GammaGamaliel wrote: "Sorry, @Rocky Roger, but your comment gave me a brain-bleach moment as I tried to figure out where you were putting the communion wafer ..."
I was just referring to the feelings of acceptance and love. I trust if any other image kinda lingers you will have to forgive me.
Sure. I get that. The acceptance and love. I'm the one who should be apologising for taking things further than you intended.
But there is a serious point here in that we do have to be careful about the language and imagery we use - although past generations seem to have been a lot less squeamish than us who are post-Puritan and post-Victorian.
It’s more than just “past generations”—there’s a whole field of theological — dare i say study?—here, which I came into contact with via the metaphysical poets while i was doing my doctorate. I totally get why it’s squicking some people out, but I think it would be better to refrain from passing judgement on something so long and well established in the Christian church without careful study. Seriously, this isn’t someone’s private odd fancy, and I’m concerned about embarrassing shipmates by dwelling on it as if it were.
Given this thread, I paid particular attention to the words used in today's (traditional COE) communion service.
Really the form of words allows a range of beliefs. Me, I lean towards the 'real presence'. It is, for me, like being made love to by Our Lord ..... (but don't tell my non-conformist friends)!
I'm glad you shared this. Not only do I not need brain bleach, I am sympathetic with your experience. I'm kind of surprised by those who are offended, TBH.
Thank you, questioning, for your aprobation. Sorry if I have caused offence or even embarassment to others. I am so steeped in anglo catholicism and the language of John Donne ("I shall never be chaste unless you ravish me" etc) and others like Traherne and Herbert that I forget to be sensitive to the sensibilities of others who see things differently. Mea culpa
@KarlLB went 'ew' - in a jokey kind of way. I chipped in with a quip and now we've got an inquest and serial apologies.
I don't see anyone missing Donne or Herbert and Traherne. Nor anyone challenging the idea that the eucharist can convey a sense of love and acceptance.
I wouldn't use erotic imagery about the eucharist myself but that's not the same as failing to acknowledge that imagery of this kind doesn't appear in the scriptures, or in Metaphysical Poetry or the writings of Christian mystics.
I thought I'd been 'explicit' about that, if I can put it that way.
I had thought of that @Doublethink. And of St Catherine of Siena (I think) who is said to have worn a ring made from the foreskin of Christ.
I've also come across homo-erotic allusions in 'queer theology' recently.
I don't think I've come across erotic imagery in connection with the eucharist though, but there are some intensely 'physical' stories within medieval Roman Catholicism, such as bleeding Hosts and so on.
We Orthodox aren't squeamish about physicality and sex, but we tend to draw a tighter line than the RCs have done in terms of visual representations and so on.
Our iconography is more stylised and all the better for that, I think.
That said, it is possible to come cross gushingly romantic poems addressed to the Virgin Mary by Orthodox monks and rather 'out there' things in hagiographies.
So these things aren't restricted to any one Christian tradition, although they may be more apparent in some rather than others.
The Orthodox will generally consider some aspects of Roman Catholic (and some Anglo-Catholic) spirituality as overly sensual to some extent. Rather too florid for our tastes.
FWIW, for my own part I'll engage in that as far as I can and acknowledge the overlaps and parallels. Same with the less avowedly sacramental traditions.
The bottom line, I think is that God meets us wherever we are - believers and unbelievers alike - whether we are sacramentalists or non-sacramentalists.
That doesn't mean that these things aren't important. But if God is 'present everywhere and filleth all things' then we can't restrict him to any particular rite or grouping.
British readers of a certain age would recognise that.
Returning to the topic and pursuing the 'feeding' imagery associated with the eucharist - rather than the bride/Bridegroom, lover/beloved tropes which have a legitimate place of course ...
It would seem to me that if the eucharist is a form of spiritual nourishment - 'Feed on him in your hearts through faith with thanksgiving', as the old Anglican prayer book had it - then God is going to be concerned about it as he is concerned for our well-being.
That doesn't mean that the Almighty is 'restricted' to it or other sacraments or that we have to have all our theological concepts in line. After all, if you have a decent meal in a restaurant, you don't have to know how the chef prepared it in order to enjoy it.
There's a line in the old Anglican liturgy which ran something like, 'let it be for us ...' the body and blood of Christ. Which could imply a form of 'receptionism'.
Whatever the case, the eucharist is clearly important to many people irrespective of the range of views about it. I suppose the bottom line for me - and I don't want to be too 'personal' or 'individualistic' here - is to hold the views my adopted Tradition has on the eucharist without becoming judgemental about anyone else's.
As human beings we can find that difficult and as an awkward so-and-so it may be doubly difficult but that's where we must aim, I think.
I am not worried by what other Christians profess to believe with respect to the Eucharist, I am bothered by how they behave with respect to it. I think that
Well, even if dirty great big letters appeared in the sky telling us what to believe there'd be all sorts of debate about that too.
I can't see any other way of doing it other than by dialogue and debate in the context of faith communities.
Any 'discipline' or system be it mathematics, algebra, artistic or literary conventions, philosophy, political ideology or styles of cooking all develop through dialogue and debate.
That applies to religion too.
I can't see how it can be otherwise.
God could have given us Calvin's Institutes or the Catholic Catechism or the Westminster Confession directly. They are at least unambiguous - you can decide whether you believe them or not but there's not much wriggle room in what they actually teach.
He didn't. He gave us - for some undefined value of 'gave' - a contradictory, confusing text subject to interpretation wildly at odds with one another.
I have to conclude from this that God is not half as bothered about the details of our beliefs as the Reformers or Vatican might suggest.
Calvin's Institutes are not unambiguous, indeed he is deliberately ambiguous at times e.g. the nature of the Eucharist. Yes Calvin is clear, but he is clear in the way a polished lawyer in court is clear. Ambugiuity is used to cover up those points that are controversial*, or difficult to express. I suspect that there are those who can drive a cart and horses through the RC Catechism as well.
German Theologians post WWII worked hardest to be unambiguous and there text is as hard to decipher as any I have come across. That is not a translation fault, the English text is often more readable than the German. Unambiguitey does not lead to a clarity but to a dense and complex linguistic form
*The Eucharist is one of the controversial ones as he is clearly defining it so as neither to upset the Lutherans nor the Zwinglians.
Hmmm ... yes, the Apostle Paul seemed quite exercised over the way Christians behaved towards the eucharist ... or the 'love-feasts' out of which it developed.
