Getting Joy Out Of Doing The Right Thing...

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I often take a bit of extreme position on trying to detach myself from self-interest. For instance, I try not to do something for the mere pleasure of it, assuming that there is a higher motive possible for such an activity. I try to do things because they're right, not because they bring me joy. Yet, at the same time, I see that so many saints talk about seeking peace and joy by doing God's will. Are we supposed to seek the joy that comes with doing what's right, or should be seek to do what's right and accept the joy as God's gift for it? I would be afraid that, in an instance where joy does not accompany doing what's right, I would therefore not do what's right. Yet, at the same time, I suppose the joy is itself doing what's right, and so in seeking the joy, I will always do what's right, and in doing what's right, I will always receive joy.

It becomes a bit more personal: we are not to seek our own pleasure in love, but the pleasure of the other first, then our own, the good of the other first, then our own, etc. Likewise, we should seek the mutual good because it is beneficial to both. I see many authors talking about not pursuing the pleasure of love, but having a sort of disinterested love. The problem I have is this: what if, theoretically, your inclination in the area of love is so turned towards God's will that what is joyful for you is doing good for the other, loving rightly, etc., even far more than the physical and emotional pleasures of love? If your answer to the first paragraph is that we should seek the joy and peace that is "rightly-orderedness" itself, then what about in the field of love? Is it right to seek the joy of love that is itself the "rightly-orderedness" of love, or is that still selfish, seeking one's own pleasure?

In a nutshell, if your joy [i]is[/i] for your beloved to have joy, then is it selfish to seek that joy? If I have an urge to love (that urge being fundamentally directed toward the good of the other), should I seek to fulfill that urge? Is seeking to fulfill that urge a type of self-indulgence, or is it truly other-centered, or is this simply me trying to make a divide between the dispositions and relationship between two lovers where there is truly no division, but only a remarkable unity?

Also, this arises not only in human love, but in love of God. So many saints and spiritual writers talk about seeking out God's peace and joy, but should we seek out God instead...or in seeking out the joy of God, are we indeed seeking out God Himself, who is all joy and the source of all joy? I know that we are not supposed to seek consolations from God, though, too...and that seems to contradict what others say about seeking the joy of God.

I look forward to hearing from all the philosophers of phatmass.

God bless,

Micah

[Sojourner]

I'm in the midst of moving today and tomorrow, and don't get internet at the new place until Monday, so it may be a bit before I can adequately reply. But I will give this some thought, dear Micah.

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1384874' date='Sep 13 2007, 10:48 AM']Are we supposed to seek the joy that comes with doing what's right, or should be seek to do what's right and accept the joy as God's gift for it? I would be afraid that, in an instance where joy does not accompany doing what's right, I would therefore not do what's right. Yet, at the same time, I suppose the joy is itself doing what's right, and so in seeking the joy, I will always do what's right, and in doing what's right, I will always receive joy.[/quote]

This is an interesting topic that has been raised by Catholic and non-Catholic thinkers alike. Abraham Lincoln, for example, thought that there was an element of selfishness in all good actions, because we do them with a conscious desire to make ourselves feel good. Such thinking, of course, then means that there is no true altruism in life, since our very desire to [i]want[/i] good is inherently selfish.

Really, though, this is a problem of definitions. Many people of many faiths use the words [i]joy, happiness,[/i] and [i]good,[/i] with a wide variety of different actual meanings. Additionally, there are a wide array of great saints from Augustine to Thomas and all in between who had their own non-dogmatic ideas. Looking to the words of Jesus, I think, sheds a lot of light on it...

[u]In John 15, Jesus tells the Apostles:[/u]
[i][9] As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.
[10] If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
[11] These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.[/i]

[u]In John 14, He says:[/u]
[i][27] Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.[/i]

In these passages, we get a summary of what Christ actually promised us in regards to joy. Contrary to our human inclination to over-complicate things, we see that Jesus never gets into a discourse about vague sentiments, feelings, or subjective "happiness." Instead, he ties everything back to [i]agape[/i]. What is keeping the commandments? Love. What is peace? It is giving not as the world gives, but as Christ (i.e. agape love).

