@SalixIncendium
The Christian church fathers interpreted the anthropomorphic language used for God in the Hebrew Bible (i.e. God's emotions like anger, joy, jealousy, regret or anatomical metaphors such as 'the mouth of YHWH', the heavens as the 'work of His fingers' etc.), as examples of 'divine condescension' i.e. that the Old Testament prophets were communicating truths about the immaterial, transcendent God in language that was comprehensible and relatable to humans:
Origen (c. 185 - c. 254):
“…When we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may think of God as He deserves to be thought of. And on these points, when expounding the verse in the second Psalm, ‘Then shall He speak to them in His anger, and trouble them in His fury,’ we showed, to the best of our poor ability, how such an expression ought to be understood…
But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view, ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say that, as we ourselves, when talking with very young children, do not aim at exerting our own power of eloquence, but, adapting ourselves to the weakness of our charge, both say and do those things which may appear to us useful for the correction and improvement of the children as children, so the word of God appears to have dealt with the history, making the capacity of the hearers, and the benefit which they were to receive, the standard of the appropriateness of its announcements (regarding Him). And, generally, with regard to such a style of speaking about God, we find in the book of Deuteronomy the following: “The Lord thy God bare with your manners, as a man would bear with the manners of his son.”
It is, as it were, assuming the manners of a man in order to secure the advantage of men that the Scripture makes use of such expressions; for it would not have been suitable to the condition of the multitude, that what God had to say to them should be spoken by Him in a manner more befitting the majesty of His own person.
And yet he who is anxious to attain a true understanding of holy Scripture, will discover the spiritual truths which are spoken by it to those who are called “spiritual,” by comparing the meaning of what is addressed to those of weaker mind with what is announced to such as are of acuter understanding, both meanings being frequently found in the same passage by him who is capable of comprehending it.…”
There was a very clear patristic consensus concerning the doctrine of 'divine aseity' and allegorical reading of the Old Testament anthropomorphisms.
As such, we accept the validity of using such language but understand the reality of God in essence as being 'beyond' any of these human-like attributed qualities.
The idea that God might have emotions - whether anger, joy, sadness, pleasure or whatever - is considered heresy in the mainstream churches, as it would contradict the doctrine of divine aseity and impassibility. Psychological change would undermine God's utter transcendence, immutability and dissimilarity to all created things. He is a timeless, omniscient, transcendent, supramundane being. Such an entity cannot possibly be subject to perturbation or variation or causal dependence upon his creatures, as transition from one transient feeling to another implies.
Of course, in becoming incarnate as Jesus, we also believe that God has assumed a human nature which has all these things as natural to it
but the divine and human natures are considered distinct but perfectly united in the one person of Christ, unmixed, and so divine aseity still applies to the divine nature of Jesus.