Athiest query

[Voyageur]

Yeah I have asked my parents - they said they'd be surprised but as long as I was happy and safe then they don't mind what I believe.

Safe and happy in eternity without being born again?

Can't happen.

Read Romans 10:9-11 tonight, and ask Jesus to save you. I believe you came in here under Divine direction, and it's up to SOMEone in here to tell you how to escape the coming wrath of God.

And please tell me why a perfect being would be wrathful, when wrath is a human imperfection?

 

[Free]

Is it truly moral to observe moral laws that inhibit murder, theft, adultery, etc., when you must be reminded by God that they are wrong?

How would that make them any less moral?

Wouldn't morality be more authentic if it came from within, through your own moral sentiments?

If you're suggesting that morality is relative, up to the individual, than no, not at all. If morality is decided by individual sentiments then morality becomes meaningless.

Ultimately, my position is that it is more authentic if morality first proceeds from the self than through religious authorities, the state, a deity, etc.

And so your statements that some are pleasured by murder defeats your own argument. One will not find pleasure in murder if they think it is morally wrong. If one truly finds pleasure in murder and another truly is repulsed by murder and this is based on the authentic morality of the individuals, then neither is morally right and neither is morally wrong. The one who murders is as justified as the one who helps.

Morality can be authentic whether you have a god or not.

Apart from an absolute standard morality is meaningless.

Nevertheless, it would seem to me that a deity would be more pleased if a person could be moral because it came from the authentic self rather than some fear of infernal eternity or a psychological desire to simply obey rules.

Morality does not derive from fear or desire to obey. Morality derives from the nature of who God is. Thus, there are things human ought not to do simply because they are wrong, regardless of how any individual or society may feel.

You stated: "We all know most civilized peoples, nations, states and the like have deemed murder repulsive or 'bad' behavior, and this is because most peoples feel that this is bad behavior". This is an excellent argument for absolute morality--people truly feel that there are things that one ought not do. This points to something beyond people, a standard by which one can actually say that a given behaviour is wrong. If morality comes from the self, then everyone is neither right nor wrong in their behaviour.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your position as I have not been following the debate.

 

[Rick W]

And please tell me why a perfect being would be wrathful, when wrath is a human imperfection?

Yes, I can see why an unbeliever might be concerned or want assurance God doesn't exist.
I'd be a bit uneasy too I suppose.

 

[Devekut]

Voyageur wrote:
Is it truly moral to observe moral laws that inhibit murder, theft, adultery, etc., when you must be reminded by God that they are wrong?

Voyageur,

It is a fundamental Christian doctrine that humanity has been created in the image of God. There are some Christians in danger of forgetting this and making that chasm between the human and divine natures too wide. Human nature has been modelled and shaped by the divine nature. We do not simply recieve morality in the external sense that God dictates it, but we have recieved morality internally in the sense that God has patterned the human heart after His own.

Voyageur wrote:
Ultimately, my position is that it is more authentic if morality first proceeds from the self than through religious authorities, the state, a deity, etc.

Authentic morality indeed proceeds from the self because the self, by virture of its image, already participates in God. But if we are going to speak of an authentic morality in relation to the self, should we not also speak of what constitutes the authentic self? What the Christian declares is, in fact, that we can not speak of the authentic self without also speaking of God, for we are in his image.

To ignore our source, our sacred history and origin, is to skew our present reality and threaten our future.

Religion has never been solely about upholding our moral obligations rather, it has always been about fulfilling that moral sense, ensuring its complete integrity, by directing it to union with its source. Morality, is in fact, not an aspect of nature but a proper orientation of things in accordance with their nature. Man, by his own nature is moral (though human freedom has assaulted this). Man, by his own nature, is not self-sufficient (though human fantasy has propagated this).

But what, we must ask ourselves, happens when man ceases to acknowledge where his nature has been recieved from? What happes when man imagines himself alone and independent?

The Christian response is that man has done both of these things and, as a result, our morality has been skewed. The teaching is not that humanity has lost its internal moral sense, but that because it ignores the manner in which that sense became internal to us, we are bound then to misunderstand it.

 

[Voyageur]

Is it truly moral to observe moral laws that inhibit murder, theft, adultery, etc., when you must be reminded by God that they are wrong?

How would that make them any less moral?