Hence the due preparation and care required in some Christian traditions.
We must not be quick to judge though. I can start to feel judgemental towards those Orthodox who turn up once a year and chat loudly with one another or read messages on their phones when waiting to receive.
Calvin's views on the eucharist are quite interesting, I think. If I remember rightly he believed we were 'caught up' into heaven in some way.
I have to say, the worst abuse of the Eucharist I’ve ever seen has nothing to do with doctrine. Someone who hated my husband made a very public point of going forward, standing next to me (no, he didn’t care for me either), and then loudly and publicly refusing the bread from his hands. It was entirely intentional—the church was small and there was no one else serving that day.
Calvin's views on the eucharist are quite interesting, I think. If I remember rightly he believed we were 'caught up' into heaven in some way.
The issue Calvin faced was that he was trying to square what he feels was received in the Eucharist with what he reasons must be true of the actual body of Christ (which he believes cannot exist in two places at once because it's both simultaneously human and divine).
IME Calvin's view seems to be highly unstable and in practice decays into some form of memorialism.
Hmmm ... yes, the Apostle Paul seemed quite exercised over the way Christians behaved towards the eucharist ... or the 'love-feasts' out of which it developed.
Hence the due preparation and care required in some Christian traditions.
Yes, but that’s really different from what I was trying to get at in the OP. What I was trying to get at is this: If, say, transubstantiation is the “accurate” understanding of what happens in the Eucharist, is God in some way displeased with those Christians who believe and teach that Christ is physically present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, as Lutherans do? Or if the Lutherans have it right, is God somehow displeased with those who are convinced that transubstantiation or spiritual presence or memorialism are correct?
Or, on the other hand, does God have tolerance and understanding about our failure to get this point of doctrine quite right, and is God more displeased with how we allow our disagreements to divide us?
And, @Lamb Chopped, that indeed sounds horrible and very much the sort of thing Paul was upset about.
<snip> 'Feed on him in your hearts through faith with thanksgiving', as the old Anglican prayer book had it
<snip>There's a line in the old Anglican liturgy which ran something like, 'let it be for us ...' the body and blood of Christ.
Old (1662) and contemporary (Common Worship) services both have the first of these phrases. The second is part of the current liturgy and has been in use for about 50 years.
Ok. Sorry, I was getting mixed up with my Anglican prayer books and was too idle to look them up.
Something else God might be displeased about.
@Nick Tamen sure, I got that from the OP. FWIW despite spikey converts and miserable cradle Orthodox 'zealots' bandying the 'h' word around indiscriminately online, the Orthodox position on an issue like this would be that someone is only a 'heretic' if they are knowingly and deliberately so.
For example, if they were to consciously abandon a Trinitarian position for an Arian one, say.
Or if they originally believed in some kind of 'real presence' in the eucharist and later abandoned that for a more memorialist one - whatever that might mean in practice.
If someone was brought up in or converted into a Christian tradition with a memorialist position then that is different to them abandoning a previously held conviction about the eucharist - unless, of course, they'd been converted from a 'real presence' background as it were.
Whilst we are pretty prescriptive in some respects, we wouldn't see it as our place to speculate on the spiritual state of anyone else nor presume to know how God might regard people who hold a different view of these things than our own. What we can say is that 'God is good and a friend of man' - or humanity as that liturgical line might better be rendered.
I don't think any of us here are saying that St Peter will be stood at the Pearly Gates with a clipboard checking off whether we gave intellectual assent to this, that or the other doctrinal position.
Hmmm ... yes, the Apostle Paul seemed quite exercised over the way Christians behaved towards the eucharist ... or the 'love-feasts' out of which it developed.
Hence the due preparation and care required in some Christian traditions.
Yes, but that’s really different from what I was trying to get at in the OP. What I was trying to get at is this: If, say, transubstantiation is the “accurate” understanding of what happens in the Eucharist, is God in some way displeased with those Christians who believe and teach that Christ is physically present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, as Lutherans do? Or if the Lutherans have it right, is God somehow displeased with those who are convinced that transubstantiation or spiritual presence or memorialism are correct?
Or, on the other hand, does God have tolerance and understanding about our failure to get this point of doctrine quite right, and is God more displeased with how we allow our disagreements to divide us?
And, @Lamb Chopped, that indeed sounds horrible and very much the sort of thing Paul was upset about.
My experience of him is that he’s far more kind and patient than human beings, particularly over honest mistakes—I mean, when you consider the outright wickedness and malice he forgives (after repentance, yeah yeah), I doubt this gets as much as a sigh from him.
To be sure, we want to get things right as far as we can, simply because we love him, and also because truth is just better than error, generally speaking. But I wouldn’t have a sleepless night worrying about his emotions with regard to honest mistakes on difficult subjects. He’s not picky or mean at all.
Hmmm ... yes, the Apostle Paul seemed quite exercised over the way Christians behaved towards the eucharist ... or the 'love-feasts' out of which it developed.
Hence the due preparation and care required in some Christian traditions.
Yes, but that’s really different from what I was trying to get at in the OP. What I was trying to get at is this: If, say, transubstantiation is the “accurate” understanding of what happens in the Eucharist, is God in some way displeased with those Christians who believe and teach that Christ is physically present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine, as Lutherans do? Or if the Lutherans have it right, is God somehow displeased with those who are convinced that transubstantiation or spiritual presence or memorialism are correct?
Or, on the other hand, does God have tolerance and understanding about our failure to get this point of doctrine quite right, and is God more displeased with how we allow our disagreements to divide us?
And, @Lamb Chopped, that indeed sounds horrible and very much the sort of thing Paul was upset about.
My experience of him is that he’s far more kind and patient than human beings, particularly over honest mistakes—I mean, when you consider the outright wickedness and malice he forgives (after repentance, yeah yeah), I doubt this gets as much as a sigh from him.
To be sure, we want to get things right as far as we can, simply because we love him, and also because truth is just better than error, generally speaking. But I wouldn’t have a sleepless night worrying about his emotions with regard to honest mistakes on difficult subjects. He’s not picky or mean at all.
Yes, thanks. This is pretty much where I come down on it.
Except that the OP was in response to a post in a Mystery Worship thread that said God “cares very much” what people, or at least clergy, think about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So I’m not sure any consensus extends beyond those who’ve posted recently in this thread.
God has emotions?
Does that mean he is not immutable?
Yes, God has emotions--where do you think your own come from? You are made in his image...
