|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: God's wrath and indignation against us
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
God has an opinion! I am sick to death odfpeople goimng on about God being loving and kind. He is therse things, above all else of course! But wrath is included in his love because it's an outworking of that love.
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
Any god who declares himself to be good and loving and then has no opinion on the evils men do, no requirements for them to change their behaviour, no justice to mete out to the impenitent, is neither good nor loving.
I agree with your sentiment, though I'm not sure it's right to be fed up with people going on about God's Love (though I guess that was hyperbole).
I think part of the problem, though, is that (in your illustration) we're happy to quickly put ourselves in the position of the husband or wife in the story, and see other people as the nasty oldest son.
I don't think we're called to view other people like that. When we look at our neighbour, despite appearances, we should see the reflection of Christ, the beauty of one of God's children. We should always look past their sin. That's what God does for us.
It's very different when we look at ourselves, but for most people, we already know we're scum. We know we have our failings, dark secrets and brokenness. I'm not certain, but I think the people that don't understand that part of themselves are self-deluded or kidding themselves.
So, as you say, the 'wrath' (indignation, outrage, as others have said) is part of the Love. But it's not at me, it's at my sin. And it's the same emotion I already have towards my brokenness. And so, I desperately need to hear that despite all that, God still loves me as his child, whether I continue to screw up forever, or if I became perfect tomorrow. This is why I think it's so important to go on about the Love and acceptance of God. It's not minimising sin, or saying that God isn't outraged at what we humans are capable of doing; it's saying that, nevertheless, he loves us. Same as you'd keep on loving your son, even if he did beat up your wife.
I worry that when we talk about God's wrath, or anger at sin, it becomes a stick with which we beat other people. That's utterly wrong. I should be focussing on myself, my own shortcomings. Then, when I grasp God's acceptance of me despite that, it provokes me to look at other people in the way I've discovered God looks at me. Same as he looks past my sin, I look past theirs. Judge not and all that.
I'm sure I've said it before, but I've found Brennan Manning's books incredibly helpful in managing to talk about the intense Love of God, without minimising or ignoring the evil that we humans are capable of. And managing to talk about the severity of sin and our screwedupness without minimising or ignoring the Love of God (the latter mistake being as big a pitfall as the former). I'd recommend them to anyone.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Oooooh! Is this thread now dancing around the Monothelitist heresy, which states that Christ had only one will?
I love Ship of Fools. So rarely in my real life do I get the chance to take part in discussions like this and learn about things like monothelitism / dyothelitism.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) to you all! (This is genuine, btw, not some clever mockery or teasing.)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I wasn't quoting Mark 10:45 in support of any particulr argument or theory of atonement. I was quoting Mark 10:45 to refute your assertion that Christ did not come to give his life willingly, or willingly come to give his life.
He did not give it willingly. The Garden of Gethsemane proves that.
He did give it however. Because he believed it was the right thing to do to proclaim the Kingdom and he believed that was his task (aka Luke).
And he was vindicated for it.
The Gospels easily teach self-sacrifice for a good cause (the Kingdom - NOT assuaging God's wrath).
And he encouraged us to do the same when telling us to take up our crosses.
[ 13. June 2013, 12:10: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Anglican_Brat: Does anyone really believe that God has smoke flowing from his ears, face turning red, and feet stamping in heaven, when it comes to describing his anger at sin?
Only when Mary isn't nearby.
quote:
Ricardus: Oooooh! Is this thread now dancing around the Monothelitist heresy, which states that Christ had only one will?
He didn't?
quote:
South Coast Kevin: But if it's 'God's outrage' instead of 'God's anger' then I think it becomes easier to set aside PSA. Which is something I'd quite like to do...
Maybe you want to write the letters PSA on a paper and burn it or bury it into the ground? (I've heard that these ceremonies can be helpful ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
[ 13. June 2013, 12:14: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Ricardus: Oooooh! Is this thread now dancing around the Monothelitist heresy, which states that Christ had only one will?
He didn't?
Reading about that particular dispute was the point where I gave up trying to understand Christological controversies ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ricardus: Reading about that particular dispute was the point where I gave up trying to understand Christological controversies ...
I can understand that. I have the feeling that I'm going to have another heresy to write on my bedpost here...
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
There is a great deal of beauty in the old BCP, but in the modern context there is something about it that leans towards what today would be considered a pathological obsession (a bit like the same pathological obsession some have that it should be the BCP and nothing else) in willingly wallowing in an unbalanced penance. It's a Tudor thing, I get that, a product of its time; but for today it is in grave danger of being a parody, beautiful and all as it is. It reminds me a little of that Monty Python sketch where God appears and asks them all to quit grovelling cos it's making him nauseous.