My question was poorly worded here. What I meant to ask was this (which should be found in my later statements anyway): Is it moral for an individual to observe laws against murder, theft, adultery, etc., because he or she feels that they are wrong, or because he or she is merely obeying divine mandate, and perhaps not even looking into the reasons why they are not preferred behavior?

To answer your question, it doesn't make it any less moral as long as the person has actually done real thinking with regard to morality.

Wouldn't morality be more authentic if it came from within, through your own moral sentiments?

If you're suggesting that morality is relative, up to the individual, than no, not at all. If morality is decided by individual sentiments then morality becomes meaningless.

I'm not suggesting that morality is relative. People on this forum love to throw this accusation about wildly--its the only ammunition some people seem to have when they're faced with the possibility that morality can exist outside of religion. Morality does not become meaningless in such a situation. Moral laws are determined collectively--as a society--because they are useful to society. So the question isn't about private pleasures but about collective utility. This is readily observable throughout history.

Ultimately, my position is that it is more authentic if morality first proceeds from the self than through religious authorities, the state, a deity, etc.

And so your statements that some are pleasured by murder defeats your own argument. One will not find pleasure in murder if they think it is morally wrong. If one truly finds pleasure in murder and another truly is repulsed by murder and this is based on the authentic morality of the individuals, then neither is morally right and neither is morally wrong. The one who murders is as justified as the one who helps.

It does not defeat my own argument. We already know that a very small percentage of any society's populace finds pleasure in murder. The rest of the populace finds it abhorrent and checks it with laws (which is a natural instinct). Murder is abhorrent emotionally but it also serves no usefulness and is thus checked. The one who murders is obviously troubled and not representative of the society at large; so it doesn't matter that the murderer's emotions are authentic to him, because they are the emotions of a troubled mind and lack any use to the individual or society.

Morality can be authentic whether you have a god or not.

Apart from an absolute standard morality is meaningless.

This is a philosophical question and thus open to debate. I don't believe that an absolute standard has to exist for people to be moral.

Morality does not derive from fear or desire to obey. Morality derives from the nature of who God is. Thus, there are things human ought not to do simply because they are wrong, regardless of how any individual or society may feel.

For some religious people morality does derive from fear or a desire to obey. But, let's suppose that it could be proven that a universal moral constant derives 'from the nature of who God is,' man still has to make individual moral decisions, which have to come from the self.

What you say is 'simply... wrong' according to God's law, I say proceeds from collective utility--the desire to collectively avoid pain and pursue that which is beneficial to civilization.

You stated: "We all know most civilized peoples, nations, states and the like have deemed murder repulsive or 'bad' behavior, and this is because most peoples feel that this is bad behavior". This is an excellent argument for absolute morality--people truly feel that there are things that one ought not do. This points to something beyond people, a standard by which one can actually say that a given behaviour is wrong. If morality comes from the self, then everyone is neither right nor wrong in their behaviour.

I apologize if I have misunderstood your position as I have not been following the debate.

Or it can point to a natural instinct for order and the avoidance of negative sentiments like pain.

 

[Voyageur]

And please tell me why a perfect being would be wrathful, when wrath is a human imperfection?

Yes, I can see why an unbeliever might be concerned or want assurance God doesn't exist.
I'd be a bit uneasy too I suppose.

This doesn't answer the question, Potluck...

Why is a human imperfection such as wrath to be found in a perfect being? You have to admit that this is problematic for a deity that readily proclaims his perfection.

 

[Voyageur]

Voyageur wrote:
Is it truly moral to observe moral laws that inhibit murder, theft, adultery, etc., when you must be reminded by God that they are wrong?

Voyageur,

It is a fundamental Christian doctrine that humanity has been created in the image of God.

It seems more likely that God was created in the image of man, which would explain the very human characteristics of God as related in the Bible. Not to suggest that there isn't a being who created the universe and who exists in sublime perfection. There may very well be one; but, you wouldn't recognize that being when compared to the one found in the Bible. As it stands, God's behavior is not always illustrative of perfection. Perhaps men have distorted the message for the sake of making man more obedient?

Human nature has been modelled and shaped by the divine nature.

What's your proof? Mine is the observable behavior of mankind.

Authentic morality indeed proceeds from the self because the self, by virture of its image, already participates in God. But if we are going to speak of an authentic morality in relation to the self, should we not also speak of what constitutes the authentic self? What the Christian declares is, in fact, that we can not speak of the authentic self without also speaking of God, for we are in his image.