Of course, there are significant differences between us and him, and one of these (expressed very badly) is responsible for the common idea that God is impassable (which I think is what you meant, not immutable, which has to do with change. If you DID mean immutable, let me know and we can talk about that.)
Impassible properly means "does not suffer passions." Now the problem with passions, or violent emotions as we know them, is not their strength; God's are stronger. The problem is that passions come and go, and vary over time. God is not like that. What he loves, he loves with all his strength and forever; what he hates (for example, evil) he hates utterly, and will never compromise with.
And that is the difference between us and him. With us, no passion is so permanent that it cannot be worn down by a lifetime's worth of living; it takes all our effort to keep the vows we make to love a marriage partner, etc. And even as we do, the strength of our love varies from moment to moment. We blow hot and cold, and both our love and our anger sometimes come to an end. Not with God.
You may ask, "But what about all the places where God seems to change his mind about people (and, for example, decides not to wipe them all out, as in the book of Jonah)? Isn't this a changing from anger to love?
From our perspective it may look that way; but I think it more true to say that he relocates us from his anger to his love. The anger still exists, just as the love exists; but our position is different, and so our experience of God is different.
(Before you all jump on me--yeah, it's an analogy, and in some ways a sucky one; but it at least shows how it's possible to have permanent emotions like love, anger, etc.) and not have them fluctuate, while at the same time having our own experience change. Think of Mercury, which is locked in orbit so that one side perpetually faces the sun, while the other side faces out into space away from the sun. One side always burns, one side always freezes--but if you move, you get a different experience, without forcing the sun to change its way of being.)
yeah, we were all taught to fear it, but I think we've overbalanced so far we're in danger of denying the image of God in humanity. Properly speaking we should be talking of theomorphism. Surely it would be very odd to have human beings (and dogs, cats, etc.) with so many varied emotions, originating from a God who himself was the equivalent of an emotionless robot or computer?
Our intellect is a reflection of his, our life comes of his, our emotions reflect his own. Of course not perfectly, we are creatures, and sinful ones at that. But the likeness is still there and should be taken into account.
(And if nothing else, there's the incarnation. Jesus is human forever--so take that into account as well.)
If two people kneel at the altar rail(my preferred way of receiving Communion) and one of them believes that they are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, while the other believes they are responding to Christ's command "Do this in remembrance of me" does this really matter? Personally I don't think so. I'm happy to leave it in the realms of mystery. None of us is able to discern the inner workings of God.
The Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer says "What is required of them who come to the Lord's Supper?" The answer is, "To examine themselves, whether they repentance them truly of their former sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and be in charity with all men."
Whether one believes in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, has a vague belief in the real presence, or sees it as a memorial, is an interpretation of which nobody has the definitive answer. As long as we receive it with meek heart and due reverence, I believe it to be sufficient.
Which is why I fully agree with the Church of England's open table, rather than exclusive communion which only fosters division and unhappiness particularly in families where not all members belong to the same church.
If two people kneel at the altar rail(my preferred way of receiving Communion) and one of them believes that they are consuming the Body and Blood of Christ, while the other believes they are responding to Christ's command "Do this in remembrance of me" does this really matter? Personally I don't think so. I'm happy to leave it in the realms of mystery. None of us is able to discern the inner workings of God.....
Yup, I'd go along with that. We have "very" open Communion and actively encourage those who feel they are unworthy, those who don't feel they have enough faith, those who are members of other churches or of none (etc) to partake.
Thing is, how far do we take open communion? I attended an Anglican service recently where a Hindu woman went forward to receive communion. The senior cleric who presided made it clear that it was for any baptised Christian. This woman is not a Christian and hasn't been baptised as far as I am aware.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying God strongly objects and is going to strike her or the celebrant down.
I'd much rather the Orthodox and RCs and those Protestant groups which practice closed communion didn't do so, but it's not down to me.
I've been offered, but not received, communion in RC settings. Not because I think it would be wicked to do so but out of respect for their rubrics. I'll go for a 'blessing' in an Anglican communion service, again out of respect for the tradition and also because I can do with every blessing I can get!
It grieves me that we aren't in full communion with one another of course.
I normally attend an annual ecumenical conference where communion is celebrated according to three particular Christian traditions / Traditions and adherents of each receive during their particular service, but not in the others.
It always strikes me as odd and awkward, though. Every time one or other of the celebrating clergy will acknowledge how sad it is that we can't share together at the Lord's Table as it were and observr how it's all down to our 'sin' in allowing ourselves to be separated from one another 💔.
Fair points.
But why rub it in and reinforce it by celebrating rites that others cannot participate in? Why not just have some non-eucharistic services or general prayer?
But then there's the thing in the Orthodox rubrics about not praying with 'heretics'. But how is that defined? I don't regard other Trinitarian Christians of whatever stripe as 'heretics'. I'd see them as either small o orthodox or heterodox depending on how much of an overlap there is on the Venn Diagram, but even there the edges are likely to be fuzzy and blurred.
It's all a conundrum and, of course there are plenty of small o orthodox and heterodox people whose orthodoxy and orthopraxy outshines that of many Big O people who've got the badge, as it were.
Ultimately, of course, we can find Christ anywhere and everywhere.
God can and does work in through the 'canonical' sacraments - as seen or recognised by any particular tradition / Tradition- and also outwith them. It's not for any of us to determine how that happens.
But it is also up to various traditions/Traditions to determine their own rubrics and boundaries - although that obviously comes at a cost. The mileage will vary, as they say, as to how tightly we set those and how much 'give' and flexibility there will be in our respective elastic bands.
yeah, we were all taught to fear it, but I think we've overbalanced so far we're in danger of denying the image of God in humanity. Properly speaking we should be talking of theomorphism. Surely it would be very odd to have human beings (and dogs, cats, etc.) with so many varied emotions, originating from a God who himself was the equivalent of an emotionless robot or computer?
This seems to be the same category of argument as "Surely it would be very odd to have human beings, who have corporeal bodies, originating from a God who doesn't".
(Before you all jump on me--yeah, it's an analogy, and in some ways a sucky one; but it at least shows how it's possible to have permanent emotions like love, anger, etc.) and not have them fluctuate, while at the same time having our own experience change. Think of Mercury, which is locked in orbit so that one side perpetually faces the sun, while the other side faces out into space away from the sun. One side always burns, one side always freezes--but if you move, you get a different experience, without forcing the sun to change its way of being.)
