(Letsgofishing;27489)
Thanks for enhancing my vocabulary Tyrel. "compartmentalization" wow had to look that one up. Okay lets settle this. an official list of emotions Acceptance, Agitation, Alarm, Amusement, Anger, Angst, Annoyance, Anticipation, Apprehension, Apathy, Arrogance, Awe, Anxious Bitterness, Boredom Calmness, Cautiousness, Comfort, Contentment, Confidence, Courage Depression, Determination, Disappointment, Discontentment, Disgust, Desire, Delight Elation or Euphoria, Embarrassment, Ennui, Envy, Ecstasy Fear, Friendship, Frustration Glee, Gladness, Gratitude, Grief, Guilt Hate, Happiness, Homesickness, Honor, Hope, Horror, Humility Impatience, Inadequacy, Irritability Joy, Jealousy, Kindness Loneliness, Love, Lust, Limerence Melancholy, Modesty Nervousness, Negativity, Nostalgia Pain, Paranoia, Patience, Peace, Phobia, Pity, Pride Rage, Regret, Remorse, Resentment Sadness, Schadenfreude, Self-pity, Shame, Shyness, Sorrow, Shock, Suffering, Surprise, Suspense Thrill, Torment Unhappiness Vulnerability Worry Yearning Zest would not being wrathful be the same as anger or hate, which are both up here.( don't quite know what Schadenfreude is) In fact god expresses feeling every one of these, and if you can feel emotions, I'm sorry but you have emotion. your " the ability to feel emotions will make him exist within time" is quite an ingenous argument. But do you not agree that God can answer prayers( making him live within time) fulfill prophecy( making him live within time) accept peoples repentance( making him live with in time) ect...you have forgotten a very important thing about God he is omnipotent, He was,
is and will be. He lives in the past, lives in the present time, and lives in the future. He doesn't exist outside the realm of time but throughout it. You said that "God loving us doesn't mean he is undergoing an emotional change of state."Ok lets try this, you love somebody without expressing emotion....or think logically but not be logical.and I know that is an unfair challenge but lets think of it this way. I hate to have a god with no logic, and I hate to have a god who can't feel love with emotion.
how shallow would that love be.your brother in christ"Compartmentalization or compartmentalisation (UK) refers to an action or process of organising diverse populations into discrete groups, or "compartments" —each of which has the properties of boundary and isolation, but also has some limited or controlled relation with other parts. "the definition of compartmentalization aren't you impressedRyan Fitz
Dear Ryan Fitz {shall I call you that then?}I must first and foremost thank you for your post. This discussion is now becoming a tad more involving. I admit as I take part in this, I am simultaneously pondering a great list of things which seem much more demanding on my part {I think I came up with a materialistic refutation of the transcendental argument today, so I'm trying to work it out and see what thought along those lines already exists, and where the discussion is 'at' today, I'm also studying the similarities between the Gospel of Thomas, and John, the synoptics, and the Didache. I'm also being taken to task of pondering a great deal of other things}. All this to say that I should apologize, for I have admittedly not given my attention over to this discussion properly, having only taken a few minutes to write each post. Very well then, building on what I have already said, I'm going to observe your post here.First, your list of emotions expressed within the parameters of expression of the English language, is nice, but doesn't properly address the theory here. In other words, it isn't quite properly applicable. Therefore;(Letsgofishing;27489)
would not being wrathful be the same as anger or hate, which are both up here.( don't quite know what Schadenfreude is) In fact god expresses feeling every one of these, and if you can feel emotions, I'm sorry but you have emotion.
I think I should perhaps try once again to clarify. I do believe that God has an attitude towards things, and he expresses it. I believe, however, that is it more accurate to say that he 'is' pleased, or 'is' displeased {or is happy, or is wrathful, or is anything} rather than to assert that he feels pleased, or feels displeased.I believe that he is loving, and thus loves us. I don't believe that Love is changeable. His hate, likewise, is static.He takes attitudes, and indeed feels certain ways, given certain circumstance, or given 'context'. His person never changes, and thus he can never 'come' to love, nor 'come' to hate. Perhaps it was unfair of me to say that God doesn't have emotion, as if to say he can't feel. I think if you scan my posts, you'll find at least some reservation on my part to that extent.In other words, I do agree he can 'feel'. I disagree that he can come to 'feel'.(Letsgofishing;27489)
your " the ability to feel emotions will make him exist within time" is quite an ingenous argument. But do you not agree that God can answer prayers( making him live within time) fulfill prophecy( making him live within time) accept peoples repentance( making him live with in time) ect...
