Is it Plausible to Think of God as Angry?

Sunstone said:

I'll give you three guesses.

Click to expand...

Okay.

.......feeling like turning things around out of dissatisfaction?

......feeling particularly frustrated and threatened?

(Anger is a defensive feeling to begin with - how could god feel threatened if there is no other god?)

......enraged in fact?

Sunstone said:

Is it plausible to think of a god -- any god -- as feeling or experiencing anger, or is that just an anthropomorphism?

Click to expand...

If it’s plausible to think of gods at all, it seems plausible to think of them as angry (or anything else). It’s only anthropomorphism if they don’t actually have the characteristic being attributed to them.

I think this boils down to a common issue with a lot of monotheism, the conflicting idea that a god is so unique, special and beyond our understanding yet believers (or certain classes of those believers at least) can somehow understand exactly what that god is thinking and what they want from us.

Sunstone said:

Is it plausible to think of a god -- any god -- as feeling or experiencing anger, or is that just an anthropomorphism?

Click to expand...

No. It's anthromorphism. Safer bet is to consider God as ineffable.

Epic Beard Man said:

No. It's anthromorphism.

Click to expand...

Aren't all gods anthropomorphisms?

Safer bet is to consider God as ineffable.

Click to expand...

If something's truly ineffable, we can't consider it at all.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Aren't all gods anthropomorphisms?


If something's truly ineffable, we can't consider it at all.

Click to expand...

No.

All gods are not anthromorphic.

I believe somethings can be something but attributing human traits to an incororeal thing is implausible. Anthromorphism is an innate human cognition that we do to relate to objects that are not human, but it does not mean we are right.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Aren't all gods anthropomorphisms?

Click to expand...

No, they're not. Brahman, for example, considered God by some and not by others, is most certainly not anthropomorphic.

Sunstone said:

Is it plausible to think of a god -- any god -- as feeling or experiencing anger, or is that just an anthropomorphism?

Click to expand...

I think it's interesting - and a good first step - to approach the question of gods with the mindset of plausubility. It seems to me that when people approach it only concerned with possibility, we end up with theists defending outlandish claims with some version of "you can't prove it didn't happen!"

I find it very implausible that a non-human being, especially one that supposedly predates the universe and developed (or poofed into existence) in a solitary, non-social setting, would just happen to have traits that human beings would see useful for relating to it. This includes emotion, intelligence, personality, will, and interest in (or capacity for) communication.

I also see it as very plausible that human beings confronted with forces and phenomena they can't understand would put a quasi-human face - i.e. a god - on those forces and phenomena in order to provide a way to attempt to relate to them.

Epic Beard Man said:

No.

All gods are not anthromorphic.

I believe somethings can be something but attributing human traits to an incororeal thing is implausible.

Click to expand...

Aren't the qualities that make a thing a god also human traits?

Anthromorphism is an innate human cognition that we do to relate to objects that are not human, but it does not mean we are right.

Click to expand...

IMO, "god" is the term we use to describe the anthromorphisms people apply to non-human objects and phenomena that we see as greater than us and beyond ourselves (e.g. the cosmos, the weather, death).

anger can be a rational experience

humor on the other hand is not

which would you prefer?.....
God that has reason to be .......angry
or a God that might think your life is a joke?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Aren't the qualities that make a thing a god also human traits?

Click to expand...

Well a god is a deity that is seen as sacred, divine, celestial, or heavenly, none of which are human traits.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

IMO, "god" is the term we use to describe the anthromorphisms people apply to non-human objects and phenomena that we see as greater than us and beyond ourselves (e.g. the cosmos, the weather, death).

Click to expand...

Well God is the umbrella term for the ascriptions you've just mentioned. Naturally, as I've mentioned before a part of human cognition are to ascribe characteristics to things greater than us.

Sunstone said:

Is it plausible to think of a god -- any god -- as feeling or experiencing anger, or is that just an anthropomorphism?

Click to expand...

The majority of scriptures appear to find it plausible. Hard for me to answer beyond that, since I don't find them plausible.

Thief said:

anger can be a rational experience

humor on the other hand is not

which would you prefer?.....
God that has reason to be .......angry
or a God that might think your life is a joke?

Click to expand...

You believe humour is irrational? How odd.