Talk of celestial mechanics more forcefully brings to mind that He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good.
Heh. Certainly he causes his sun to rise on the just and the unjust, but I'm not sure why you bring it up in this context?
As for emotions arising from the body, they are certainly influenced by the body--gotta be careful what I eat late at night!--but how can you be sure that is all they are?
We've got any amount of material from the Bible to show God (both incarnate and not) having emotions. We're also told we're made in his image, which has always been interpreted as more than some physical resemblance, though we argue over whether it refers to intelligence, will, creativity, holiness, or what. The natural conclusion is that our emotions are ultimately a reflection of his.
To be sure, anyone who rejects Scripture can totally go with any other explanation they want. But this is what I've got. And I don't put much weight on any non-Scriptural attempts to know God and suss him out, for example by philosophy. So here I stand.
@Lamb Chopped.
Yes I meant immutable as in unchanging emotions. A change from feeling emotion a) to feeling emotion b) is a change. But something perfect cannot change to something more perfect (an impossibility) or less perfect (and becoming less than God.)
I think Aquinas might have had views on that, as immutability is a basic property of God as he understood it.
Oh, and as far as I am aware emotions come from glands. Does God have them.
Which presupposes that Aquinas has the authoritative last word on the matter ... which the Orthodox dispute of course, whilst conceding (some of them 😉) that he had some good things to say.
Now we've got Luther in the mix too. 'Here I stand ...'
To the Law and to the Testimony! Everyman to his own house, O Israel!'
I'm no theologian but I'd have thought there's a way of squaring the circle with this one. God isn't a machine but neither is he prone to mood swings. So far, I haven't seen anyone argue that he is.
FWIW and again, I'm no expert, the sense I pick up from within my own Tradition is that Aquinas and the late medieval Scholastics are generally seen as overly cold and calculating. Something Calvin inherited. Whilst some of those who followed after the Reformers could let subjectivity and their emotions get the better of them.
I am not suggesting that anyone here is doing that.
I suppose 'how' or 'what' God 'feels' is appropriate for a thread which is about God's 'attitude' towards something. I think we did achieve some kind of consensus on that in relation to the issues raised in the OP. Now, inevitably perhaps, the consensus is slipping in terms of how we see how these things 'work' as it were.
These things have taxed the minds of theologians for centuries so I suspect we aren't going to clinch it all now.
I'm not going to argue Aquinas, because I've never studied him (read a little). So I can't tell you what he made that statement based on. The usual Scriptural basis for people who want to argue God's changelessness are these verses:
“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)
God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" (Numbers 23:19)
Now if you look at the context, it's clear what God is talking about is his own steadfastness--that if he makes a promise, he fulfills it, that if he has a position ("I hate idolatry" or what have you) he's not going to change his mind on the subject. He's not saying that he is "immutable" as we normally understand the term. Indeed, if you think God is immutable, what will you do with the Incarnation? I can hardly imagine a bigger "change" in God.
* * * * *
Laying that aside, then--
You speak of changing emotions as somehow making God less perfect. I'd like to come at that a couple of different ways.
First of all, there are many perfections, not just one. To take an analogy, perfect red and perfect yellow are both perfect, but quite different from one another. For God to be perfectly angry, or perfectly compassionate, or perfectly (add emotion in here), is not to say that one emotion is less perfect than another, or that changing between the two renders God less perfect. Perfection is a multi-valued thing.
But the second issue is this: You seem to see God as having only one emotion as a time. Speaking as a human being, I myself rarely if ever have only a single emotion going at any given time. I mean, right now I am relieved (at having handled a long-running insurance problem), concerned (for my son who is taking a final exam today), happy (about a connection with someone I love), and sad (about someone else I love who is in great trouble). I'm not switching between emotions, as if I could only have one going at a time. Neither is God.
* * * * *
Re emotions coming from glands--
Again, as I said upthread, where is the proof for saying that emotions come wholly and solely from any bodily function? I think everyone admits that the body affects your emotions; but to claim that the body creates them entirely is deterministic. You're more or less implying that you yourself (whatever "you" are--a soul, mind, psyche, whatever) have no input to your own emotions; that you are either a victim of your own body, which runs the whole show regardless, or else that you yourself are nothing BUT a body (and the byproducts of it), which makes you basically a meat-robot.
Those are both possible philosophical positions, but in practice, I don't think anybody lives this way. We all blame or credit other people for their emotions* and how they act (or don't act) based on them, which makes no sense if it's all determined for them by the body.
* I'm thinking of a person very close to me whose death I do not grieve and cannot grieve, for Reasons™ and the fact that if I ever confessed that fact to 95% of the people who know me in real life, I would get outrage in spades. This kind of thing comes up all the time in human interactions.
I do not see God as having any emotions at all. I think that in ascribing emotions to God we are projecting human attributes in an attempt to get our heads round him. For me it doesn't work.
Love? Yes, I know love can be more than an emotion, and I know that God is love, which can be a bit different. But we’re specifically told, as one example, that God loved David.
The 'essence' of the Eternal God did not 'change' at the Incarnation. The Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity 'proceeds' from the Father from everlasting.
That doesn't mean, of course, that Christ was some kind of automaton or 'God in a meat-suit' as someone on these boards memorably put it.
The 'essence' and 'energies' thing the Orthodox bang on about may help here, but that might be scope for another thread and I'm not well-versed enough in all this to start it.
I'm happy to consign the inner-workings of the Godhead, as it were, to the realm of mystery as well as Mystery.
Being Orthodox can be frustrating but offers the advantage of not having to overly define things, unlike the Papal Magisterium or certain kinds of fundamentalist Protestant. Not that we don't have our own overly prescriptive adherents too, of course.
But I'm happy to be 'appie' - apophatic - as well as 'cattie' - cataphatic.
I do not see God as having any emotions at all. I think that in ascribing emotions to God we are projecting human attributes in an attempt to get our heads round him. For me it doesn't work.
This (what follows) is just my experience, which nobody has to be like. But I've spent the greater part of my life operating as if God had ... not much in the way of emotions? was distant? don't know quite how to say it. I didn't think this intellectually, but I certainly operated that way, and no surprise, considering the family I grew up in.
This spring to my very great surprise I discovered differently, and I'm both happy about it and very unsettled by it. No doubt things will shake out fine in the end. But wow.
Heh. Certainly he causes his sun to rise on the just and the unjust, but I'm not sure why you bring it up in this context?
