Is God Altruistic? Is God Happy?

[Belacqua]

I am perplexed as to why God would even have emotions.

This is a problem if you read the Old Testament literally, and don't read anything else about theology.

One of the main characteristics that theologians attribute to God is impassibility -- that is, no emotions.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL?  No it's not.  Classical philosphers, of the kind that you seem to think were also the great theologians, constantly remarked on the capricious nature of gods. They were (and remain) cartoon versions of human vice and virtue.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I am perplexed as to why God would even have emotions.

This is a problem if you read the Old Testament literally, and don't read anything else about theology.

One of the main characteristics that theologians attribute to God is impassibility -- that is, no emotions.

'...some theologians...'.  Fixed that for you.

Boru

[brewer]

LOL?  No it's not.  Classical philosphers, of the kind that you seem to think were also the great theologians, constantly remarked on the capricious nature of gods.  They were (and remain) cartoon versions of human vice and virtue.

I think Bel reads with his own personal filter.

[Belacqua]

LOL?  No it's not.  Classical philosphers, of the kind that you seem to think were also the great theologians, constantly remarked on the capricious nature of gods.  They were (and remain) cartoon versions of human vice and virtue.

I think Bel reads with his own personal filter.

Here Gae is referring to the polytheistic gods of Greece, Rome, etc. Those gods were capricious. 

Generally if someone uses the capital-G God of the theologians and philosophers, it is an impassible thingy with no material existence. Best not to confuse them. I don't know for sure which kind the OP wants to talk about.

[brewer]

I think Bel reads with his own personal filter.

Here Gae is referring to the polytheistic gods of Greece, Rome, etc. Those gods were capricious. 

Generally if someone uses the capital-G God of the theologians and philosophers, it is an impassible thingy with no material existence. Best not to confuse them. I don't know for sure which kind the OP wants to talk about.

Nope, I'm pretty sure he included the abrahamic gods, the hindu gods, the Hale Bopp gods, ............

You're having filter issues again.

[Belacqua]

Here Gae is referring to the polytheistic gods of Greece, Rome, etc. Those gods were capricious. 

Generally if someone uses the capital-G God of the theologians and philosophers, it is an impassible thingy with no material existence. Best not to confuse them. I don't know for sure which kind the OP wants to talk about.

Nope, I'm pretty sure he included the abrahamic gods, the hindu gods, the Hale Bopp gods, ............

You're having filter issues again.

I don't know what Gae intended. 

If we're talking about the classical theologians, they objected to the capriciousness of the polytheistic gods, largely to contrast it with the impassible God they believed in. This is comparable to the Hindu Brahman, but not, for example, Shiva.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Belaqua

How do you reconcile these two statements of yours:

Here Gae is referring to the polytheistic gods of Greece, Rome, etc. Those gods were capricious. 

And...

I don't know what Gae intended. 

If you don't know what he intended, how do you know that he was referring to Greco-Roman polytheism?

Boru

[The Valkyrie]

Fictional.

[Belacqua]

@Belaqua

How do you reconcile these two statements of yours:

Here Gae is referring to the polytheistic gods of Greece, Rome, etc. Those gods were capricious. 

And...

I don't know what Gae intended. 

If you don't know what he intended, how do you know that he was referring to Greco-Roman polytheism?

Boru

If he was accurately talking about the theologians accusing the gods of capriciousness, he was talking about their condemnation of the polytheistic Greek and Roman gods.