I think if we might look at it the other way around that might help, sometimes. Just as we are made in God’s image, so are (I believe) various aspects of ourselves reflections, in a dim small mirror, of aspects of Him. Our justice and mercy are small dim reflections of His. Our love is a dim small reflection of His. And I would say that our emotions, though also in our case fallen, are small, dim reflections of His everlasting and eternal … things that are LIKE passions that we can only imagine within a world of time and change, but in Him they are everlasting and Eternal (transcending time altogether). At least this makes the most sense to me.
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.
Agreed!! We are made in His image, so we have at least a little bit of a toehold to grasp at least some of it, even in our tiny created (and also fallen) way.
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 hope the exam went well, as far as you both were able to determine.
As for emotions and how we are made, having said that our emotions are of flesh and blood (in the sense of body, brain and mind), I would say that what we call God's emotions are of the spirit, not of flesh and blood.
One question is whether spiritual "emotions" correspond to flesh and blood emotions, or to what extent they are compatible. I think we operate on the basis that they are, primarily because that's how human beings relate to the world around us. As individuals, we don't even know for sure whether other people experience emotions in the same way as we do, but assume they do because it makes life simpler. Usually it works well enough, but occasionally we get brought up short.
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's intriguing - because I was finding your descriptions of your experience and conception of God, regarding emotion, somehow quite unsettling.
Our experience of emotions is sufficiently shared that we have words for them. We couldn't have words for phenomena that were unique to us only or that we couldn't recognise in other people.
Our experience of emotions is sufficiently shared that we have words for them. We couldn't have words for phenomena that were unique to us only or that we couldn't recognise in other people.
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 hope the exam went well, as far as you both were able to determine.
As for emotions and how we are made, having said that our emotions are of flesh and blood (in the sense of body, brain and mind), I would say that what we call God's emotions are of the spirit, not of flesh and blood.
One question is whether spiritual "emotions" correspond to flesh and blood emotions, or to what extent they are compatible. I think we operate on the basis that they are, primarily because that's how human beings relate to the world around us. As individuals, we don't even know for sure whether other people experience emotions in the same way as we do, but assume they do because it makes life simpler. Usually it works well enough, but occasionally we get brought up short.
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's intriguing - because I was finding your descriptions of your experience and conception of God, regarding emotion, somehow quite unsettling.
This all makes sense--I'm sorry I was unsettling with my descriptions, let me know if I need to explain something more clearly?
I think it helps too that you defined "flesh and blood" (meaning basically "human"? ) I would have taken that phrase to mean "the physical side of humanity" and nothing else.
Our experience of emotions is sufficiently shared that we have words for them. We couldn't have words for phenomena that were unique to us only or that we couldn't recognise in other people.
Yes and no. That may be the case within people groups, but it appears that emotions don't always translate well between different people groups.
I think that the suggestion that we couldn't have words for emotions that were unique to us only is certainly adjacent to the suggestion that the way we conceive of our emotions is dependent on the language we have to talk about them, and on the form of life of which that language is a part.
Our experience of emotions is sufficiently shared that we have words for them. We couldn't have words for phenomena that were unique to us only or that we couldn't recognise in other people.
Yes and no. That may be the case within people groups, but it appears that emotions don't always translate well between different people groups.
I think that the suggestion that we couldn't have words for emotions that were unique to us only is certainly adjacent to the suggestion that the way we conceive of our emotions is dependent on the language we have to talk about them, and on the form of life of which that language is a part.
While language can help (or hinder) our grasp of concepts, I don’t think our concepts are utterly dependent on our words. (I’m not a deconstructionist, existentialist, believer in some approaches to semiotics, etc.) I believe in the existence of the signified (the real things a word points to), and in our ability to perceive them, whether or not we have the signifiers (the words we use to point to things) to describe them.
There was a lovely James Thurber cartoon many years ago. Two ladies are at a busy party where one tall and balding bespectacled gentleman stands alone and apart, holding his drink. One lady says to the other, "Oh him; he's not worth talking to, he only knows facts!"