It is in the nature of analogies that their meaning exists, subjectively, in the mind of the beholder. What the analogy appears to show to you is not what it shows to me.
As for emotions arising from the body, they are certainly influenced by the body--gotta be careful what I eat late at night!--but how can you be sure that is all they are?
That is my experience. But reading on, I see that you make a (to me) curious distinction between the body and the mind, which means we are probably not talking about the same thing. I suppose you are a dualist. Maybe I'll come back to this, but I'd probably say something like: our minds only exist to the extent that our brains exist, and brains are flesh and blood.
We've got any amount of material from the Bible to show God (both incarnate and not) having emotions. We're also told we're made in his image, which has always been interpreted as more than some physical resemblance, though we argue over whether it refers to intelligence, will, creativity, holiness, or what. The natural conclusion is that our emotions are ultimately a reflection of his.
I've always read and understood that the interpretation of being made in God's image has nothing at all to do with our physical resemblance.
Does God feel our pain? Yes. Does God experience our pain as we experience it? No.
To be sure, anyone who rejects Scripture can totally go with any other explanation they want. But this is what I've got. And I don't put much weight on any non-Scriptural attempts to know God and suss him out, for example by philosophy. So here I stand.
You can do no other...
Giving this issue some more thought, I speculate that you find it reassuring to conceive of God as being very much like us. There are people here who have previously expressed the converse, that they find the idea of God being quite unlike us more reassuring.
I think, as I understand orthodox Christian theology, He has things which are analogous to emotions, but which don’t change in His Eternal Existence, and which we can only apprehend by earthly analogy. Our changing emotions, in our experience of Time, in some way reflect His… being/essence?, in appropriate ways, but like an image or shadow or reflection “in a glass darkly.” The emotional love and tenderness of a good parent, the passion of a lover, and so on. When evil comes into His burning, loving presence, the kind of intrinsic rejection of evil, like a chemical reaction, could be analogous to what we describe as emotional hatred or anger (of course I think we have to be extra careful with this, in terms of projecting our own sinful hatred and anger onto God). I think it’s like the sun—it’s got the same rays, constantly streaming out, more intensely than we can imagine (the speed of light), but to some creatures it’s life and warmth and energy and (for plants for instance) food, and it can also burn. Unlike the sun’s rays, though, rather than the mere speed of light, God’s love is traveling infinitely fast (with infinite intensity, etc.).
(If any of this is incorrect according to traditional Christian orthodoxy, of course, I submit to correction on that matter.)
Heh. Certainly he causes his sun to rise on the just and the unjust, but I'm not sure why you bring it up in this context?
It is in the nature of analogies that their meaning exists, subjectively, in the mind of the beholder. What the analogy appears to show to you is not what it shows to me.
As for emotions arising from the body, they are certainly influenced by the body--gotta be careful what I eat late at night!--but how can you be sure that is all they are?
That is my experience. But reading on, I see that you make a (to me) curious distinction between the body and the mind, which means we are probably not talking about the same thing. I suppose you are a dualist. Maybe I'll come back to this, but I'd probably say something like: our minds only exist to the extent that our brains exist, and brains are flesh and blood.
We've got any amount of material from the Bible to show God (both incarnate and not) having emotions. We're also told we're made in his image, which has always been interpreted as more than some physical resemblance, though we argue over whether it refers to intelligence, will, creativity, holiness, or what. The natural conclusion is that our emotions are ultimately a reflection of his.
I've always read and understood that the interpretation of being made in God's image has nothing at all to do with our physical resemblance.
Does God feel our pain? Yes. Does God experience our pain as we experience it? No.
To be sure, anyone who rejects Scripture can totally go with any other explanation they want. But this is what I've got. And I don't put much weight on any non-Scriptural attempts to know God and suss him out, for example by philosophy. So here I stand.
You can do no other...
Giving this issue some more thought, I speculate that you find it reassuring to conceive of God as being very much like us. There are people here who have previously expressed the converse, that they find the idea of God being quite unlike us more reassuring.
A grab bag of short answers, as my kid is on my computer taking a final exam… certainly analogies are no proof of anything, and clearly we hold different views on what human beings are “made of”— i think there’s more to us than just the body and its products, and you disagree. Fair enough.
I’m not sure I’m a dualist—there are those who argue for a three part composite. I think we just don’t know enough.
I agree with you that the image has nothing to do with a physical resemblance.
I don’t deny that I find some of God’s similarities to us (or vice versa) reassuring. But that’s not why I believe what I believe. In general I am an Eeyore type pessimist and whatever I fear the most, I tend to suppose most likely. Fear fulfillment, rather than wish fulfillment. The fact that I’ve ended up in orthodox Christianity nonetheless is astonishing to me.
The problem with saying God does not feel emotions is that in our experience beings that don't feel emotions are a lot harder to relate to than beings that do, and therefore it is apt to give a misleading idea of God.
(I remember C.S. Lewis writing of someone who had been taught that God was a perfect substance and as an adult realised that his picture of God was of something like a semolina pudding.)
God may not feel emotions as we do, but still less does God not feel emotions as things that don't feel emotions don't.
As Lewis also pointed out, if we go on saying "God is just, but his justice is not like ours," and keep enlarging the differences, eventually we reach a point where the word "justice" is meaningless with regard to God. And that's true of emotions as well.
Comments
I was just referring to the feelings of acceptance and love. I trust if any other image kinda lingers you will have to forgive me.
But there is a serious point here in that we do have to be careful about the language and imagery we use - although past generations seem to have been a lot less squeamish than us who are post-Puritan and post-Victorian.
I'm glad you shared this. Not only do I not need brain bleach, I am sympathetic with your experience. I'm kind of surprised by those who are offended, TBH.
I've acknowledged that there is erotic imagery within the scriptures and in Christian mystical traditions.
As far as the Eucharist goes though, the imagery is more that of food and nourishment rather than 'physical love-making' as it were.
At any rate, @RockyRoger has expanded on what they meant - that it was more around the sense of acceptance and love - and I've acknowledged that.
If anything, what I wrote was more 'offensive' than what RockyRoger had.
I wish people would read for comprehension before mounting their high horses.
Who are these people who are 'offended'?
@KarlLB went 'ew' - in a jokey kind of way. I chipped in with a quip and now we've got an inquest and serial apologies.
I don't see anyone missing Donne or Herbert and Traherne. Nor anyone challenging the idea that the eucharist can convey a sense of love and acceptance.