There is also the question of whether it is a true and fair representation of the Christian Gospel. If the balance is wrongly weighted towards the penitential aspect, does that cloud the truly good aspect of forgiveness and of a resurrected life?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But if it's 'God's outrage' instead of 'God's anger' then I think it becomes easier to set aside PSA. Which is something I'd quite like to do...
Go for it, SCK...you can do it, just take the plunge. I'm cheering for you.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Maybe you want to write the letters PSA on a paper and burn it or bury it into the ground? (I've heard that these ceremonies can be helpful )
Thanks, both of you! I'll try to find a suitable 12-Step programme to help with my struggle... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
There is a great deal of beauty in the old BCP, but in the modern context there is something about it that leans towards what today would be considered a pathological obsession (a bit like the same pathological obsession some have that it should be the BCP and nothing else) in willingly wallowing in an unbalanced penance. It's a Tudor thing, I get that, a product of its time; but for today it is in grave danger of being a parody, beautiful and all as it is. It reminds me a little of that Monty Python sketch where God appears and asks them all to quit grovelling cos it's making him nauseous.
There is also the question of whether it is a true and fair representation of the Christian Gospel. If the balance is wrongly weighted towards the penitential aspect, does that cloud the truly good aspect of forgiveness and of a resurrected life?
http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/m/monty_python/oh_lord_please_dont_burn_us.html
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
(a bit like the same pathological obsession some have that it should be the BCP and nothing else)
It is not pathological to suggest that the Church of England, in order that it make prayer in common with itself should have a commonly enforced liturgy, and then to suggest that this be a legitimate version of the Book of Common Prayer. No two parishes are the same, and as a result we have lost our common identity.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
South Coast Kevin: I'll try to find a suitable 12-Step programme to help with my struggle...
I heard there is one that is called Ship of Fools
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There's that word "enforced". Gives me the willies.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
No two parishes are the same, and as a result we have lost our common identity.
As I see it, our identity as Christians is in Christ - so whenever we gather together to praise God and encourage, build up, and challenge one another, we do so in common cause with all other Christians worldwide. For me, that doesn't need us all to use the same pattern of worship.
How far do you want to take it, Indifferently? If we have to use the same book (the BCP, I mean), shouldn't we all use the same language? And sing the same songs? At the same time, wherever we are in the world? If your answer to any of these is 'No' then I don't understand the basis on which you feel we should all use (one specific version of) the Book of Common Prayer.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
(a bit like the same pathological obsession some have that it should be the BCP and nothing else)
It is not pathological to suggest that the Church of England, in order that it make prayer in common with itself should have a commonly enforced liturgy, and then to suggest that this be a legitimate version of the Book of Common Prayer. No two parishes are the same, and as a result we have lost our common identity.
I seriously doubt that a common identity is something that the Church of England has ever had.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: I seriously doubt that a common identity is something that the Church of England has ever had.
I thought it had to do with GIN and elderly ladies serving coffee after the service?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: I seriously doubt that a common identity is something that the Church of England has ever had.
I thought it had to do with GIN and elderly ladies serving coffee after the service?
Gin is a little divisive I think, but the old ladies are truly ubiquitous.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Watered down rubbish. Where is the acknowledgment that we are miserable offenders with no health in us? What is removed is much more interesting than what is retained.
Once again, why is it so important to you that that is included? Because you're aware that you're a miserable offender with no health in you, or you feel you need reminding that other people are, or some other reason? Your reason for annoyance would help understand where you're coming from.
Amateur psychoanalysis isn't your strong suit. I think it is imperalive for every Christian to remind himself of his utter helpless wretchedness. This then brings the Cross to its full beauty, and brings the believer to hearty repentance and true faith. By God's grace, of course.
Maybe -but i regularly conduct choral evensong at the university church here and am faced with a congregation comparison of quite a few in their late teens who have never been to church before but like the music and are supporting their mates in the choir.
If i do straight Cranmer and start with the 'dearly beloved brethren', the very first impression they get of church is that "here is no health in us. But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders. "
That is - we are unhealthy and downright misery guts.
Even 50 years ago, it was felt necessary to explain these words - when i went to sunday school in the late 1950s, the teachers spent a lot of time taking us through the service and explaining what ''cloak them' etc. meant.
And a lot has changed since then.
So i treat Sunday evensong like a weekday and omit everything before the preces.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: I seriously doubt that a common identity is something that the Church of England has ever had.