So now that we see past the human attempt to define the intangible [i]joy[/i], it becomes clear that it is not synonymous with [i]happiness[/i], but rather with [i]love[/i]. If we act in true agape charity, we are seeking the ways of Christ and producing holy joy and peace for ourselves and those around us. There is no selfishness in this, because there is no selfishness in agape love just as there is no selfishness in God, the Trinity.

[quote]... The problem I have is this: what if, theoretically, your inclination in the area of love is so turned towards God's will that what is joyful for you is doing good for the other, loving rightly, etc., even far more than the physical and emotional pleasures of love? ... Is it right to seek the joy of love that is itself the "rightly-orderedness" of love, or is that still selfish, seeking one's own pleasure?

In a nutshell, if your joy [i]is[/i] for your beloved to have joy, then is it selfish to seek that joy?[/quote]

Joy, since it is a part of true charity, is to be always sought without ceasing. Christ would not have left his peace of agape love with us for any other purpose than for us to cherish it and bring its joy to others.

Where we all sometimes stumble, though, is when we begin substituting the word [i]happiness[/i]. Jesus never promised us happiness in the [i]way the world gives[/i] (14:27). Great joy can exist even in suffering, as we know from the martyrs and saints.

[i]Happiness[/i], as a Christian, seems to be the peace of seeking charity.

[scardella]

I can certainly sympathize with what you're saying. I have that tendency myself. In fact I was thinking about the very subject yesterday.

There are 3 ways that people act, in general, as far as I can tell. They act according to a desire (indulge), they act against a desire or they act according to some standard or ideal rather independently of how they feel. Thanks to some disordered desires as a result of the fall, indulging all desires does not give the same results as acting according to the ideal. However, not all desires are corrupted, so option number two does not give the best results either. The only standard by which we can rely, then, is number three, the most difficult.

After learning that some desires are disordered, there can be the temptation in the sincere Christian to reject all desires and habitually reject most desires. If you let this get out of hand, you find yourself unable to enjoy the legitimate goods and only allow yourself the trudgery of the hard and narrow path. This is where we get the sour-faced Christian.

When conforming one's self to a standard, then you act for the good, whether you desire it or not. This takes discipline and a keen understanding of what is the good. When your desires are ordered, you enjoy it. When your desires are disordered, you find it difficult, but usually appreciate it in some sense because you know it is the good.

The difficulty, then, is when our desires are in conformity with the highest good, are we acting according to the desire or according to the standard, correct? My initial thoughts would be that if our desires are for the best good, then we are making a false dichotomy by worrying about the attendant good feelings. Real worrying is necessary when our desires do not desire the best good. (ie the good of the standard) I don't think this conflicts with teachings on fasting, because fasting is ultimately a way to train yourself to choose God over His Creation and conform your will and desires to the best good.

Is this making sense?

Edited September 13, 2007 by scardella

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Excellent distinctions and comments. PapaHilarious, you are a blessing to the Church as a Catholic. Scardella, your reflection on agape was fruitful for me. Yes, I suppose I am making false dichotomies. It is the difficulty of wanting everything to be perfect (I'm a perfectionist to a fault...how ironic!) that makes me want to split hairs so much.

I look forward to other input, if anyone has any.

I have my own follow-up input: I believe the early philosophers (I'm inclined to say it was Aristotle) said that there was joy in the worldly way (happiness) and then there was joy of being at peace. This second joy seems to be the Christian joy that we should pursue. I would go so far as to say that it is the life of grace in the soul, particularly when the soul is very much affected by grace. Since grace is really nothing other than God's life in us and the indwelling of God, then pursuing this kind of joy is nothing other than asking God to come and dwell in us. It is not for the feelings that we wish for it, although they certainly help us to will it more easily, but for the right-orderedness we know brings that joy. In other words, I think that God's supreme will for any one of us is to fill us with Himself and make us holy. That, for any human being, is right-orderedness and it is true and lasting joy. So, in willing God's will for us and thus pursuing the joy that is grace, I think all these things come together. This joy I think Aristotle called eudaimonia.

Any input from philosophers?

[PapaHilarious]

All this philosophy is easier said than done, of course. My father's suicide was in large part, I believe, due to a sense of unhappiness in his Christian walk. As an Evangelical, he was constantly bombarded by the [i]health & wealth[/i] gospel which preaches faith, happiness, and success as all synonymous. It's a false gospel that picks up "knock and it shall be opened" while forgetting "your will be done" or, maybe less subjectively, Jesus needing help to carry His own cross.