I wouldn't use erotic imagery about the eucharist myself but that's not the same as failing to acknowledge that imagery of this kind doesn't appear in the scriptures, or in Metaphysical Poetry or the writings of Christian mystics.
I thought I'd been 'explicit' about that, if I can put it that way.
Amen. He is the Bridegroom, we are the Bride.
I've also come across homo-erotic allusions in 'queer theology' recently.
I don't think I've come across erotic imagery in connection with the eucharist though, but there are some intensely 'physical' stories within medieval Roman Catholicism, such as bleeding Hosts and so on.
We Orthodox aren't squeamish about physicality and sex, but we tend to draw a tighter line than the RCs have done in terms of visual representations and so on.
Our iconography is more stylised and all the better for that, I think.
That said, it is possible to come cross gushingly romantic poems addressed to the Virgin Mary by Orthodox monks and rather 'out there' things in hagiographies.
So these things aren't restricted to any one Christian tradition, although they may be more apparent in some rather than others.
The Orthodox will generally consider some aspects of Roman Catholic (and some Anglo-Catholic) spirituality as overly sensual to some extent. Rather too florid for our tastes.
FWIW, for my own part I'll engage in that as far as I can and acknowledge the overlaps and parallels. Same with the less avowedly sacramental traditions.
The bottom line, I think is that God meets us wherever we are - believers and unbelievers alike - whether we are sacramentalists or non-sacramentalists.
That doesn't mean that these things aren't important. But if God is 'present everywhere and filleth all things' then we can't restrict him to any particular rite or grouping.
Since this is about erotic imagery and such, struggling mightily to not make a pun about "or groping"
. . .
oops, oh well
Carry on...
British readers of a certain age would recognise that.
Returning to the topic and pursuing the 'feeding' imagery associated with the eucharist - rather than the bride/Bridegroom, lover/beloved tropes which have a legitimate place of course ...
It would seem to me that if the eucharist is a form of spiritual nourishment - 'Feed on him in your hearts through faith with thanksgiving', as the old Anglican prayer book had it - then God is going to be concerned about it as he is concerned for our well-being.
That doesn't mean that the Almighty is 'restricted' to it or other sacraments or that we have to have all our theological concepts in line. After all, if you have a decent meal in a restaurant, you don't have to know how the chef prepared it in order to enjoy it.
There's a line in the old Anglican liturgy which ran something like, 'let it be for us ...' the body and blood of Christ. Which could imply a form of 'receptionism'.
Whatever the case, the eucharist is clearly important to many people irrespective of the range of views about it. I suppose the bottom line for me - and I don't want to be too 'personal' or 'individualistic' here - is to hold the views my adopted Tradition has on the eucharist without becoming judgemental about anyone else's.
As human beings we can find that difficult and as an awkward so-and-so it may be doubly difficult but that's where we must aim, I think.
God can sort out the rest.
Calvin's Institutes are not unambiguous, indeed he is deliberately ambiguous at times e.g. the nature of the Eucharist. Yes Calvin is clear, but he is clear in the way a polished lawyer in court is clear. Ambugiuity is used to cover up those points that are controversial*, or difficult to express. I suspect that there are those who can drive a cart and horses through the RC Catechism as well.
German Theologians post WWII worked hardest to be unambiguous and there text is as hard to decipher as any I have come across. That is not a translation fault, the English text is often more readable than the German. Unambiguitey does not lead to a clarity but to a dense and complex linguistic form
*The Eucharist is one of the controversial ones as he is clearly defining it so as neither to upset the Lutherans nor the Zwinglians.
Hence the due preparation and care required in some Christian traditions.
We must not be quick to judge though. I can start to feel judgemental towards those Orthodox who turn up once a year and chat loudly with one another or read messages on their phones when waiting to receive.
Calvin's views on the eucharist are quite interesting, I think. If I remember rightly he believed we were 'caught up' into heaven in some way.
The issue Calvin faced was that he was trying to square what he feels was received in the Eucharist with what he reasons must be true of the actual body of Christ (which he believes cannot exist in two places at once because it's both simultaneously human and divine).
IME Calvin's view seems to be highly unstable and in practice decays into some form of memorialism.
Or, on the other hand, does God have tolerance and understanding about our failure to get this point of doctrine quite right, and is God more displeased with how we allow our disagreements to divide us?
And, @Lamb Chopped, that indeed sounds horrible and very much the sort of thing Paul was upset about.
Something else God might be displeased about.
@Nick Tamen sure, I got that from the OP. FWIW despite spikey converts and miserable cradle Orthodox 'zealots' bandying the 'h' word around indiscriminately online, the Orthodox position on an issue like this would be that someone is only a 'heretic' if they are knowingly and deliberately so.
For example, if they were to consciously abandon a Trinitarian position for an Arian one, say.
Or if they originally believed in some kind of 'real presence' in the eucharist and later abandoned that for a more memorialist one - whatever that might mean in practice.
If someone was brought up in or converted into a Christian tradition with a memorialist position then that is different to them abandoning a previously held conviction about the eucharist - unless, of course, they'd been converted from a 'real presence' background as it were.
Whilst we are pretty prescriptive in some respects, we wouldn't see it as our place to speculate on the spiritual state of anyone else nor presume to know how God might regard people who hold a different view of these things than our own. What we can say is that 'God is good and a friend of man' - or humanity as that liturgical line might better be rendered.
I don't think any of us here are saying that St Peter will be stood at the Pearly Gates with a clipboard checking off whether we gave intellectual assent to this, that or the other doctrinal position.
My experience of him is that he’s far more kind and patient than human beings, particularly over honest mistakes—I mean, when you consider the outright wickedness and malice he forgives (after repentance, yeah yeah), I doubt this gets as much as a sigh from him.
To be sure, we want to get things right as far as we can, simply because we love him, and also because truth is just better than error, generally speaking. But I wouldn’t have a sleepless night worrying about his emotions with regard to honest mistakes on difficult subjects. He’s not picky or mean at all.
Three cheers for conciliarity!
Does that mean he is not immutable?
Yay! ❤️
God is love.
Is love an emotion?
We're getting into Patripassianism here perhaps ...
Let's call a Council to resolve it. 😉
I took @Lamb Chopped to mean 'reactions' rather than 'emotions' in the touchy-feely sense.
The OP asked what God might think or 'feel' about this particular issue. We can't really avoid anthropomorphism when we ask a question like that.
