Is God impassible?

[MagusYanam]

An interesting question that I've asked myself after reading a chapter in Imagining Progressive Religion (Dorrien, 2001) is can a God who is perfectly loving also be impassible (that is, completely above suffering)? If Jesus and God are of one being, does that mean when Jesus was on the cross, experiencing pain both of the body and of the spirit, God must likewise have been suffering? If God had sent His Son out of love to save us from our sin, He must have to some extent been commiserating with us and sharing our pains of bondage. Furthermore, if God is perfectly loving, He must possess a perfect compassion for His creation (meaning, if anything of His creation suffers, He suffers with them).

These thoughts are a Patripassian mode of thinking, I understand, but they still contain some valid questions. Any thoughts on this?

[unprofitable servant]

I believe that God suffers in a way we would not be able to stand.

The scripture says that He was grieved for the wickedness that men did. He was also grieved for wiping out every living thing off the earth.

Our emotional state(although imperfect)is what God put in us.

I've also wondered about God suffering when His Son was on the cross. I can't help thinking He did, wouldn't we?

It's another reason I can't believe in the trinity or rather God coming Himself to suffer for us. There's a beauty beyond words in what He gave up.
I mean Jesus was with God from the beginning. Learning from His Father just as our children learn from us. Then that 'being' is silent for 3 days and 3 nights. Silent. His voice quieted in death.

I mean WOW!!!!

[juliod]

I've also wondered about God suffering when His Son was on the cross. I can't help thinking He did, wouldn't we?

But Jesus wasn't YHWH's son, but himself. He came down to earth as his own son to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for the mistakes he made in the creation of man.

I confess that I couldn't imagine the emotions of such a being as he watched himself suffer as an offering to himself.

DanZ

[sofyst]

C.S. Lewis said that God was neither passible, nor impassible; rather He was superpassible.

Understanding that the passibility that we as humans experience are so tainted by sin and error, therefore being incomprehensible to attribute them to an allperfect God.

Likewise understanding that by definition an impassible God (without emotion) could not experience love or hate or anger.

Therefore we must understand God to experience all these emotions (love, hate, anger) and yet not experience them in a tainted humanly way.

Therefore the superpassibility of the Lord Almighty.

But Jesus wasn't YHWH's son, but himself. He came down to earth as his own son to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for the mistakes he made in the creation of man.

Jesus was the Father's Son. YHWH is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He, Jesus, came to earth as His Father's Son to sacrifice Himself to the Father to appease the Father for the creation He made.

I confess that I couldn't imagine the emotions of such a being as he watched himself suffer as an offering to himself.

It is even more unimaginable when you attempt to imagine based upon confused imformation. He was not an offering to Himself, but to the Father.

[bdbthinker]

Jesus was the Father's Son. YHWH is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He, Jesus, came to earth as His Father's Son to sacrifice Himself to the Father to appease the Father for the creation He made.

What's the point of this? How would this appease an all-knowing god? Is God less-than-whole to where he would need to be appeased?

[sofyst]

Perhasp you could explain why appeasement automatically assumes imperfection.

Last time I thought about this matter being perfect, that is pefectly just, required one to require appeasement for where injustice was done.

Understand?

[MagusYanam]

I see some unwarranted assumption in the entire appeasement tack. God is just, yes, I will not dispute that. But what is 'justice'? There are some who would say that 'justice' is 'vengeance' - i.e., A hurts B, therefore B has the right to demand x, y, z and t of A. Others would say that 'justice' is 'restoration' or 'reconciliation' - i.e., A hurts B, therefore A is out of harmony with B, and [A] needs to be corrected. It is the responsibility of A, B and the society to ensure that harmony is restored between them. Since the end result is satisfactory to A and B, this form of justice is a more balanced one. The Din have a more specific term for this form of justice: hozho - hozho has been the standard that has kept Din society intact for centuries.

Therefore, 'perfect justice' may not at all require one to require appeasement for an injustice. It may be useful to look at the role of Jesus from a Din perspective. If the death of Jesus is to be interpreted as having to fulfill some kind of cosmic justice, it may be that we need to interpret Jesus' resurrection as the fulfillment of hozho - God's restoration of harmony with his creation.

[sofyst]

Um...who is the Dine, and why should we interpret the justice of the God who created them by the way in which they define the term?

Please explain this thinking...I would be more inclined to define the Justice of God by the way in which the Scriptures portray Justice. I mean isn't the Scriptures where we get all of our information about God anyway?

[MagusYanam]

The Din are a Native American nation of the Four Corners region of the United States. Perhaps a more useful way of debating this point, rather than by debating standards, is by looking at the argument itself. Justice is a social phenomenon - in human society justice of some form is necessary in determining rules for human behaviour. I was merely presenting the way this phenomenon manifests itself in another culture, and suggesting that before we universalise our own cultural definition of 'justice', we ought to look at it from another perspective.

Never take religious language for granted, as language here is necessary for the transmission of ideas and concepts which can be as ethereal as the language itself. By presupposing one definition for a concept which is by no means an exclusive one, one limits one's own comprehension of the concept. My point was that yes, God is just, but what does that mean? It's not a straightforward question to answer, even scripturally - the New Testament concept of justice differs from the Old Testament concept, the Gospel concept from the concept of the Epistles, et cetera.

As Sarek told the Federation council in Star Trek IV (I know, I know - but the philosophy is good): 'Klingon justice is a unique point of view'. I adapt that here: 'Western justice is a unique point of view'. Others need to be taken into consideration.

[sofyst]

Very well, I understand your point in presenting that cultural idea of what Justice is. I would hope then that we would both agree to understand the justice of God, or rather what is meant by saying God is just, we would have to of course look at the Scriptural idea of justice.

I would disagree with your statement that the Old Testament idea of justice is different than that of the New Testament...perhaps if you could give me some justification (pardon the use of this word) for this assertion.

I however would like to begin with an thought of justice as is presented by both the apostle Paul, as well as the disciple Jude.

taking vengeance with flaming fire on those who don't know God and on those who don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of everlasting destruction, away from the Lord's presence and from His glorious strength,
(2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 HCSB)

In the same way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions, just as they did, and serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
(Jude 1:7 HCSB)

Now from the verse in Thesselonians we can clearly see that those who did not obey the gospel of the Lord were punished with everlasting destruction.

Disobediance=punishment.

Just as in Jude we see that Sodom and Gomorrah committed sexual immorality and practiced perversions (as was forbidden under the Jewish laws) and therefore were punished with eternal fire.

Disobediance=punishment.

From these ideas I think it would be safe to assume that justice involves the basic thought that if one disobeys, they are therefore punished.

You may ask why I chose these two passages in particular. It was for the use of the word δίκη used in both. This word is translated punishment here, yet it is also translated as justice.

If you consider the passage in Acts 28 where Paul is bitten by a snake while gathering wood, the natives of this island of Malta proclaim that he must be a murderer and justice does not allow him to live.

I could of course make a case based upon this story alone, yet it could be faulted that this is just the idea of justice within this culture, this group of people.

Nevertheless we see the same idea of justice, disobediance (in the case of Paul's accusation of murder) is punished. We likewise see the New Testament author's choice of words here. Here in Acts Luke decides to use this word δίκη, which looks to be from the word rigtheousness. We likewise see this same word used when describing the similar situations by the authors Pual and Jude.

Therefore I do not think that it would be faulty logic or hasty assumption to believe that Luke, Paul and Jude all considered justice to be the idea of disobediance=punishment.

Would you concur?