You cannot prove that the self is part of God. Your philosophy is dependent on faith instead. So, you cannot say that with any sort of authority.

 

[handy]

And please tell me why a perfect being would be wrathful, when wrath is a human imperfection?

Yes, I can see why an unbeliever might be concerned or want assurance God doesn't exist.
I'd be a bit uneasy too I suppose.

This doesn't answer the question, Potluck...

Why is a human imperfection such as wrath to be found in a perfect being? You have to admit that this is problematic for a deity that readily proclaims his perfection.

Why do you think wrath is an imperfection? What is imperfect about anger or wrath?

 

[Rick W]

Why do you think wrath is an imperfection? What is imperfect about anger or wrath?

There's a trend toward a god that does things only in a loving manner. Kinda like the god everybody wants. You know, a god that's serving, loving, caring, serving, forgiving, faithful, serving... and one with no authority than that given by those he serv.. I mean loves. Perfect, non-judgmental, tolerating... all those "good" things. Been seeing a lot of this lately. A vengeful and/or wrathful God does not fit into a "feel good" society.

His judgments are perfect. His righteousness is perfection. But ours leaves a bit to be desired.

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?

And I can definately show scripture that He is very patient, loving and forgiving. He is who He is and said so.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

 

[Voyageur]

Why do you think wrath is an imperfection? What is imperfect about anger or wrath?

There's a trend toward a god that does things only in a loving manner. Kinda like the god everybody wants. You know, a god that's serving, loving, caring, serving, forgiving, faithful, serving... and one with no authority than that given by those he serv.. I mean loves. Perfect, non-judgmental, tolerating... all those "good" things. Been seeing a lot of this lately. A vengeful and/or wrathful God does not fit into a "feel good" society.

His judgments are perfect. His righteousness is perfection. But ours leaves a bit to be desired.

Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?
And I can definately show scripture that He is very patient, loving and forgiving. He is who He is and said so.

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Again, this doesn't answer the question.

Yes, there is scripture that shows a patient, loving and forgiving god. But, there is also scripture that shows a short-tempered, vengeful, wrathful and violent god. You may not see it, but this is problematic for a good number of people, the faithful and non-religious alike.

If a moral constant proceeds from his contradictory behavior, then morality is questionable.

Side note: The desire some have for their god to be violent (and to excuse some of his behavior) is laughable at best, and sadistic at worst. So, it could be said with as much conviction, Potluck, that there has been a trend towards an angry and wrathful God. It all boils down to Biblical interpretation.

 

[Devekut]

Voyageur,

I did not say that the self is part of God, but rather that the self is contingent on God. This being so, we can never speak of the self in its fullest sense unless there is the transcendental reference; to the Creator Himself.


You said "God was created in the image of man".

I am familliar with this argument which states something along the lines of "if horses had gods they would look like horses". Yet you do acknowledge the likelihood a being who exists in "sublime perfection".

What this all comes down to is the ultimate value of our personhood. If the creator being who sits in "sublime perfection" is, not in fact, himself a person, then human beings have no hope in that we are merely a by-product of this being's activity and life.

We should consider this "sublime perfection" of your unknowable, impersonal, yet somehow perfect deity. That perfection does not include personhood is quite perplexing. It seems out of place that something such as personhood has no place in this "sublime perfection" and the consequence of the idea is that our personhood can not be a participation in what is ultimate.

Unquestionably human beings (certainly Christians) consider, above all else, our personhood to have ultimate value. Is this merely anthrocentric? Are we just projecting? Or is it possible that our personhood is, in fact, the summit of the creative process? This is the Christian hope and in this we place our faith.

This ties back into what I said about morality. If we stop seeing our personhood in light of God and instread place it in some lesser order, perhaps even in no order at all, then our relations with one another will certainly fail because we have sorely under-valued what we really are.

 

[Voyageur]

You said "God was created in the image of man".

No. I said, 'It seems more likely that God was created in the image of man, which would explain the very human characteristics of God as related in the Bible.' That makes all the difference. If you're going to quote me, please include the entire quote, as the selective quoting entirely changes my statement. I meant it in a Biblical literature context; that is, the way God appears in the Bible (which was written and collected by man). The Biblical God exhibits many of the contradictory passions of mankind, and this is what I was trying to convey.