I thought it had to do with GIN and elderly ladies serving coffee after the service?
Gin is a little divisive I think, but the old ladies are truly ubiquitous.
But their 'coffee' needs scare quotes in order to represent the true Anglican tradition.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Angloid: But their 'coffee' needs scare quotes in order to represent the true Anglican tradition.
I forgot about that! See, lots of things that CofE congregations have in common.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: I think it's possible that the point of view you express here is rooted in a sub-Trinitarian relational anthropomorphism.
Another one to add to my collection of heresies!
Sub-Trinitarian relational anthropomorphism. Now, there is one that has the right ring of pompousity to it.
Might be true though. If you start with a chopped up God, substitutionary atonement will look like abuse. If you start with the Trinity it begins to look like love.
I would submit that the crucifixion wasn't an accident, but not a penal substitutionary sacrifice/atonement either. The crucifixion was inevitable, in that this is how a majority sample of humanity and the powers that be react to the Divine Love. But that Love is stronger than the hate, fear, and murderousness of humanity and its politicians. The atonement is one of Christus Victor, and this understanding of the atonement subsumes the sacrifice on Calvary into itself.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
To get back to the OP, what about not just "thy wrath", but also "indignation against us". An indigant Deity -- there's something to contemplate. I say this version of the general confession just about every Sunday (every Sunday at my present home parish), but if I start to analyse some of the language, it's a bit ridiculous. Perhaps not only theologically but semantically it wasn't so risible in the 16th Century, but it doesn't quite fly for me in the 21st. Ditto the confession at the daily offices: "And there is no health in us". Really? None at all? We're totally depraved in a way that isn't even consonant with a proper understanding of that concept as being that there is no part of the human nature that isn't touched or affected by sin? I'm afraid Cranmer got a little carried away with himself.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Isn't there a case to be made that the Crucifixion was an act of self-defense? If we take the story at face value, God's stated intention was to inflict eternal torture on all humanity for the crimes of a distant ancestress. Moreover, getting Him before He got us is reputed to have saved us from this fate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Crœsos: Isn't there a case to be made that the Crucifixion was an act of self-defense? If we take the story at face value, God's stated intention was to inflict eternal torture on all humanity for the crimes of a distant ancestress. Moreover, getting Him before He got us is reputed to have saved us from this fate.
Well, there is an original point of view. I'm not sure if we have a name for this heresy
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Pre-emptionism. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I think Cranmer was apt to confuse the nature of God with that of Tudor monarchs.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I'm actually kind of pleased. I would have thought that after two millennia all the heresies would have been thought of already.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I think Cranmer was apt to confuse the nature of God with that of Tudor monarchs.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
After that old tyrant Henners the 8th, no wonder!
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't there a case to be made that the Crucifixion was an act of self-defense? If we take the story at face value, God's stated intention was to inflict eternal torture on all humanity for the crimes of a distant ancestress. Moreover, getting Him before He got us is reputed to have saved us from this fate.
I'm delighted that you have seen the light at last Croesos. Our master and lord the great Cthulhu will have much fun on his return as poor sad humanity screams and begs to die rather than THAT. I'll get the membership papers to you by return courier.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Sorry to be going back a bit but I noticed the following some days back;
'I mean, the literal meaning of wrath is anger. But the Thirty-Nine Articles tell me God is without passions, i.e. emotions. Therefore God's wrath must be a metaphor for something else. But what?'
This is a common misunderstanding; to say that God has no 'passions' doesn't mean that he has no strong feelings - what it means is that he is not externally controlled by those feelings. A Greek or Latin theologian talking about divine 'passions' meant the kind of thing you see in the legends of Zeus - only has to see a pretty girl (or boy) and he's lost all his self-control and starts planning deceptions and abductions so that he can have sex with said girl or boy. Other pagan gods show similar problems, meaning that instead of being a rock you can rely on they are seriously unstable and unreliable.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a common misunderstanding; to say that God has no 'passions' doesn't mean that he has no strong feelings - what it means is that he is not externally controlled by those feelings. A Greek or Latin theologian talking about divine 'passions' meant the kind of thing you see in the legends of Zeus - only has to see a pretty girl (or boy) and he's lost all his self-control and starts planning deceptions and abductions so that he can have sex with said girl or boy. Other pagan gods show similar problems, meaning that instead of being a rock you can rely on they are seriously unstable and unreliable.