Some people think so one-dimensionally that they can never empathize with the struggles of others, especially those that seem to have it so good. For many of the years before I became Catholic, I was much like my father, and struggled greatly with personal unhappiness. The only reason I think God - through the prayers of St. Raphael, ironically enough - intervened to lift my cross was so that I could more effectively witness to others, as one who has seen both ends of the tunnel of despair.

As we know from Mother Teresa, though, even Catholics can experience the cross of great personal struggle. Padre Pio's words ring so true: the worst question we can ask as a Christian is "why?". Rather, we should ask "what?". As in: What can I do with the cross I carry to help others and glorify God?

Anyway, that's my long way of saying to not get discouraged if it's difficult to shed that shadow of personal unhappiness at times. Others much greater than us have walked such a path before.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='PapaHilarious' post='1385084' date='Sep 13 2007, 07:25 PM']All this philosophy is easier said than done, of course. My father's suicide was in large part, I believe, due to a sense of unhappiness in his Christian walk. As an Evangelical, he was constantly bombarded by the [i]health & wealth[/i] gospel which preaches faith, happiness, and success as all synonymous. It's a false gospel that picks up "knock and it shall be opened" while forgetting "your will be done" or, maybe less subjectively, Jesus needing help to carry His own cross.

Some people think so one-dimensionally that they can never empathize with the struggles of others, especially those that seem to have it so good. For many of the years before I became Catholic, I was much like my father, and struggled greatly with personal unhappiness. The only reason I think God - through the prayers of St. Raphael, ironically enough - intervened to lift my cross was so that I could more effectively witness to others, as one who has seen both ends of the tunnel of despair.

As we know from Mother Teresa, though, even Catholics can experience the cross of great personal struggle. Padre Pio's words ring so true: the worst question we can ask as a Christian is "why?". Rather, we should ask "what?". As in: What can I do with the cross I carry to help others and glorify God?

Anyway, that's my long way of saying to not get discouraged if it's difficult to shed that shadow of personal unhappiness at times. Others much greater than us have walked such a path before. [/quote]
Thanks. If it's any consolation, in my mere 23 years, I've had one kid in my youth group (when I was in high school, that is) commit suicide and I've been present when my best guy friend heard the news that his little brother had committed suicide. It is so difficult to see loss of hope and joy, but I think, putting some of these posts together, that it can be understood this way: seeking happiness (the worldly value) will lead us to fill the holes in our lives with things we seek to make us happy, that is, to retain an emotional state. Instead, while certainly we should want our emotions to be upbeat, we should seek joy (the heavenly virtue), which is the life of grace itself, or God's dwelling in our souls. That fills the holes in our hearts. It is as Christ said, "seek ye first the Kingdom of God (which Pope Benedict says is Christ Himself) and His righteousness (which is grace), and all the rest shall be added unto you." I think that is interesting...and it's hard to keep in mind. This search for an answer, while good in itself, should not distract me from my purpose: to seek God...and if I mean to seek God, He Himself will gently correct whatever imperfections I have in my desire, but if I seek to correct those imperfections on my own, then I am not seeking after God, but seeking, in some sense, not to need Him.

Hmmm...it's all humility or pride...but how does one try to gain humility? It is not something you can really work toward, because any evaluation of whether or not you are on the right path toward it is automatically failure. I suppose humility is looking toward God and not toward self, and following Him that way. What I do is watch my little feet (big feet, actually) stumble along the path, and because I am looking down, I end up not walking straight toward God, but if I look at Him and walk toward Him, I will find that I stay much more in line with the path and my desire for Him will strengthen my steps.

God is cool.

[N/A Gone]

Bear with me Micah. I wrote this on word so it got long and I have not read what others have submitted.