...
One question is whether spiritual "emotions" correspond to flesh and blood emotions, or to what extent they are compatible. I think we operate on the basis that they are, primarily because that's how human beings relate to the world around us. As individuals, we don't even know for sure whether other people experience emotions in the same way as we do, but assume they do because it makes life simpler. Usually it works well enough, but occasionally we get brought up short.
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's intriguing - because I was finding your descriptions of your experience and conception of God, regarding emotion, somehow quite unsettling.
This all makes sense--I'm sorry I was unsettling with my descriptions, let me know if I need to explain something more clearly?
The issue wasn't the clarity - I think I was picking up that you were finding your experience unsettling, even though you didn't explicitly state this until later in the thread.
I wasn't concerned (at least for myself), so much as curious.
I think it helps too that you defined "flesh and blood" (meaning basically "human"? ) I would have taken that phrase to mean "the physical side of humanity" and nothing else.
In the current context, one consequent issue is how our natural humanity relates to the supernatural and/or spiritual realm.
I'll try to do better with defining my own words.
My experience is that can become something of a rabbit hole. One fascinating aspect of these forums is the variety of meanings that different people attach to words and phrases. Trying to anticipate or second-guess them is an endeavour that can easily expand to consume the time available.
Our experience of emotions is sufficiently shared that we have words for them. We couldn't have words for phenomena that were unique to us only or that we couldn't recognise in other people.
Yes and no. That may be the case within people groups, but it appears that emotions don't always translate well between different people groups.
I think that the suggestion that we couldn't have words for emotions that were unique to us only is certainly adjacent to the suggestion that the way we conceive of our emotions is dependent on the language we have to talk about them, and on the form of life of which that language is a part.
Yup. The intriguing thing about the research is that it goes further than that, and identifies the possibility that even the way we experience our emotions varies between cultures, which was picked up in some of the articles about it, for example, from the one I linked to previously:
Maja Konkolewska, a freelance Polish/English translator and interpreter and an associate of the Stephen Spender Trust, said she believes the emotions we feel are connected to the experiences of our ancestors.
The research does point out, and tries to address, the problem of researching human experiences by analysing the language used to describe them, which relates to your point.
The intriguing thing about the research is that it goes further than that, and identifies the possibility that even the way we experience our emotions varies between cultures.
There was a lovely James Thurber cartoon many years ago. Two ladies are at a busy party where one tall and balding bespectacled gentleman stands alone and apart, holding his drink. One lady says to the other, "Oh him; he's not worth talking to, he only knows facts!"
Y'see these are the people I seek out. Their facts may be fascinating.
There was a lovely James Thurber cartoon many years ago. Two ladies are at a busy party where one tall and balding bespectacled gentleman stands alone and apart, holding his drink. One lady says to the other, "Oh him; he's not worth talking to, he only knows facts!"
Y'see these are the people I seek out. Their facts may be fascinating.
There was a lovely James Thurber cartoon many years ago. Two ladies are at a busy party where one tall and balding bespectacled gentleman stands alone and apart, holding his drink. One lady says to the other, "Oh him; he's not worth talking to, he only knows facts!"
Y'see these are the people I seek out. Their facts may be fascinating.
But I trust you see the point of the joke?
To be honest - no. I identity very much with the man in question but feel the joke is implying he's wrong somehow. I don't see how I'd want to talk other than facts with a stranger. Deeper conversation is for people I know well.
Unless the two ladies are the butt of the joke for being uninterested in facts, but that feels like a joke based on a lazy sexist stereotypes so I don't think it's that.
No, you don't get it ... but no matter! I s'pose I was making the point, in what I hoped was a gentle way, that folk interpret taking communion differently and to discuss it with them is not to exchange 'facts'.
No, you don't get it ... but no matter! I s'pose I was making the point, in what I hoped was a gentle way, that folk interpret taking communion differently and to discuss it with them is not to exchange 'facts'.