I am familliar with this argument which states something along the lines of "if horses had gods they would look like horses". Yet you do acknowledge the likelihood a being who exists in "sublime perfection".

I assume his perfection for the sake of argument; the perfection that is proclaimed in the Bible. I take issue with that perfection when God displays imperfect qualities, such as anger, wrath, envy, etc.

We should consider this "sublime perfection" of your unknowable, impersonal, yet somehow perfect deity. That perfection does not include personhood is quite perplexing. It seems out of place that something such as personhood has no place in this "sublime perfection" and the consequence of the idea is that our personhood can not be a participation in what is ultimate.

The issue here is a supposedly perfect being exhibiting imperfect qualities. It is problematic for me and many others.

So, I'm not saying that person-hood is mutually exclusive with perfection as you conceive it. I am questioning the perfection of a being who exhibits the imperfections of man--which would make him imperfect. I posit that if there is a perfect being, then the explanation for the god's imperfect qualities rests on the authors of the Biblical text; for how else could a perfect being be also imperfect?

Unquestionably human beings (certainly Christians) consider, above all else, our personhood to have ultimate value.

That value doesn't seem to be expressed in a desire to fully enjoy life in the present, but in some desire for the afterlife, where all of life's woes will be replaced with perfect harmony.

This ties back into what I said about morality. If we stop seeing our personhood in light of God and instread place it in some lesser order, perhaps even in no order at all, then our relations with one another will certainly fail because we have sorely under-valued what we really are.

Once again, you're perverting what I've said. If you had read carefully my preceding statements, you'd know I've said that humanity naturally desires order (its instinctual), that's why good sentiments (kindness, charity, etc) win out over bad sentiments (murderous desire). Why? Because they are useful to both the individual and society. No one desires pain, and its clear to me that society has almost always tried to eliminate the causes of pain.

 

[turnorburn]

I have never in my life seen anybody that had their statements perverted the way yours have

You said "God was created in the image of man".

No. I said, 'It seems more likely that God was created in the image of man, which would explain the very human characteristics of God as related in the Bible.' That makes all the difference. If you're going to quote me, please include the entire quote, as the selective quoting entirely changes my statement. I meant it in a Biblical literature context; that is, the way God appears in the Bible (which was written and collected by man). The Biblical God exhibits many of the contradictory passions of mankind, and this is what I was trying to convey.

I am familliar with this argument which states something along the lines of "if horses had gods they would look like horses". Yet you do acknowledge the likelihood a being who exists in "sublime perfection".

I assume his perfection for the sake of argument; the perfection that is proclaimed in the Bible. I take issue with that perfection when God displays imperfect qualities, such as anger, wrath, envy, etc.

[quote:f7b60]We should consider this "sublime perfection" of your unknowable, impersonal, yet somehow perfect deity. That perfection does not include personhood is quite perplexing. It seems out of place that something such as personhood has no place in this "sublime perfection" and the consequence of the idea is that our personhood can not be a participation in what is ultimate.

The issue here is a supposedly perfect being exhibiting imperfect qualities. It is problematic for me and many others.

So, I'm not saying that person-hood is mutually exclusive with perfection as you conceive it. I am questioning the perfection of a being who exhibits the imperfections of man--which would make him imperfect. I posit that if there is a perfect being, then the explanation for the god's imperfect qualities rests on the authors of the Biblical text; for how else could a perfect being be also imperfect?

Unquestionably human beings (certainly Christians) consider, above all else, our personhood to have ultimate value.

That value doesn't seem to be expressed in a desire to fully enjoy life in the present, but in some desire for the afterlife, where all of life's woes will be replaced with perfect harmony.

This ties back into what I said about morality. If we stop seeing our personhood in light of God and instread place it in some lesser order, perhaps even in no order at all, then our relations with one another will certainly fail because we have sorely under-valued what we really are.

Once again, you're perverting what I've said. If you had read carefully my preceding statements, you'd know I've said that humanity naturally desires order (its instinctual), that's why good sentiments (kindness, charity, etc) win out over bad sentiments (murderous desire). Why? Because they are useful to both the individual and society. No one desires pain, and its clear to me that society has almost always tried to eliminate the causes of pain.[/quote:f7b60]

 

[Devekut]

Voyageur,

I apologize for mis-representing your views. If I stand corrected, you do believe in a supreme Creator, perfect and personal?