I hardly consider myself a philosopher, giving that title to JoeyO before myself so I do not believe I am qualified to respond in a philosophical matter, but rather a practical matter reflecting on the impact this has on your soteriology.
In any given action there might not be a higher motive that we know. Yet, that does not mean these things do not have a good in themselves or that we should avoid these things. I agree with you that working towards a high purpose is the correct thing to do, but part of the process of growth is the times of rest. Let me provide an example. My wife is a advanced nursing student. She has 18 credits including a clinical and works an average of 32 hours a week at an Alzheimer's specialty clinic. In her daily actives she does things that have a higher purpose. She helps elderly that need it, she studies in order to better herself in serving others. She comes near burning herself out. But the most important part of the day she sees is the 30min before bed that we can spend time together watching a cartoon and the 5-10 min alone talking before she falls asleep. Now, you could argue that this part of the day is towards the greater good of her direction, but in reality it is a time of rest, a time of foolish pleasure (king of the hill lately) that she needs.
God created us in ways that the most advanced physiologist could never imagine explaining. I believe strongly that in us every desire we have in its proper natural way is a good thing and we should embrace this rather than ignore it. Embracing our passions in a Christian way is the full expression of being human. Denying these parts of us for God are only good for limited times in order to show that He is more important, that our will is stronger than our flesh, but I believe God intends us to enjoy life when we can. In knowing we have the desire for joy, or for pleasure, perhaps we could argue that our soul is tickled when we do these good things. Perhaps the action of doing God's will should inherently give us an inner peace and joy. If God is love, then doing the will of God, moving and growing towards God would be marked by love. Our soul feels the love. As we move towards a campfire we feel a stronger sense of the warmth, the light and are in awe of its ability to burn. Why shouldn’t Theosis be the same thing? In our discussions on TWT I was instructed my those who I consider my brethren in the faith that we can not separate God and his attributes the way I can separate them for a human. God's joy in turn, while not always expressed in our eyes, is always expressed in fact. God's joy is God. There is no separating the attribute from him. God is love, God is joy. He is. To accept the gift of God's joy is to accept God. Seeking that joy will drive you to do what is right and in doing what's right you will be driven towards that joy. In the same dual balance that our faith produces works as our works produce a greater faith. The end product is a progression towards the divine.
In the situation you ask about an instance where joy [quote]does not accompany doing what is right, therefore not doing the right thing.[/quote] I think the issue here is the separation of Joy and doing what is right. If we view the process as a process, and embrace the fact that the highs and lows will be seen in our actions, as well as our experience of the joy than we should not worry if we can not see the island among the clouds, but follow the compass of our hearts in that direction. I do not want to discuss the dark nights of Mother Theresa, but we have a similar situation in your question. Perhaps part of the sanctification process is the ability to will our soul to carry on even when we can not see the carrot in front of us. The ability to truly live our lives in a way that reflects God's glory even when we can not feel it ourselves. In our war-torn lives there are many factors that would prevent us from “feeling” the presence of God, but the spirit must defeat that cry in the flesh and move forward knowing He is there. I have spent a few threads complaining about the parishes in my area, and how I did not “feel” God there. But we must understand that God is not bound to a feeling, but our ability to feel is fallen. Our ability to see what is truly out there is fallen. Faith is in the process of moving forward without seeing Him. Can we ride the bike that has no training wheels if we do not see that God is holding the seat? Will we stumble? Yes, will we fall? Yes. And as any father I am sure he full expects it. But getting back on the bike is the test of faith.
Now, love. You cite that we are not to [quote]seek out our own pleasure in love[/quote] but I would argue that it is not completely accurate. It is the root of our souls to seek love. This is the key thing that drives us towards God. It is the most natural of human functions to seek out love. Love is pleasurable, but it is at its most pleasurable as a return from another. In this we take a risk of loving someone in order that we are able to participate in love. For a love that is bound has no risk, but it is not true love. Perhaps this is why God gave us free will. (drifting way too close to an argument for TWT, so let me move on) In seeking out the pleasure of the other, in serving the other we are not specifically seeking our own pleasure, but rather opening ourselves up to truly experience love. If your wife did not have the option to break up while dating, then you would not know for certain that it was her love for you that bounds her to you. In being truly free can it be her desires that bind to you. Please, look past my babble. Back to your comment. There are two problems that present themselves in your statement. 