Any talk of God is bound to rely on analogy and approximations.
However we cut it, though, the consensus seems to be that the Almighty isn't fazed by people's honest mistakes.
Getting our ideas mixed up is a different thing to being mean, uncaring, selfish or all the other things we human beings are prone to.
Except that the OP was in response to a post in a Mystery Worship thread that said God “cares very much” what people, or at least clergy, think about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. So I’m not sure any consensus extends beyond those who’ve posted recently in this thread.
Yes, God has emotions--where do you think your own come from? You are made in his image...
Of course, there are significant differences between us and him, and one of these (expressed very badly) is responsible for the common idea that God is impassable (which I think is what you meant, not immutable, which has to do with change. If you DID mean immutable, let me know and we can talk about that.)
Impassible properly means "does not suffer passions." Now the problem with passions, or violent emotions as we know them, is not their strength; God's are stronger. The problem is that passions come and go, and vary over time. God is not like that. What he loves, he loves with all his strength and forever; what he hates (for example, evil) he hates utterly, and will never compromise with.
And that is the difference between us and him. With us, no passion is so permanent that it cannot be worn down by a lifetime's worth of living; it takes all our effort to keep the vows we make to love a marriage partner, etc. And even as we do, the strength of our love varies from moment to moment. We blow hot and cold, and both our love and our anger sometimes come to an end. Not with God.
You may ask, "But what about all the places where God seems to change his mind about people (and, for example, decides not to wipe them all out, as in the book of Jonah)? Isn't this a changing from anger to love?
From our perspective it may look that way; but I think it more true to say that he relocates us from his anger to his love. The anger still exists, just as the love exists; but our position is different, and so our experience of God is different.
(Before you all jump on me--yeah, it's an analogy, and in some ways a sucky one; but it at least shows how it's possible to have permanent emotions like love, anger, etc.) and not have them fluctuate, while at the same time having our own experience change. Think of Mercury, which is locked in orbit so that one side perpetually faces the sun, while the other side faces out into space away from the sun. One side always burns, one side always freezes--but if you move, you get a different experience, without forcing the sun to change its way of being.)
yeah, we were all taught to fear it, but I think we've overbalanced so far we're in danger of denying the image of God in humanity. Properly speaking we should be talking of theomorphism. Surely it would be very odd to have human beings (and dogs, cats, etc.) with so many varied emotions, originating from a God who himself was the equivalent of an emotionless robot or computer?
Our intellect is a reflection of his, our life comes of his, our emotions reflect his own. Of course not perfectly, we are creatures, and sinful ones at that. But the likeness is still there and should be taken into account.
(And if nothing else, there's the incarnation. Jesus is human forever--so take that into account as well.)
But it's a start ... 😉
I like Lamb Chopped's 'theomorphism' thing. As with everything else, he said predictably, it's both / and ...
I'll get me coat ...
The Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer says "What is required of them who come to the Lord's Supper?" The answer is, "To examine themselves, whether they repentance them truly of their former sins, steadfastly purposing to lead a new life; have a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of his death; and be in charity with all men."
Whether one believes in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, has a vague belief in the real presence, or sees it as a memorial, is an interpretation of which nobody has the definitive answer. As long as we receive it with meek heart and due reverence, I believe it to be sufficient.
Which is why I fully agree with the Church of England's open table, rather than exclusive communion which only fosters division and unhappiness particularly in families where not all members belong to the same church.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying God strongly objects and is going to strike her or the celebrant down.
I'd much rather the Orthodox and RCs and those Protestant groups which practice closed communion didn't do so, but it's not down to me.
I've been offered, but not received, communion in RC settings. Not because I think it would be wicked to do so but out of respect for their rubrics. I'll go for a 'blessing' in an Anglican communion service, again out of respect for the tradition and also because I can do with every blessing I can get!
It grieves me that we aren't in full communion with one another of course.
I normally attend an annual ecumenical conference where communion is celebrated according to three particular Christian traditions / Traditions and adherents of each receive during their particular service, but not in the others.
It always strikes me as odd and awkward, though. Every time one or other of the celebrating clergy will acknowledge how sad it is that we can't share together at the Lord's Table as it were and observr how it's all down to our 'sin' in allowing ourselves to be separated from one another 💔.
Fair points.
But why rub it in and reinforce it by celebrating rites that others cannot participate in? Why not just have some non-eucharistic services or general prayer?
But then there's the thing in the Orthodox rubrics about not praying with 'heretics'. But how is that defined? I don't regard other Trinitarian Christians of whatever stripe as 'heretics'. I'd see them as either small o orthodox or heterodox depending on how much of an overlap there is on the Venn Diagram, but even there the edges are likely to be fuzzy and blurred.
It's all a conundrum and, of course there are plenty of small o orthodox and heterodox people whose orthodoxy and orthopraxy outshines that of many Big O people who've got the badge, as it were.
Ultimately, of course, we can find Christ anywhere and everywhere.
God can and does work in through the 'canonical' sacraments - as seen or recognised by any particular tradition / Tradition- and also outwith them. It's not for any of us to determine how that happens.
But it is also up to various traditions/Traditions to determine their own rubrics and boundaries - although that obviously comes at a cost. The mileage will vary, as they say, as to how tightly we set those and how much 'give' and flexibility there will be in our respective elastic bands.
This seems to be the same category of argument as "Surely it would be very odd to have human beings, who have corporeal bodies, originating from a God who doesn't".
Talk of celestial mechanics more forcefully brings to mind that He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good.
As for emotions arising from the body, they are certainly influenced by the body--gotta be careful what I eat late at night!--but how can you be sure that is all they are?
We've got any amount of material from the Bible to show God (both incarnate and not) having emotions. We're also told we're made in his image, which has always been interpreted as more than some physical resemblance, though we argue over whether it refers to intelligence, will, creativity, holiness, or what. The natural conclusion is that our emotions are ultimately a reflection of his.
To be sure, anyone who rejects Scripture can totally go with any other explanation they want. But this is what I've got. And I don't put much weight on any non-Scriptural attempts to know God and suss him out, for example by philosophy. So here I stand.
Yes I meant immutable as in unchanging emotions. A change from feeling emotion a) to feeling emotion b) is a change. But something perfect cannot change to something more perfect (an impossibility) or less perfect (and becoming less than God.)
I think Aquinas might have had views on that, as immutability is a basic property of God as he understood it.
Oh, and as far as I am aware emotions come from glands. Does God have them.