'It seems more likely that God was created in the image of man, which would explain the very human characteristics of God as related in the Bible

By this do you mean that perception of God has been skewed by man's perception? I would not disagree. If we can agree that God is indeed a person, though obviously different from our own personhood, then we must arrive at the fact that God displays certain personal attributes. If God is person and man is a person, then we begin at the fact that man was created to exist in a personal relationship with God. If this can be accepted, then we begin at the most basic and essential of biblical assumptions.

I take issue with that perfection when God displays imperfect qualities, such as anger, wrath, envy, etc.

I am not a biblical literalist. I can understand that there are certain flaws in some of the biblical depictions of God. However, I do not see what is imperfect about wrath, envy or anger. Just because these are unpleasant attributes does not mean that they are imperfect. God's anger arises, not out of his imperfection, but out of humanity's own descent into imperfection. God's anger is his active contrast against man's falleness. If we betray the authentic moral nature of our self, which particpates in the moral nature of God, in what way would a perfect God not display anger? Is a perfect parent defined as one who does not chastize or punish? Perhaps the question is of the legitimacy of which situations in which we find God to be angry, but I dont think it has beem demonstrated on what basis anger, wrath or envy are imperfections.

That value [of personhood] doesn't seem to be expressed in a desire to fully enjoy life in the present, but in some desire for the afterlife, where all of life's woes will be replaced with perfect harmony.

Nor should life be fully enjoyed in the present, if by that you mean a life that defines itself solely in its present tense. A life without reference to both future and past both ignores the roots and cause of its present state ( thus blurring the reality of the present) and acts with indifference to its future (threatening a future "present tense").

It is not the call of every Christian to sacrifice the entire present for the sake of the Kingdom (by this I mean the ascetic or monastic life). However, to respect our personhood as it fully is, as something that recieves its present state from the past, and as something that will be fulfilled and perfected in the future (the promise of Christian hope), then we must consider our personhood in its full dimensions.

This is what I mean about the Christian concept of the self. Christianity professes a total vision of personhood. It was formed with the full intent of God and it will be fulfilled truly only through submission to its origin. It is not something that happened by accident, it is not something that will one day slip away into the cracks of history and mortality and be forgotten. If we were to believe that our personhood has a spontaneous and intentless origin then there is something meaningless or temporary about its present and certainly no real hope of its future. This is the quandary of atheism. Personhood is permanent, real- eternal. The spiritual life is called to honor this reality and the Christian life brings all three tenses together. In Christ we are no longer aliented and injured by our past (our Fall) and we are no longer fearful of our future.

you'd know I've said that humanity naturally desires order (its instinctual), that's why good sentiments (kindness, charity, etc) win out over bad sentiments (murderous desire). Why? Because they are useful to both the individual and society. No one desires pain, and its clear to me that society has almost always tried to eliminate the causes of pain.

What I am saying is that this desire for order is natural to us because we are, by nature, patterned upon the eternal order that both includes and transcends us. A society that ceases to reference the transcendent will eventually descend into selfishness and hedonism because it does injustice to its origins and threatens to become indifferent to its future.

 

[Voyageur]

Voyageur,

I apologize for mis-representing your views. If I stand corrected, you do believe in a supreme Creator, perfect and personal?

Devekut,

I think it is important for you to know that this thread was not my creation. I'd have to go back to my original post on this thread, but my main points of discussion here have been the inability to prove or disprove the existence of God and moral philosophy. I'm merely trying to discuss these ideas from philosophical and scientific points of view. But, to answer your question: the God of the Bible, as seen through the lens of literature, seems to be a rather human creation because of his imperfect qualities. I believe there is a possibility that divine attributes have been twisted (not necessarily in any diabolical sense) by the authors, who, in fact, were writing many years after the events detailed in the Old and New Testaments. Look, a council was convened to decide what should be included in the Bible--it didn't just come into existence from the hand of god. People seem to forget that these books were written by men! We are supposed to believe what one man saw and has written without any corroborating evidence. It would be similar to me believing that everything included in the Iliad was true.

By this do you mean that perception of God has been skewed by man's perception

The perception seems to have been skewed by Biblical authors and religious authorities.

If we can agree that God is indeed a person, though obviously different from our own personhood, then we must arrive at the fact that God displays certain personal attributes.