I would like to point out that his person reacting within the context of time does not dictate his existence is confined to the parameters of time. In a sense, I am proposing that the prophecies we see as "once unfulfilled, and then later fulfilled" he simply see's as "what IS". He accepts people who repent. This doesn't mean that his attitude towards their state while they were unrepentent was accepting because they end up repenting, (and thus he is eternally accepting). In fact, his attitude didn't actively change AFTER they repented, but rather changes AS they repent. In a sense, again, his attitude doesn't change due to causality, but to reality. He "IS" pleased, or enraged, or whatever else, in light of the contextual reality which is. When our reality suffering from causality shifts or changes, he likewise irrevocably "IS" different in accordance with it.... I hope you understand.
(Letsgofishing;27489)
you have forgotten a very important thing about God he is omnipotent, He was,
is and will be. He lives in the past, lives in the present time, and lives in the future. He doesn't exist outside the realm of time but throughout it.
Well, the first part of your post doesn't seem to have any pertinence to the second part. However, it opens the discussion up for me to bring in a point. If God is able to do anything, is he able to do everything we might imagine? The original answer of the devout believer may instinctively be 'yes', but this isn't quite so simple as it appears. Let's consider, can God make you taste the sound of the colour 9? Once the question is asked, the ridiculousness of it becomes apparent, and we can say that he cannot, because such a thing can't properly be imagined. The same can be said of him creating square circles. However, many people miss that this same principle applies to the question "can God make a Rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?". When we say he couldn't, we mean that he can't. Does this take away from his omnipotence? No, not in the least. What you've proposed for him to do is in fact something which is illogical. In the first two examples, I gave you obviously illogical propositions. The third, however, generally doesn't immediately show itself to be illogical. In other words it isn't as obvious. However, how do we know that it is indeed illogical?Well, we Know that God is Eternal. Eternal does not mean Infinite. Infinite is something which exists always, having no boundaries. Eternal, however, is something completely devoid of the context of calculation. When we say that the parameters of a mathematical function are from 0.3 to infinity, we are saying that there is no finite calculable parameter of values. In other words, it's not surmountable/quantifiable. However, an Eternal thing is devoid of calculable context at all. What is Eternal, simply "IS". That's it, no more complex, and no simpler.God "IS' upset with Hitler. God "IS" Pleased in his Son. God didn't become pleased with his Son, nor did he become upset with Hitler.God can't decide to Make a rock by his will, and by his will make himself unable by his will to do what he intended to do with the Rock. Why? Because his Will is Eternal. Therefore, what IS, is eternally ordained.Granted this may seem to present problems for anti-calvanistic stances, such Fathers as Thomas Aquinas already have suggested that two forms of existence could be understood as "what Must be" {or, here, what IS}, and "What may or may not be" {in other words, what could be, within a causal construct being variable itself}. Indeed, some Physicists have come to the very same conclusions more recently with Quantum theory, which flies in the face of Newtonian understandings. .. though this interests me, I feel I'm going off topic, so I'll, here, digress.Suffice it to say that if God exists Eternally, as we have always understood him to live, then he "IS". By extension he "IS" anything which he is that you might mention. However, he clearly never becomes.The understanding of him residing within time is not orthodox to be sure. If you propose it, however, then that means that there was a time when he thought of creating, then a time when he created, then a time when he had created. If this is true, then it is logically impossible that he created Time, and thus he is subject to the mechanism itself. Furthermore it is absolutely logically impossible that he is omniscient.As I understand it, he IS Eternal, and he acts in relation to us. His reaction can be observed within time and indeed understood as a consequence, and lead us into understanding his response {therefore in itself being a type of revelation of his person}. However, the reaction, for him, is not brought about by time, but rather is the response to state.(Letsgofishing;27489)
"God loving us doesn't mean he is undergoing an emotional change of state."Ok lets try this, you love somebody without expressing emotion....or think logically but not be logical.
I think I've already explained at length how reaction does not necessitate a change of state. Thus, God can both express love, and act Logically. He IS love, and IS logic. They are intricate parts of his very person. Just as C.S.Lewis might say that he can only "reason" because of the light of reason itself which IS God, so also can you say that you can Love because God himself is the Light and Freedom and beauty of Love. What I am arguing is that he cannot undergo such emotion. He isn't emotionless, he simply doesn't change his emotion in relation to things, but rather things, as they change, change his absolute attitude towards them.(Letsgofishing;27489)
and I know that is an unfair challenge but lets think of it this way. I hate to have a god with no logic, and I hate to have a god who can't feel love with emotion.
how shallow would that love be.
Unfortunately Truth isn't a democracy.
Fortunately for us, he is both. :cool:I'll finish by thanking you again. You've made me challenge my views and review them. I hope you continue to offer constructive criticism, as that is the goal of debate really; to make more clear the dictation of reason.
That was funny.(Letsgofishing;27475)