Vinayaka said:

No, they're not. Brahman, for example, considered God by some and not by others, is most certainly not anthropomorphic.

Click to expand...

The ones that consider Brahman God: why? What are the characteristics of Brahman that they think qualify it as God?

Sunstone said:

Is it plausible to think of a god -- any god -- as feeling or experiencing anger,

Click to expand...

Definition:
Plausible: (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
Probable: likely to happen or be the case.

Is it reasonable to think of a god -- any god -- as feeling or experiencing anger?

Some people write a story about god 1, it's spread globally later. A paragragh from the book says that: "God 1 is angry because some people eat an apple." Is it reasonable to think that god 1 is really angry?

Believers version 1: Yes, it's reasonable to think that god 1 is angry, because the book says so, and i believe the book.
Believers version 2: No, it's not reasonable to think that god 1 is angry, because that paragragh is a metaphor, it's not meant to be read literally or it's a mistranslation.
Some non-believers: I don't have the belief that god 1 exists as real being. I'll find out whether or not it's reasonable to think that god 1 is really angry If i ever convinced to believe in his existence, until then the question is irrelevant to me, it's only relevant to believers of god 1.

Conclusion:
Reasonable or not depends on people's opinion about it. Some people think that it's reasonable, some other people don't think so.


Is it probable for people to think of a god -- any god -- as feeling or experiencing anger?
It's probable for some people to think so, otoh not probable for other people to think so.

or is that just an anthropomorphism?

Click to expand...

Definition:
Anthropomorphism: the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object.

There're 2 possible outcome:
(1) It's attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to the specific god.
(2) It's not attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to the specific god.

Which outcome is the truth? That depends on which god the statement is about, depends on situation. depends on people's opinion (different people have different opinion).

Trailblazer said:

Of course God has wrath, but that is not an anthropomorphism. The Bible, the Qur'an and the Writings of Baha'u'llah all talk about God's wrath so to deny that God has wrath is to deny all these scriptures.

I know a lot of people think that God is Loving all the time, but God having wrath does not mean that God is not Loving.

I like with what this Christian website says about God's wrath although I do not necessarily agree with #5.

Five Truths About the Wrath of God

1. God’s wrath is just.
2. God’s wrath is to be feared.
3. God’s wrath is consistent in the Old and New Testaments.
4. God’s wrath is his love in action against sin.
5. God’s wrath is satisfied in Christ.
Five Truths About the Wrath of God

As far as the Baha'i view is concerned, Baha'u'llah wrote that God's mercy exceeds His wrath.

“He Who is the Eternal Truth knoweth well what the breasts of men conceal. His long forbearance hath emboldened His creatures, for not until the appointed time is come will He rend any veil asunder. His surpassing mercy hath restrained the fury of His wrath, and caused most people to imagine that the one true God is unaware of the things they have privily committed. By Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed! The mirror of His knowledge reflecteth, with complete distinctness, precision and fidelity, the doings of all men.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 204​

I do not think what Baha'u'llah wrote is much different from what most Christians have told me they believe will happen when Jesus returns, but I will let them speak for themselves.

“Grieve thou not over those that have busied themselves with the things of this world, and have forgotten the remembrance of God, the Most Great. By Him Who is the Eternal Truth! The day is approaching when the wrathful anger of the Almighty will have taken hold of them. He, verily, is the Omnipotent, the All-Subduing, the Most Powerful. He shall cleanse the earth from the defilement of their corruption, and shall give it for an heritage unto such of His servants as are nigh unto Him.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 208​

Click to expand...

When God has wrath does He hurt people as a result?

Epic Beard Man said:

Well a god is a deity that is seen as sacred, divine, celestial, or heavenly, none of which are human traits.

Click to expand...

But what would distinguish a god from a sacred or divine object? Generally, a god is just a grander version of a human being.

Take prayer: the whole concept of prayer is based on the idea of talking to gods like human beings.

Well God is the umbrella term for the ascriptions you've just mentioned. Naturally, as I've mentioned before a part of human cognition are to ascribe characteristics to things greater than us.

Click to expand...

Right: a god is a device that human beings create in order to relate to the universe (or some aspect of it). The whole point is to put a human face on the impersonal and alien.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

OTOH, saying that God doesn’t experience emotions violates the doctrine of prima scriptura (or sola scriptura for the Protestants). FYI: the Catechism is also full of references to God’s emotions.