Well it sort of is, inasmuch as how we interpret something is a fact about us, even if it isn't a fact about the thing we're interpreting.
No, you don't get it ... but no matter! I s'pose I was making the point, in what I hoped was a gentle way, that folk interpret taking communion differently and to discuss it with them is not to exchange 'facts'.
If you don't have facts, what you have is Mavis's unsupported assertions about communion, which really aren't interesting at all.
It is routine and normal to discuss facts, and the interpretation of facts. You can tell me that you've measured X. I'll ask you why your measurement is a measurement of X, and how you eliminated the influence of Y and Z on that measurement, and so on. We have a productive discussion, and finish with a deeper shared understanding.
I've heard 'Auntie Mavis' used as a generic term for older women but 'Mavis' isn't a common term for what we might call 'Joe Public' or 'The Man On The Clapham Omnibus'.
No, you don't get it ... but no matter! I s'pose I was making the point, in what I hoped was a gentle way, that folk interpret taking communion differently and to discuss it with them is not to exchange 'facts'.
Well it sort of is, inasmuch as how we interpret something is a fact about us, even if it isn't a fact about the thing we're interpreting.
Would still love to get the joke.
I wouldn't describe the cartoon as a joke, as such.
It depicts a soirée and, to my mind, is essentially a parody or caricature of "polite society", and the topics of conversation that would be considered appropriate to discuss in such social contexts.
It also poses the question of why someone who "only knows facts" would attend such an event.
As with all cartoons depicting polite society, it poses questions about "them" and "us".
And it could be considered sexist - if you think that it's contrasting the topics discussed by women at social events with the topics discussed by men. (As to the intention, note that Thurber's final drawing was in 1951, so the cartoon is at least 70 years old.)
Or you could treat it as a kind of inkblot test, revealing the perspective of the viewer.
Prince de Talleyrand ( and former Bishop of Autun) wrote that 'One must treat serious things lightly and unimportant matters with great earnestness.'
According to Talleyrand 'this has the advantage of precluding the person of average intelligence from joining in the argument'.
Prince de Talleyrand ( and former Bishop of Autun) wrote that 'One must treat serious things lightly and unimportant matters with great earnestness.'
According to Talleyrand 'this has the advantage of precluding the person of average intelligence from joining in the argument'.
The Prince de Talleyrand was born in 1754 and died in 1838. Before the French Revolution he was the bishop of Autun, a role he abandoned and then served during the French Revolution, during the Napoleonic period and beyond into the various Restorations, dying (reconciled with the Church) during the reign of Louis-Philippe.
He was a sort of high class Vicar of Bray who found a role for himself whatever government was in power.
A wikipaedia article describes him as a master of ' crafty and cynical diplomacy 'but recognises him also as one of the most skilled diplomats of the age.
Just recently I came across this quote of his and it intrigued me.
If we assume that our understanding of the eucharist is of supreme importance I suppose he is advancing the view that if it is a matter of great importance but we treat it lightly then others may also see the matter as one of lesser importance and more easily accept our view of the matter.
On the other hand matters which are not of great importance we should treat seriously and possibly let our opponents win on that argument and they will believe that they have won an important argument.
I recollect an anecdote to this effect:
Two diplomats conversing;
First diplomat: 'I hear Talleyrand has died.'
Second diplomat: 'Hmm. I wonder what he meant by that.'
Comments
Agreed!! We are made in His image, so we have at least a little bit of a toehold to grasp at least some of it, even in our tiny created (and also fallen) way.
As for emotions and how we are made, having said that our emotions are of flesh and blood (in the sense of body, brain and mind), I would say that what we call God's emotions are of the spirit, not of flesh and blood.
One question is whether spiritual "emotions" correspond to flesh and blood emotions, or to what extent they are compatible. I think we operate on the basis that they are, primarily because that's how human beings relate to the world around us. As individuals, we don't even know for sure whether other people experience emotions in the same way as we do, but assume they do because it makes life simpler. Usually it works well enough, but occasionally we get brought up short.