Now we've got Luther in the mix too. 'Here I stand ...'
To the Law and to the Testimony! Everyman to his own house, O Israel!'
I'm no theologian but I'd have thought there's a way of squaring the circle with this one. God isn't a machine but neither is he prone to mood swings. So far, I haven't seen anyone argue that he is.
FWIW and again, I'm no expert, the sense I pick up from within my own Tradition is that Aquinas and the late medieval Scholastics are generally seen as overly cold and calculating. Something Calvin inherited. Whilst some of those who followed after the Reformers could let subjectivity and their emotions get the better of them.
I am not suggesting that anyone here is doing that.
I suppose 'how' or 'what' God 'feels' is appropriate for a thread which is about God's 'attitude' towards something. I think we did achieve some kind of consensus on that in relation to the issues raised in the OP. Now, inevitably perhaps, the consensus is slipping in terms of how we see how these things 'work' as it were.
These things have taxed the minds of theologians for centuries so I suspect we aren't going to clinch it all now.
“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6)
God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" (Numbers 23:19)
Now if you look at the context, it's clear what God is talking about is his own steadfastness--that if he makes a promise, he fulfills it, that if he has a position ("I hate idolatry" or what have you) he's not going to change his mind on the subject. He's not saying that he is "immutable" as we normally understand the term. Indeed, if you think God is immutable, what will you do with the Incarnation? I can hardly imagine a bigger "change" in God.
* * * * *
Laying that aside, then--
You speak of changing emotions as somehow making God less perfect. I'd like to come at that a couple of different ways.
First of all, there are many perfections, not just one. To take an analogy, perfect red and perfect yellow are both perfect, but quite different from one another. For God to be perfectly angry, or perfectly compassionate, or perfectly (add emotion in here), is not to say that one emotion is less perfect than another, or that changing between the two renders God less perfect. Perfection is a multi-valued thing.
But the second issue is this: You seem to see God as having only one emotion as a time. Speaking as a human being, I myself rarely if ever have only a single emotion going at any given time. I mean, right now I am relieved (at having handled a long-running insurance problem), concerned (for my son who is taking a final exam today), happy (about a connection with someone I love), and sad (about someone else I love who is in great trouble). I'm not switching between emotions, as if I could only have one going at a time. Neither is God.
* * * * *
Re emotions coming from glands--
Again, as I said upthread, where is the proof for saying that emotions come wholly and solely from any bodily function? I think everyone admits that the body affects your emotions; but to claim that the body creates them entirely is deterministic. You're more or less implying that you yourself (whatever "you" are--a soul, mind, psyche, whatever) have no input to your own emotions; that you are either a victim of your own body, which runs the whole show regardless, or else that you yourself are nothing BUT a body (and the byproducts of it), which makes you basically a meat-robot.
Those are both possible philosophical positions, but in practice, I don't think anybody lives this way. We all blame or credit other people for their emotions* and how they act (or don't act) based on them, which makes no sense if it's all determined for them by the body.
* I'm thinking of a person very close to me whose death I do not grieve and cannot grieve, for Reasons™ and the fact that if I ever confessed that fact to 95% of the people who know me in real life, I would get outrage in spades. This kind of thing comes up all the time in human interactions.
Rejoicing. Also scriptural.
Ditto grief.
Love? Yes, I know love can be more than an emotion, and I know that God is love, which can be a bit different. But we’re specifically told, as one example, that God loved David.
That doesn't mean, of course, that Christ was some kind of automaton or 'God in a meat-suit' as someone on these boards memorably put it.
The 'essence' and 'energies' thing the Orthodox bang on about may help here, but that might be scope for another thread and I'm not well-versed enough in all this to start it.
I'm happy to consign the inner-workings of the Godhead, as it were, to the realm of mystery as well as Mystery.
Being Orthodox can be frustrating but offers the advantage of not having to overly define things, unlike the Papal Magisterium or certain kinds of fundamentalist Protestant. Not that we don't have our own overly prescriptive adherents too, of course.
But I'm happy to be 'appie' - apophatic - as well as 'cattie' - cataphatic.
Embrace paradox. Accept the Mystery.
This (what follows) is just my experience, which nobody has to be like. But I've spent the greater part of my life operating as if God had ... not much in the way of emotions? was distant? don't know quite how to say it. I didn't think this intellectually, but I certainly operated that way, and no surprise, considering the family I grew up in.
This spring to my very great surprise I discovered differently, and I'm both happy about it and very unsettled by it. No doubt things will shake out fine in the end. But wow.
That is my experience. But reading on, I see that you make a (to me) curious distinction between the body and the mind, which means we are probably not talking about the same thing. I suppose you are a dualist. Maybe I'll come back to this, but I'd probably say something like: our minds only exist to the extent that our brains exist, and brains are flesh and blood.
I've always read and understood that the interpretation of being made in God's image has nothing at all to do with our physical resemblance.
Does God feel our pain? Yes. Does God experience our pain as we experience it? No.
You can do no other...
Giving this issue some more thought, I speculate that you find it reassuring to conceive of God as being very much like us. There are people here who have previously expressed the converse, that they find the idea of God being quite unlike us more reassuring.
(If any of this is incorrect according to traditional Christian orthodoxy, of course, I submit to correction on that matter.)
A grab bag of short answers, as my kid is on my computer taking a final exam… certainly analogies are no proof of anything, and clearly we hold different views on what human beings are “made of”— i think there’s more to us than just the body and its products, and you disagree. Fair enough.
I’m not sure I’m a dualist—there are those who argue for a three part composite. I think we just don’t know enough.
I agree with you that the image has nothing to do with a physical resemblance.
I don’t deny that I find some of God’s similarities to us (or vice versa) reassuring. But that’s not why I believe what I believe. In general I am an Eeyore type pessimist and whatever I fear the most, I tend to suppose most likely. Fear fulfillment, rather than wish fulfillment. The fact that I’ve ended up in orthodox Christianity nonetheless is astonishing to me.
(I remember C.S. Lewis writing of someone who had been taught that God was a perfect substance and as an adult realised that his picture of God was of something like a semolina pudding.)
God may not feel emotions as we do, but still less does God not feel emotions as things that don't feel emotions don't.
However we cut it, God is always personal.
He's not a computer-programme or some kind of abstract clock-maker Deist deity.
But neither is he all goo-ey and touchy-feely.
I think we are all agreed though, that human concepts are inadequate and can only operate analogously.