after-death but doesnt require it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mine, too. Atheist, for the record. We have a lot in common I believe, bunny. You are a theist who won't rule out the rational, and I'm an atheist who won't rule out the irrational.

[QuantumLeap]

It's my opinion that the God of the Bible uses human emotions as a vehicle for us to understand Him, all the while not necessarily being a human function. In other words, the God of the Bible is displeased when we disobey Him but there is no biological function going on.

Personally, I don't believe in a God that gets mad when we disobey Him. First of all, I believe we are all gods in our own right and are here to learn the way toward perfection. When we "sin" or do something imperfect we do it as a result of being separated from God, or as some people call it the Source of Perfection. God helps us toward the path of perfection. We come closer to the Source by learning perfection in our lives.

"All roads lead to the Great Path eventually."

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]

An offer so good that if you understood it you would glady accept.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is true for at least most people. It brings to mind the CRITICAL question though:

If we would accept it, then why does God NOT make sure we understand the truth of it? Is he not able to? Does he not want everybody? If so then why?

Joseph

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I believe we are all gods in our own right and are here to learn the way toward perfection. When we "sin" or do something imperfect we do it as a result of being separated from God, or as some people call it the Source of Perfection. God helps us toward the path of perfection. We come closer to the Source by learning perfection in our lives.

"All roads lead to the Great Path eventually."

[/ QUOTE ]

What basis do you have for this belief? Does the category "human" a subset of the "GOD" Or are all "GOD", in the category human? If the latter, then what is the name of the perfect source human, and where does, he or she live?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It's my opinion that the God of the Bible uses human emotions as a vehicle for us to understand Him, all the while not necessarily being a human function. In other words, the God of the Bible is displeased when we disobey Him but there is no biological function going on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds good, so far.

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I believe we are all gods in our own right and are here to learn the way toward perfection. When we "sin" or do something imperfect we do it as a result of being separated from God, or as some people call it the Source of Perfection. God helps us toward the path of perfection. We come closer to the Source by learning perfection in our lives.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds like Mormonism.

[ QUOTE ]
"All roads lead to the Great Path eventually."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is almost certainly not true as many religions contradict the others. They cannot all be right.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My world view accomodates life-after-death but doesnt require it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mine, too. Atheist, for the record. We have a lot in common I believe, bunny. You are a theist who won't rule out the rational, and I'm an atheist who won't rule out the irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree (again) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
So if there IS a heaven, do you believe we will not be able to think? Or that we will be able to think, but without a brain.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe we would exist in a fundamentally different state than what we do now (I think it would have to be non-physical which is such a change I can hardly imagine what it will be like). I think of it as something like a mixture between thought/emotion/experience but not something contingent upon having a physical brain.

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason I find this incredibly interesting. I have a friend who believes in God, but not life after death. I ask him (and I'll ask you): Then what sense does a belief in God make?....We are here for such an insignificant amount of time in the scheme of things. Why would God care and/or why should we care if God intervenes or not, when it's all moot anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think our lives have meaning even if they are short and over in an insignificant time. I always thought this - even as an atheist. To me we give our lives meaning just by being who we are (beings who can make moral choices). A mountain may last millions of years and I only last seventy or so. Nonetheless, I matter more because I choose whether or not to recycle.

[ QUOTE ]
Another big problem I would have with this belief is how can you can consider God a loving God? All the suffering in the world "might" make sense if there is a larger purpose and you will be with Him for eternity. But if we die and that's it, how can you know children are dying of cancer and still say God is kind and loving? You'd have to think God lets the good suffer for no reason or reward. I'd really like your explanation on this.

[/ QUOTE ]
My account for the problem of evil rests on two claims one theological, one philosophical. Theologically, I believe God is good and works to bring good things into the world. I also believe he is far beyond my comprehension. I cant explain why he allows evil to happen but I trust that it is necessary for greater good to occur. (In passing - I have to say that your question gave me pause for thought. I have never considered life-after-death really and dont have an opinion on it. My first reading of your post made me think "Well, gee, maybe there has to be an afterlife." This is not a well-thought out part of my theology though).