Click to expand...

Scripture is co-equal in authority as a source of divine revelation with Sacred Tradition and the Patristics held to a clear consensus on the fact that God has no emotions. I've quoted the church fathers on this many times, so I'll only do again if asked.

We interpret scripture through tradition, not on the basis of one's personal, literal belief in a bunch of anthropomorphic statements made by ancient Jewish authors to make God relatable and meaningful to their audience.

And once one looks beyond the language of divine condescension, there are some incontrovertible doctrinal truths to be found about this even in the Bible:


If God is not subject to any variation or change, then he can't have emotions. Human emotions entail an interior change of state or mood that a person has little control over. So unless one wants to contradict the clear word of scripture and introduce 'variation' into God's Nature, ergo God can't have an inner, fluctuating emotional life in the same way that we do.

Never has this been explained more succinctly than in the Westminster Catechism (1647) of the English and Scottish Protestant churches:


Chapter 2.1, Part Two



Emotions are classed as part of the 'passions' in the church's tradition.

Sunstone said:

Is it plausible to think of a god -- any god -- as feeling or experiencing anger, or is that just an anthropomorphism?

Click to expand...

I believe that God can and has felt righteous anger.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

The ones that consider Brahman God: why? What are the characteristics of Brahman that they think qualify it as God?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, actually. It varies from person to person, and the entire concept of 'God' is quite different in monistic or Vedanti c schools than from the west. For me personally it is the underlying energy flowing through all form, and the Primal Cause which is beyond all form, time and space. I don't see any anthropomorphism there. I think that calling it God came about from western their lens, and not having a very good word for it, so they gave it the God label. Many Indian scholars would probably declare Brahman as an untranslatable concept, so 'God' wouldn't be their choice.

Vouthon said:

Scripture is co-equal in authority as a source of divine revelation with Sacred Tradition and the Patristics held to a clear consensus on the fact that God has no emotions. I've quoted the church fathers on this many times, so I'll only do again if asked.

Click to expand...

They did? News to me.... and apparently also to Lactantius:

"For if God is not angry with the impious and the unrighteous, it is clear that He does not love the pious and the righteous. Therefore the error of those is more consistent who take away at once both anger and kindness."
CHURCH FATHERS: On the Anger of God (Lactantius)

... and Tertullian:

"But as there are some things which He forbids, against which He denounces even eternal punishment — for, of course, things which He forbids, and by which withal He is offended, He does not will— so too, on the contrary, what He does will, He enjoins and sets down as acceptable, and repays with the reward of eternity."
CHURCH FATHERS: On Exhortation to Chastity (Tertullian)

... or Justin Martyr:

"And again, how it was said by the same Isaiah, that the Gentile nations who were not looking for Him should worship Him, but the Jews who always expected Him should not recognise Him when He came. And the words are spoken as from the person of Christ; and they are these I was manifest to them that asked not for Me; I was found of them that sought Me not: I said, Behold Me, to a nation that called not on My name. I spread out My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people, to those who walked in a way that is not good, but follow after their own sins; a people that provokes Me to anger to My face. Isaiah 65:1-3 For the Jews having the prophecies, and being always in expectation of the Christ to come, did not recognise Him; and not only so, but even treated Him shamefully."
CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)

We interpret scripture through tradition, not on the basis of one's personal, literal belief in a bunch of anthropomorphic statements made by ancient Jewish authors to make God relatable and meaningful to their audience.

And once one looks beyond the language of divine condescension, there are some incontrovertible doctrinal truths to be found about this even in the Bible:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change (James 1:17).

​

If God is not subject to any variation or change, then he can't have emotions.

Click to expand...

... or be a creator, since creation is an act of change.

... or have will at all.

Human emotions entail an interior change of state or mood that a person has little control over. So unless one wants to contradict the clear word of scripture and introduce 'variation' into God's Nature, ergo God can't have an inner, fluctuating emotional life in the same way that we do.

Never has this been explained more succinctly than in the Westminster Catechism (1647) of the English and Scottish Protestant churches:


Chapter 2.1, Part Two

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions
​

Emotions are classed as part of the 'passions' in the church's tradition.

Click to expand...

I'm sure some people in the Church took that position, but it doesn't seem to be universal.