That's intriguing - because I was finding your descriptions of your experience and conception of God, regarding emotion, somehow quite unsettling.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/19/true-meanings-of-words-of-emotion-get-lost-in-translation-study-finds
This all makes sense--I'm sorry I was unsettling with my descriptions, let me know if I need to explain something more clearly?
I think it helps too that you defined "flesh and blood" (meaning basically "human"? ) I would have taken that phrase to mean "the physical side of humanity" and nothing else.
I'll try to do better with defining my own words.
While language can help (or hinder) our grasp of concepts, I don’t think our concepts are utterly dependent on our words. (I’m not a deconstructionist, existentialist, believer in some approaches to semiotics, etc.) I believe in the existence of the signified (the real things a word points to), and in our ability to perceive them, whether or not we have the signifiers (the words we use to point to things) to describe them.
I wasn't concerned (at least for myself), so much as curious. In the current context, one consequent issue is how our natural humanity relates to the supernatural and/or spiritual realm. My experience is that can become something of a rabbit hole. One fascinating aspect of these forums is the variety of meanings that different people attach to words and phrases. Trying to anticipate or second-guess them is an endeavour that can easily expand to consume the time available.
Y'see these are the people I seek out. Their facts may be fascinating.
Or a church musician -- 3:2 being a perfect fifth.
But I trust you see the point of the joke?
To be honest - no. I identity very much with the man in question but feel the joke is implying he's wrong somehow. I don't see how I'd want to talk other than facts with a stranger. Deeper conversation is for people I know well.
Unless the two ladies are the butt of the joke for being uninterested in facts, but that feels like a joke based on a lazy sexist stereotypes so I don't think it's that.
Well it sort of is, inasmuch as how we interpret something is a fact about us, even if it isn't a fact about the thing we're interpreting.
Would still love to get the joke.
If you don't have facts, what you have is Mavis's unsupported assertions about communion, which really aren't interesting at all.
It is routine and normal to discuss facts, and the interpretation of facts. You can tell me that you've measured X. I'll ask you why your measurement is a measurement of X, and how you eliminated the influence of Y and Z on that measurement, and so on. We have a productive discussion, and finish with a deeper shared understanding.
And how does measurement etc. come into a discussion of communion?
I've heard 'Auntie Mavis' used as a generic term for older women but 'Mavis' isn't a common term for what we might call 'Joe Public' or 'The Man On The Clapham Omnibus'.
It depicts a soirée and, to my mind, is essentially a parody or caricature of "polite society", and the topics of conversation that would be considered appropriate to discuss in such social contexts.
It also poses the question of why someone who "only knows facts" would attend such an event.
As with all cartoons depicting polite society, it poses questions about "them" and "us".
And it could be considered sexist - if you think that it's contrasting the topics discussed by women at social events with the topics discussed by men. (As to the intention, note that Thurber's final drawing was in 1951, so the cartoon is at least 70 years old.)
Or you could treat it as a kind of inkblot test, revealing the perspective of the viewer.
According to Talleyrand 'this has the advantage of precluding the person of average intelligence from joining in the argument'.
I'm afraid I don't understand this at all.
He was a sort of high class Vicar of Bray who found a role for himself whatever government was in power.
A wikipaedia article describes him as a master of ' crafty and cynical diplomacy 'but recognises him also as one of the most skilled diplomats of the age.
Just recently I came across this quote of his and it intrigued me.
If we assume that our understanding of the eucharist is of supreme importance I suppose he is advancing the view that if it is a matter of great importance but we treat it lightly then others may also see the matter as one of lesser importance and more easily accept our view of the matter.
On the other hand matters which are not of great importance we should treat seriously and possibly let our opponents win on that argument and they will believe that they have won an important argument.
Two diplomats conversing;
First diplomat: 'I hear Talleyrand has died.'
Second diplomat: 'Hmm. I wonder what he meant by that.'