06 Oct 2012 (St. Bruno)
Note to a parishioner:
Note to a parishioner:
I came across the note I wrote you yesterday morning in response to
your question about feelings in God. Your question surprised me, in
that I had probably unconsciously assumed that everyone knew or realized
that what we call "God" is neither body nor a human soul, but beyond
everything material in any way. Because feelings are functions of our
being embodied, I presumed that it was self-evident that the divine
does not have feelings. Language that speaks of "God's love" or "God's
anger," and so on, are symbolic expressions of what human beings
experience of the divine, not of God Himself.
This is the kind of question that should be raised and discussed in adult faith class. In homilies I have referred to this conception of God quite a few times, but without explicitly linking it to "feeling language" as symbolic, or as expressing what the receiver experiences, not God per se. In referring time and again to "I AM," to the God of Moses, I thought that it was evident that we are speaking of a presence beyond all bodily existence, not in any way caused, bounded, or influenced by space-time.
Or to put the matter differently: Why would a person think that "God" has feelings? Do hearers take expressions of God's love or anger literally? God is neither a being nor a person. Beings, or "sentient beings," have feelings. Beings exist in space-time. What we call "God" is not a being. Indeed, the best philosophers may speak of the divine as "non-existent being," to communicate the truth that God is non-existent, yet is.
From the human side, when I read that "God's mercy came on me," or "the peace of God," or "God loves us," I have understood those expressions as communicating what a human being experiences of the divine, not what "God" is in and of "Himself." Again, language of God is necessarily symbolic, and taking it literally distorts the truth of reality, and even the truth of reality as experienced. I was getting at this issue by speaking of biblical language, and the Christian story generally, as "mythical." But I noticed how you balked at that, which I did not explore in my mind as indicating that you may be taking symbolic language literally.
It is far better to take symbolic language literally (myth as historical reality, for example), than to dismiss symbolic or mythical language as "non-sensical," as many modern "thinkers" have done, and still do. One can err in many ways, and usually, some ways are more damaging than others. To think that "God feels love" may not do harm to one's life, although it may keep one living in mythical language longer than necessary.
Let me conclude with a concrete example of how a philosopher deals with these issues / problems. Thomas Aquinas is both utterly profound, and very prudent in what he says, lest he confuse people, but also, to avoid getting declared a heretic, or burned at the stake. Whether or not he would directly address these matters as I have done here, I do not know, but he presses much further, much more purely, in his insight into the divine as simply "the act of to be." That is all. The rest is fleshed out for our sakes. When Thomas writes about God as "self-diffusing Good," it means what those living within mythical understanding would say, "God loves us." Note that "self-diffusing Good" attributes no feeling to God, but communicates the truth that human beings can see and know goodness from God. To say, "God loves us," on the other hand, can suggest to a more literal understanding that God "feels love." What one does with that, I do not know, but it leads to strange conceptions if one thinks about what one is saying.
Admittedly, language used in the scriptures, in poetry, in liturgy, is highly symbolic, and employs many mythical elements to communicate. Indeed, we speak words out to God in prayer, although God has no ears, and does not need spoken words to discern what we think. We need to speak out generally. Silence is, however, more like God.
Just a few thoughts in a fuller response to your question.
In Christ,
Fr. Paul
This is the kind of question that should be raised and discussed in adult faith class. In homilies I have referred to this conception of God quite a few times, but without explicitly linking it to "feeling language" as symbolic, or as expressing what the receiver experiences, not God per se. In referring time and again to "I AM," to the God of Moses, I thought that it was evident that we are speaking of a presence beyond all bodily existence, not in any way caused, bounded, or influenced by space-time.
Or to put the matter differently: Why would a person think that "God" has feelings? Do hearers take expressions of God's love or anger literally? God is neither a being nor a person. Beings, or "sentient beings," have feelings. Beings exist in space-time. What we call "God" is not a being. Indeed, the best philosophers may speak of the divine as "non-existent being," to communicate the truth that God is non-existent, yet is.
From the human side, when I read that "God's mercy came on me," or "the peace of God," or "God loves us," I have understood those expressions as communicating what a human being experiences of the divine, not what "God" is in and of "Himself." Again, language of God is necessarily symbolic, and taking it literally distorts the truth of reality, and even the truth of reality as experienced. I was getting at this issue by speaking of biblical language, and the Christian story generally, as "mythical." But I noticed how you balked at that, which I did not explore in my mind as indicating that you may be taking symbolic language literally.
It is far better to take symbolic language literally (myth as historical reality, for example), than to dismiss symbolic or mythical language as "non-sensical," as many modern "thinkers" have done, and still do. One can err in many ways, and usually, some ways are more damaging than others. To think that "God feels love" may not do harm to one's life, although it may keep one living in mythical language longer than necessary.
Let me conclude with a concrete example of how a philosopher deals with these issues / problems. Thomas Aquinas is both utterly profound, and very prudent in what he says, lest he confuse people, but also, to avoid getting declared a heretic, or burned at the stake. Whether or not he would directly address these matters as I have done here, I do not know, but he presses much further, much more purely, in his insight into the divine as simply "the act of to be." That is all. The rest is fleshed out for our sakes. When Thomas writes about God as "self-diffusing Good," it means what those living within mythical understanding would say, "God loves us." Note that "self-diffusing Good" attributes no feeling to God, but communicates the truth that human beings can see and know goodness from God. To say, "God loves us," on the other hand, can suggest to a more literal understanding that God "feels love." What one does with that, I do not know, but it leads to strange conceptions if one thinks about what one is saying.
Admittedly, language used in the scriptures, in poetry, in liturgy, is highly symbolic, and employs many mythical elements to communicate. Indeed, we speak words out to God in prayer, although God has no ears, and does not need spoken words to discern what we think. We need to speak out generally. Silence is, however, more like God.
Just a few thoughts in a fuller response to your question.
In Christ,
Fr. Paul