I think it is hasty to consider the God of the Bible a person. He certainly has what we would consider a personality, but this does not mean he is human and thus vulnerable to the character flaws of humanity. If he disapproves of our imperfect tendencies, then we have to assume that he does not exhibit these character flaws and is therefore perfect. But, the Bible's description of him contradicts this assumption because he does display character flaws. I say that these contradictions stem from the art of authorship, which we all know manifests itself in the author's perceptions imbued in the text.

I am not a biblical literalist. I can understand that there are certain flaws in some of the biblical depictions of God. However, I do not see what is imperfect about wrath, envy or anger. Just because these are unpleasant attributes does not mean that they are imperfect. God's anger arises, not out of his imperfection, but out of humanity's own descent into imperfection. God's anger is his active contrast against man's falleness.

They are imperfect precisely because they are not desirable traits. To take your logic to its ultimate conclusion, two definitions have to exist for qualities such as wrath, envy and anger--one pertaining to humanity, the other to God. And if there are two definitions for such qualities, that means that they are relative. And if they are relative, then morality is relative, which contradicts the entire idea of an eternal moral verity or truth. Further, how is it an eternal moral truth if God is not subject to it?

But I also take issue with the whole idea of God needing to be angry or wrathful in the first place. An infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent deity would have an infinite number of ways of making his providence known. Why wrath? Why anger? They seem rather crude and ineffective. Surely an omnipotent deity could think of other ways of establishing moral order and harmony amongst his creation.

Nor should life be fully enjoyed in the present, if by that you mean a life that defines itself solely in its present tense. A life without reference to both future and past both ignores the roots and cause of its present state ( thus blurring the reality of the present) and acts with indifference to its future (threatening a future "present tense").

I wholeheartedly agree that we must have a knowledge of the past and a concern for the future. What I am saying is that in order to make the world a better place, perhaps people should spend more time making it a better place through individual effort, rather than being consumed with some selfish desire for resurrection and immortality.

What I am saying is that this desire for order is natural to us because we are, by nature, patterned upon the eternal order that both includes and transcends us.

Assuming the existence of God for a moment, and that the desire for good is natural (which is how you conceive of it), then what function does organized religion serve (with regard to morality, of course)? If the desire for good is natural, organized Christianity is superfluous.

 

[Biblereader]

And please tell me why a perfect being would be wrathful, when wrath is a human imperfection?

His wrath is perfect, because He is perfect. You don't know what perfection is, nor what complete
purity is, nor what a sinless thoughtlife can be like.
God is omnipresent, God knows all, and He sees all, and therefore, He is able to decide when wrath is righteous.
You do not, nor are you able to.

Neither is any human.

 

[Biblereader]

Assuming the existence of God for a moment, and that the desire for good is natural (which is how you conceive of it),

The desire for good is NOT natural.
There is none righteous, none that seeks after God, no one cares about
being pure and holy, and acceptable in the sight of God, the One who made them.

Until Jesus comes along. Then, they have a light, they can see, and then,
THEY HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE.

 

[handy]

And please tell me why a perfect being would be wrathful, when wrath is a human imperfection?

His wrath is perfect, because He is perfect. You don't know what perfection is, nor what complete
purity is, nor what a sinless thoughtlife can be like.
God is omnipresent, God knows all, and He sees all, and therefore, He is able to decide when wrath is righteous.
You do not, nor are you able to.

Neither is any human.

I agree Biblereader. Another thing to consider is that we tend to think of our emotions in terms of good and bad. That wrath and anger is bad; love and patience is good. The truth is all of our emotions are just a flawed as wrath is. Our capacity to love is just as skrewed up as our capacity to hate. Ask any family therapist.

God is the One who has perfection. He is perfect in His love, and He is also perfect in His wrath.

 

[Biblereader]

Yes, God is perfect, in His love, and in His wrath, and in all his judgements.

We are imperfect. When someone gets upset at God and his wrath, it shows OUR
inability to fathom the depths of the wisdom of God.

 

[turnorburn]

Voyageur wrote:
And please tell me why a perfect being would be wrathful, when wrath is a human imperfection?

That's Balderdash! Its "our" inability to know the mind of God, never blame him for your imperfections. Unless your fond of the idea of falling into his hands : You were
created perfect and in his image, how dare anybody use those two words in the same
sentence, creator and imperfection..