Talk:Impassibility

Untitled

I'm not sure how to economically discuss the subtleties of the doctrine of divine impassibility. It's a notoriously convoluted argument, that goes back and forth between God's intrinsic nature or essence (ad intra) and his voluntary acts (ad extra), His transcendence and His immanence, eternity and free act. Anyway, the process by which Christian views of divine impassibility were developed is quite a bit more sophisticated and elaborate than the article presently depicts; and, what it implies in Christian theology is certainly not what the article concludes. However, it's not "wrong" (just unsympathetic), so I'm inclined to leave it as it is, until a lot more of these details can be added. Mkmcconn 05:29 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree and hope someone can flesh out the Christian view. I also wonder if someone knows enough about Heschel's discussions of the Jewish notion of God as anthropopathic. Slrubenstein

If someone thought he knew enough, why did he ask for the article to be checked? Jacquerie27 11:21 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. In English, we use the word "someone" to refer to an unspecified person. I am not sure who among the Wikipedia contributors knows enough to introduce Heschel, but I have no reason to believe that whoever it is, he or she "asked the article to be checked." Did you think "someone" refered to you? It did not, and I suggest you not assume that all comments on a talk page are about you. It is not about you -- or me. It is about the article, which belongs to no one and everyone. (Including someone, whoever she or he is!) Slrubenstein

No, in English we generally use "anyone" in that context: "I also wonder if anyone knows enough about..." "Someone" is ambiguous: "Someone in the White House doesn't know what he's doing" = "GWB doesn't know what he's doing". You've already told me I don't know much about religious scholarship (which I don't), so I assumed you were doing it again. Jacquerie27 12:49 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that in this case, that was not my intention. After all, I was admitting my own ignorance as well, in the above remark. Slrubenstein

You knew more than I did: I'd never even heard of Heschel or seen the word anthropopathy before. You also know considerably more about genetics than I do, which is why I'm puzzled that you take post-structuralism and anthropology seriously. Jacquerie27 17:22 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"emotions" vs. "pain and pleasure"

Could someone with more experience address a differentiation between God's (in)ability to feel pain and pleasure, and God's ability to feel more complex emotions? It seems to me that most forms of Christianity will talk about God being pleased or displeased, and they certainly attribute to God the ability to love. Inhumandecency 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Who?

What tradition(s) is this accepted in? I don't know that I've ever heard of it before, and theology is one of my favorite topics. Plus the article is not clear on how God's emotion is like his hand, but that's probably because of the complexity of the issue as discussed above. --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be standard/classical Christian theologizing from Augustine to Jonathan Edwards... Read about it here: http://www.rpcbmt.org/DivineImpassibility.html I am concerned, however, about the apparent ignorance of the theological work of Abraham Joshua Heschel in his magisterial volumes The Prophets, I & II... There, this renowned Jewish theologian argues against the "Impassibility" of God, at least in Jewish Tradition. This article is NOT credible on account of the absence of Heschel's voice in the mix. Emyth (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Impassibilité in Literature/Arts

What about "impassibilité" as a form of writing/art production starting prominently in 20. century? This is kind of a phd. Issue, i wanted to throw it in at least.

Addendum: In fact, it plays a major role in Flaubert's concept of the novelist's attitude toward his subject matter. --Gr5959 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelixmitF (talk • contribs) 01:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Impassibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605190801/http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm to http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/impassib.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929124639/http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/HistoryofChristianity/EarlyChurch/?view=usa&view=usa&ci=9780199297115 to http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/HistoryofChristianity/EarlyChurch/?view=usa&view=usa&ci=9780199297115

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Impassibility in the Catholic Church

The current entry on divine impassibility in the Roman Catholic Church incorrectly asserts that it is among the Church's dogmas. *Immutability* is a dogma, but impassibility actually is not. There are many who think impassibility is derivable from things like immutability and aseity, but there are many others who say it is not; no *UN*controversial derivation has been given yet, and most importantly the Church herself has NOT pronounced this to be dogma. I advocate changing the entry only to remove the claim that the Church teaches it dogmatically, because the original author certainly is right that impassibility is a very popular doctrine among Catholics, especially for Thomists and many other scholastics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.50.248 (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Controversial or bizarre without citations?

I Strongly urge that this page be put on hold until someone can grab from the denominations' official writings statements that support the article, or refute it. Misty MH (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)