I don't know. Zeus seems pretty reliable to me. I mean sure, you never know exactly what kind of thing he was going to change into in pursuit of his latest seduction, but Zeus-sees-pretty-mortal has a result so reliable you could set your sundial by it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Honest Ron Bacardi - thanks. I need stillness for that. Might get it Saturday morning.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry to be going back a bit but I noticed the following some days back;
'I mean, the literal meaning of wrath is anger. But the Thirty-Nine Articles tell me God is without passions, i.e. emotions. Therefore God's wrath must be a metaphor for something else. But what?'
This is a common misunderstanding; to say that God has no 'passions' doesn't mean that he has no strong feelings - what it means is that he is not externally controlled by those feelings. A Greek or Latin theologian talking about divine 'passions' meant the kind of thing you see in the legends of Zeus - only has to see a pretty girl (or boy) and he's lost all his self-control and starts planning deceptions and abductions so that he can have sex with said girl or boy. Other pagan gods show similar problems, meaning that instead of being a rock you can rely on they are seriously unstable and unreliable.
I think this is helpful. The idea that God has no passions is not the same as saying that he is without affection. Surely, the impassibility of God is the idea that he is not prone acting rashly in an ecstasy of rage or to succumbing to the paralysis of grief. The impassibility of God surely must mean that he is not prone to being "controlled" by his passions in the same way as human beings. That doesn't mean that he doesn't experience anger, grief or joy. It simply means that those affections are always under his sovereign control and that he acts upon them only in accordance with his eternal rectitude.
[ 13. June 2013, 19:20: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
So for you, wrath and indignation are the only two reasons to respond? That's what you're saying here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I don't think he is saying that, mousethief. I think he is saying that wrath and indignation would be legitimate - and normal - responses among a wider variety of possible responses to such a scenario.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The idea that God has no passions is not the same as saying that he is without affection. Surely, the impassibility of God is the idea that he is not prone acting rashly in an ecstasy of rage or to succumbing to the paralysis of grief. The impassibility of God surely must mean that he is not prone to being "controlled" by his passions in the same way as human beings. That doesn't mean that he doesn't experience anger, grief or joy. It simply means that those affections are always under his sovereign control and that he acts upon them only in accordance with his eternal rectitude.
I'm not sure that such a God experiences passions is a way that is meaningful for us to use talk of passion?
"I can adopt the mask of anger" is not the same thing as "I am angry"...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
Reading this thread reinforces my feeling that the more extreme versions wrath-language of earlier liturgies are largely artifacts of the times in which they were written: the politics, the rhetorical conventions, the personalities in charge.
Perhaps the most astonishing statement in the entire thread is one commenting on the Penitential Order in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (TEC). Italics are mine.
quote:
Watered down rubbish. Where is the acknowledgment that we are miserable offenders with no health in us?
Setting aside the pathology revealed in such a claim, I have doubts about its effectiveness as an evangelical tool. Does anyone really imagine that language like this will bring people closer to Jesus? Perhaps in Girolamo Savonarola's day, or Jonathan Edwards', though the emotional conversions brought about by such things as "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" generally did not last very long.
In the world today, I can imagine most people -- including people who are sincerely trying to live the Christian faith -- either being appalled by statements like this, or ... worse ... amused in an eye-rolling kind of way.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a common misunderstanding; to say that God has no 'passions' doesn't mean that he has no strong feelings - what it means is that he is not externally controlled by those feelings.
But I think there is more to it than that.
a. On a fundamental level, our experience of feelings is ultimately determined by glands and nerves and neurochemicals and other things that God doesn't have. So to that extent God can't feel because He has nothing to feel with.
b. Also feelings take place in time. We feel sad at one moment in response to one situation and then the situation changes and we feel something else. But God is outside time and all times are Now to Him. So if He were to feel anything, He would feel the same at all times, which is alien to the way we experience emotions.
None of which is to disparage language that attributes emotions to God, but I think the implication of (a) and (b) is that any emotions attributed to God must be metaphors for something else.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
So for you, wrath and indignation are the only two reasons to respond? That's what you're saying here.
Dude, I said none of that. 'Twas the Mudfrog!
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
So for you, wrath and indignation are the only two reasons to respond? That's what you're saying here.
Dude, I said none of that. 'Twas the Mudfrog!
Apologies! bad code. bad.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a common misunderstanding; to say that God has no 'passions' doesn't mean that he has no strong feelings - what it means is that he is not externally controlled by those feelings.
