Yup. It most certainly is--if we try to look at from the standpoint of the Bible. Is God cushy and flattering in His love? Or is His love a stoic choice, bare-bones and emotionless?

Reading through D.A. Carson's book, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, I had a several envigorating ah-ha! moments. For those of you who waded with me through some of the mind-bogglingness of God's love in this recent post, you may appreciate what Carson had to say as well. He's a very scholarly writer dealing with a weighty topic, but I guarantee, it's worth the read:
"Although I have never traced it out in detail, I suspect that the heritage of understanding...to refer to a willed loved independent of emotion and committed to the other's good has been influenced by the schoolmen and other philosophical theologians of a bygone era, who denied there was feeling in God. To have feeling, they argued, would imply passivity, i.e., a susceptibility to impression from people or events outside Himself, and this is surely incompatible with the very nature of God."

"Many Christian traditions affirm the impassibility of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith asserts that God is 'without...passions.' If this is taken to mean that God is emotionless, it is profoundly unbiblical and should be repudiated. But the most learned discussion over impassibility is never so simplistic. Although Aristotle may exercise more than a little scarcely recognized influence upon those who uphold impassibility, at its best impassibility is trying to avoid a picture of a God who is changeable, given over to mood swings, dependent upon His creatures." "[But] it is no answer to espouse a form of impassibility that denies that God has an emotional life... The price is too heavy. [If you affirm impassibility] you may then rest in God's sovereignty, but you can no longer rejoice in His love. You may rejoice only in a linguistic expression...couched in the anthropopathism of love. Give me a break. Paul did not pray that his readers might be able to grasp the height and depth and length and breadth of an anthropopathism and know this anthropopathism that surpasses knowledge. (Eph. 3:14-21)"

A weighty concept? Yes, and if you're like me, you had to look up "anthropopathism" in the dictionary to grasp Carson's statement fully. What he's saying, however, is dramatic in its impact: God has feelings. He has emotions. While those emotions are not the guide to His behavior (God is not rash or flippant), God does feel. Out of His holiness, He feels wrath against sin. Out of His love, He feels affection for us.

Read enough literature on God's love and you'll start seeing a so-called contradiction in His nature. In one view, God is this unfeeling giant in the sky who smashes people like ants when He is angry and just barely tolerates people when He's in a good mood. To others, God is cuddly and small--a perpetual infant in a manger. The truth is grander.

God is infinite. If we've felt pain on a large scale, we can know He's felt it more. It doesn't mean that He's weak or vulnerable because of His ability to feel--He's still sovereignly in charge of it all. But it does mean that when He says He loves us, He's not talking smack. God isn't speaking of an emotionless love that costs Him nothing. God speaks of choosing to love us with a passion that cost Him everything.

I know I still haven't fully comprehended it (and have great doubts whether I ever will.)