1.) Is the direct comparison of love between Divine and us, and that between person and person. In God being love, not just expressing love, there is not the same risk for us as there is in the relationship with another person. There is a submissive trust, but it is not the same as being open to the risk of heart ache. I would argue that God opens himself up to that risk with us, at a scale larger than we can know, and perhaps this is why he enabled us to experience risk in love in order to understand his love for us? Perhaps than the ability to love unconditionally is the greatest attribute of Theosis? Just food for thought. The second issue I have (2) is that you are separating the action from the joy again. Perhaps the action of love is in itself the joy? Even if we do not experience or notice it at all times. Similar to how the pursuit of the divine is at the same time an action as well as an experience of joy. An example being that often we feel more “love” at the moments we are “wooing” rather than the moments we are being “wooed” the action itself produces the pleasure, the joy. The only way that I think we could separate the two would be to pervert the function of the love. This can happen easily in a sexual sense in which people are using the other person as a resource for pleasure without the love. Where as in love the sexuality is in pleasing the other person and in the unified way the experience is better, fuller, truer than the action of sex as a drug. Porn is a good example here.
You bring up a good concern. Is the drive to love God, and that experience of love strong enough to hinder the drive for spouse love. My answer here would be to blame the English language and its one word for love. These are different types of love, that respond based on different actions and in that provide joy in different ways. They are related and will assist each other, but they are different and in being different I believe they can work together and help each other. The more you are in love with God (horrible wording, sorry) the better you will love your spouse, and the more in love with your spouse the less likely you are to commit a sin of the flesh, something that would drive a wedge in the love with God. Maybe this is why people use the image of 3 in the bedroom with God nodding in approval.
To answer your question then, by not separating the action from the result I do not believe it is a matter of you seeking the pleasure. Maybe it is a matter of perversion vs the ability to properly love? You like sex, but if the focus of the marriage was on your ability to have the sex it would not be proper love and would likely harm your ability to have the sex. But if the focus is on your wife and the love for her than the pleasure, including but not limited to the sex, would be a natural effect of the cause that is your love. In the same, could we argue that the person that is simply obeying God's commands in order to not be smitted. In order to not break a rule, is not in the same sense “saved” as the person whose focus is on deepening their relationship with the divine and our commitment to Christ. To quote someone I respect [quote]-Western Christians need to move away from the constant emphasis upon sin and punishment. In the East one does things, e.g., not eating blood, or -- in the case of women -- wearing a veil during prayer, etc., because it deepens ones commitment to Christ and incarnates His life into our own being, and not because of some canonical penalty. Theology must not be reduced to canon law. Salvation (i.e., Theosis) is an ontologically transformative process, and not a legal declaration.-[/quote]
So in summary, it is not selfish to, if your joy is in providing joy for your beloved to seek the joy involved because that joy should be the natural outcome of that situation. The urge to love is the most natural urge God has given us, that urge is what drives the soul of man towards the Divine and should be explored more and embraced. But in being such an important thing it is easy to pervert and protecting that urge must be our sacred duty. I believe in wrestling with your thoughts you came up with the same answer as I did by stating -[quote]or is this simply me trying to make a divide between the dispositions and relationship between two lovers where there is truly no division, but only a remarkable unity?-[/quote]In seeking the joy and peace of God we are not seeking something different from Him. For as you conclude [quote]-or in seeking out the joy of God, are we indeed seeking out God Himself, who is all joy and the source of all joy?-[/quote]
Ironically, you came to the same solution as I did. Perhaps you did not need this 2000 word rant. But in reflecting on this we can break it down to a simple concept. Salvation is properly loving God, properly loving each other, and properly loving ourselves (Augustine) its a matter of the heart's intention.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Very good, Rev. I noticed two side issues in your post, the first being that one small line gave the impression that the highlight of love is receiving love, where I would say that, ideally, it is giving love, but I think that here is another false-dichotomy...when it comes to love, to receive is to give and to give is to receive. If I love a homeless man I find on the street, I give him a gift of self by inviting him into my home or taking him to get a meal (I am not saying I've ever done this)...so by receiving him under my care, I give him my care. Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting distinction.