But I think there is more to it than that.
a. On a fundamental level, our experience of feelings is ultimately determined by glands and nerves and neurochemicals and other things that God doesn't have. So to that extent God can't feel because He has nothing to feel with.
b. Also feelings take place in time. We feel sad at one moment in response to one situation and then the situation changes and we feel something else. But God is outside time and all times are Now to Him. So if He were to feel anything, He would feel the same at all times, which is alien to the way we experience emotions.
None of which is to disparage language that attributes emotions to God, but I think the implication of (a) and (b) is that any emotions attributed to God must be metaphors for something else.
With regard to (a) I think it's a mistake to assume that the physical elements of the human emotional experience evidence that God doesn't know comparable emotions. On the contrary, it would suggest God has chosen to create psychosomatic beings in his image and likeness. It would Gnostic to suggest otherwise, I think.
Regarding (b), I agree. I think that God's "emotions" are eternal and settled.
[ 13. June 2013, 20:42: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
I think all claims that God is hostile to mankind that he created on His Sixth Creative Day ... are spurious.
I know that the Nephilim didn't work out because they had nothing to eat; so they ate people. But--I know not of a human single parent who abhors and detests his or her own children; but the Nephilim were not God's children, willingly.
This whole idea has to be dogma from some other domain ... possibly, the Occult.
Isaiah 29
13: Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Can anyone tell me why we have removed any reference to God's holy wrath against sinners from modern liturgy, both a scriptural and patristic belief? Could it be yet another attempt to exalt man before God?
The Confession and Absolution is so watered down in Common Worship that it almost feels like we ignorer our sin and its place next to the Atonement altogenher.
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
My parish is mostly middle-aged men. The old ladies are very few and far between.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
With regard to (a) I think it's a mistake to assume that the physical elements of the human emotional experience evidence that God doesn't know comparable emotions. On the contrary, it would suggest God has chosen to create psychosomatic beings in his image and likeness. It would Gnostic to suggest otherwise, I think.
But it isn't our emotions that put us in God's image and likeness. Animals have emotions too.
I think it's a mistake to try to imagine the divine psychology. If we want a God we can empathise with, we have Jesus.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
The way I look at the question is this: God in his nature is the quintessence of Love, and that as such he is not indifferent to human suffering and its causes. At times that can lead him to anger, as evidenced by Jesus in the gospels.
One notes, however, that Jesus’ anger is not directed against humanity in general but to specific instances of inhumanity: the loveless righteousness of the pharisees and the greed of the money changers. ISTM that the notion of God’s wrath directed against humankind is Pauline.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I wasn't quoting Mark 10:45 in support of any particulr argument or theory of atonement. I was quoting Mark 10:45 to refute your assertion that Christ did not come to give his life willingly, or willingly come to give his life.
He did not give it willingly. The Garden of Gethsemane proves that.
Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
What happened in Gethsemane (I think) was his awareness that it was going to smart, and wouldn't it be lovely if there was an alternative! As he said to the blokes falling asleep, the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak - or in his case perhaps naturally shrinking from the task ahead. But the will was still there.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
Of course not. You'd just realise murdering yourself (God the Son) or an innocent victim (Jesus the man) would do nothing to correct that injustice and stop you being rightfully angry.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As for Jesus not wanting to die that was only for that brief moment in Gethsemane that was totally resolved in the words, Yet not my will, but thine be done.' The rest of the Gospel nattarive shows jesus 'setting his face towards Jerusalem,' and teaching the disciples that 'The Son of Man must suffer many things,' There is no way that Jesus was anything less than aware and willing as far as the cross was concerned. His own words were 'no one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.'
Which bit of not my will are you having trouble reading and comprehending? It was not Jesus' will to suffer and die. He just knew it was part of what had to be done to proclaim the Kingdom of God - for that is what he came to do, that was his calling.
quote:
Luke 4.43:
But he said to them, ‘I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose.’
But you cannot take one verse or even two verses. You have to take them all - including 'The Son of man came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
So for you, wrath and indignation are the only two reasons to respond? That's what you're saying here.
No, my love is a good reason to respond!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But you cannot take one verse or even two verses. You have to take them all - including 'The Son of man came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many.
Can I recommend reading the thread?
You might find some answers.
As for one or two verses, that's the sin of penal substitution. Very unbiblical.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
One notes, however, that Jesus’ anger is not directed against humanity in general but to specific instances of inhumanity: the loveless righteousness of the pharisees and the greed of the money changers. ISTM that the notion of God’s wrath directed against humankind is Pauline.
I don't think that's right. John the Baptist spoke of it. quote:
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptised by him, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Luke 3:7
And Jesus himself mentions it as well. quote:
How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. Luke 21:32
and quote:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. John 3:36
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
