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?

[bdbthinker]

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?

No, because if you take this a few steps futher, you should see how absurd it is.
To appease someone means to satisfy them. Wouldn't God already be satisfied? How could he be anything less than perfectly satisfied? I'm always told by christians that God has a plan. This plan must be perfect if we are to assume god is all-knowing. So, when bad things happen, it's simply God's perfect plan being executed, right? I don't understand how God would need to be satisfied with his perfect plan.

[MagusYanam]

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?

I don't think that is the entire picture. You addressed none of the Gospel writings, I note - only the Acts and the Epistles.

You use the Greek root dike, which can indeed mean 'right' or 'judgment'. Yet dike is but one element of scriptural justice which addresses only the wrongdoer. That pertaining to those wronged is equally important. We have the Beatitudes of St. Matthew 5 which addresses those persecuted, and those who mourn. Later in St. Matthew 5, we find Jesus exhorting those wronged to 'turn to him the other [cheek] also', to 'let him have thy cloak also', to 'go with him twain'. St. Matthew 5 concludes with this passage:

44 - But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 - That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 - For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?
47 - And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?
48 - Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

It seems to me that St. Matthew 5 can be considered more comprehensive in the ways of the justice and the workings of Heaven, as it addresses those wronged and those grieving as well as those who have done wrong and who have caused grieving. It exhorts us to requite good with good, and ill also with good - this Jesus equates with the moral perfection which includes the concept of justice.

Punishment is necessary to justice insofar as it is beneficial to all parties involved. Ill must be requited - and corrected - with good. The 'eternal fire' in the case of the Epistles is undoubtedly a reference to gai-Hinnom, a valley outside Jerusalem where refuse was burned in a fire that was kept lit all the time. The Hebrews saw gai-Hinnom as a metaphor for a place of purification, where souls would burn off their refuse of sin in order that they might be purified. Thus I would agree - disobedience implies punishment, if the stipulation is that the punishment is corrective and purifying.