The second answer I give to the problem of evil is that by allowing evil things to happen, God makes it possible for greater goods. I have mentioned this previously - the idea of secondary goods only being possible once first-order evils exist. So innocent people have to suffer in order to allow compassion (or perhaps sympathy) to exist.

You have given me some food for thought though, thanks. Perhaps I will have to accept the afterlife as a necessary consequence of a benevolent God who permits evil in the world. I'll have to think more on it...

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I think our lives have meaning even if they are short and over in an insignificant time. </font>

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I didn't mean life has no meaning, but that God would have less meaning if there is no life after death. Why would He mean anything more to you than an earthly loved one? Without after-life, you will never experience either again once death befalls you. Wouldn't this make God at least a little less important? Yet, it is my understanding that Christians believe God is above all. Even loved ones.

<font color="blue">My account for the problem of evil rests on two claims one theological, one philosophical. </font>

Hmm. I'm not sure we're on the same page here. I can understand God allowing evil even without after-life for the reasons you mention. I'm specifically referring to senseless suffering. To allow a 10 year old innocent child to suffer and die of cancer. If there were an after-life it "might" make sense to me. Without an after-life, why would an omnipotent kind and loving God ever allow such a thing to take place? The child receives no reward for his short life or his needless suffering. The same thing for SIDS and a myriad of other "senseless" sufferings of the completely innocent and pure of heart. Without eternal reward, wouldn't a kind, loving, God have to intervene? Otherwise, He has foresaken His children whom He loves.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
...God would have less meaning if there is no life after death. Why would He mean anything more to you than an earthly loved one? Without after-life, you will never experience either again once death befalls you. Wouldn't this make God at least a little less important?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you proposed the analogy, does your mortality make your loved ones less important to *you*? If your answer is no, then I think the last question is moot.

[ QUOTE ]
To allow a 10 year old innocent child to suffer and die of cancer. If there were an after-life it "might" make sense to me. Without an after-life, why would an omnipotent kind and loving God ever allow such a thing to take place?

[/ QUOTE ]

If there was a god that didn't intervene day-to-day, it wouldn't be so inconceivable.

[ QUOTE ]
...Otherwise, He has foresaken His children whom He loves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. My parents love me, but allowed me to grow up, go to college, move away, join the military, and face all kinds of terrible risks rather than protect me from harm at every step.

Just playing devil's advocate... errr, God's advocate.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Since you proposed the analogy, does your mortality make your loved ones less important to *you*? </font>

I kinda anticipated this would be brought up, but was hoping my intention would be understood. In other words, I was lazy.

Didn't God command Isaac to kill his only son as a sacrifice to God? This must mean humans should put God before loved ones. My question is, why? Why would you put God before a loved one when you will see neither again after this life time? In fact, I don't see how one could put God on an equal basis as a loved one, let alone a higher one. You can see, hear, and experience a loved one. You can't see or hear God. If you won't see either after you die, why would you put God above everyone else?



<font color="blue"> Not necessarily. My parents love me, but allowed me to grow up, go to college, move away, join the military, and face all kinds of terrible risks rather than protect me from harm at every step. </font>

That's because growing up, going away to college, etc. was necessary for you to get through this world. But what if they saw you drowning as a child? Would they have stood their and watched? Or would they have helped you? If God gives life to a child and sees him suffering with cancer at the tender age of 8, why wouldn't He help? Especially if there is no after-life? With after-life you could make a case that our eternal souls are what matter. Not what happens in our earthly existence. But without an after-life, the child suffers and dies for nothing while God watches and does nothing.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
So while I agree that God most likely has the ability to control his emotional reactions, can he control the fact that he is feeling the emotion in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, God's wild.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, God's wild.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he exists he is... lol. Glad we agree again.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Would your children being raped and murdered make you angry?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I were god then my children wouldn't be raped or murdered

chez

[godBoy]

Papa Jo.

I think he makes it clear enough for somone who wants to know. Perhaps God enjoys being sought after... God doesn't enjoy spoon feeding us and giving us all the answers, then we are not choosing him over other things. What we have now is choice.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, who is the agent? People who ask to be saved, otherwise they go to hell. God does not save people. People save themselves by ingratiating themselves with the monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

God is the one with the power to pull us out.
People are unable to save themselves, god was proactive and made the offer. I'm not twisting MidGe, but you continue to.