As for theosis, I find myself more Eastern when it comes to that, but I think it's simply because in the West, we have far more influences we needed to take care of...heresies to crush, which required us to provide explanations...questions asked...I'm not sure why there seems to be an East/West split on theology, but I would say that even in the West, proper theology of theosis is based not on a sort of legalistic system, but indeed on drawing close to God. That is what St. Francis would say, for instance, of his very incarnational theology...I think that, especially in the US and Western Europe, the non-Catholic view of salvation has gotten mixed in with the Catholic view. Indeed, their view is founded on one Catholic principle, only to take it in many directions opposed to Catholic theology. As such, that one Catholic principle has been taught again and again, perhaps giving a false impression. As you know, my thesis was on this matter, and I'm hoping to expand it into a publication because I have not really found a single popular work on the matter and I think it has so much to do with everything that divides us from non-Catholics.

Anyway, I digress.

God bless,

Micah

[N/A Gone]

I agree that your first point is a false dichotomy. I dont see love being a thing we can break into parts as long as we are not perverting it. And in perverting it, is it truly love? The act of love whether receiving or giving is love. Love is love.

I agree with your perspective on theosis. A couple days ago I made a post called "the reason why we do theology"(which I notice you posted in) in which I quoted St. Hilary in saying

[quote]"We are forced by the blasphemous errors of heretics to do what is forbidden: to scale the heights, to express the ineffable, to dare to touch the unattainable...we are forced to imprison indescribable things within the weakness of our language...and in expressing it, to surrender to the dangers of the human word what should have been kept and worshipped in our hearts."[/quote]

It gives me the image of war. We would much rather stay home with our families and live in peace. But when the lives of our families are threatened we take the responsability to fight, and perhaps kill. A subject that is near to me still.

I learned about theosis first at my protestant college in a patristics class. That drove me to study augustine which produced some of the foundation for my converstion. I have been emo lately when I do not see this as our main teaching point. But I complain too much. It encourages me to know you have done work on this. I remember looking over part of a rough draft before. It was on my old desktop before it crashed. Could you email me a copy again? In turn, I will email you a copy of the much-hyped filioque paper I am working on.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1385131' date='Sep 13 2007, 08:50 PM']I agree that your first point is a false dichotomy. I dont see love being a thing we can break into parts as long as we are not perverting it. And in perverting it, is it truly love? The act of love whether receiving or giving is love. Love is love.

I agree with your perspective on theosis. A couple days ago I made a post called "the reason why we do theology"(which I notice you posted in) in which I quoted St. Hilary in saying
It gives me the image of war. We would much rather stay home with our families and live in peace. But when the lives of our families are threatened we take the responsability to fight, and perhaps kill. A subject that is near to me still.

I learned about theosis first at my protestant college in a patristics class. That drove me to study augustine which produced some of the foundation for my converstion. I have been emo lately when I do not see this as our main teaching point. But I complain too much. It encourages me to know you have done work on this. I remember looking over part of a rough draft before. It was on my old desktop before it crashed. Could you email me a copy again? In turn, I will email you a copy of the much-hyped filioque paper I am working on.[/quote]

I sent it to you just now. It's not primarily on theosis, but more on theosis in the context of justification, among other justification-related topics.

God bless,

Micah

[N/A Gone]

I think I drooled a lil bit.


yup. Drool.

[Theologian in Training]

I think everyone pretty much covered it well, however, I cannot help but be reminded of what T.S. Eliot had Thomas Beckett say in his play "Murder in the Cathedral"

"The last temptation is the greatest treason:
To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

[cathoholic_anonymous]

As far as I see it, joy and doing the right thing are one and the same thing. Joy isn't just a consequence of doing what's right. It is what animates you and inspires you to do it in the first place.

Sometimes it involves an emotional high and sometimes it doesn't. In my experience joy is rarely about positive emotion - once I felt so joyful during Adoration that I ran away from the chapel. Literally ran. Being in His presence was hurting me. He was too beautiful for me to stay. At other times joy makes me feel warm and cosy, but that is not the joy itself.

I don't think we should allow ourselves to become overburdened with questions about motive and intention. There is nothing wrong about feeling happy. The question to ask is, "Would I still do this kindness for this person I love even if it made me emotionally miserable?" If the answer is yes, you have nothing to fear. Sometimes I think it is Satan's plan to stop us from enjoying life. People see him as a pleasure-merchant, but he can work the other way as well.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I guess this whole question arose for me when I wondered about the Dark Night. They say it is a time when God removes joy and such in order to make you love Him more, instead of His consolations. When I heard that, I wished to love Him that way already, but I also realized that we are supposed to seek His joy. Perhaps the Dark Night is not so much about God taking away joy as it is God taking away the emotion of joy and challenging on to love Him and rejoice in Him anyway...which would still mean they had joy, they just didn't "feel" it so much as live it.

I don't know. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the Dark Night can help me understand.