Seems to me that if you want to strongly assert God& #39;s wrath as a reality in itself (and not in a specific instance), you& #39;ve got a huge responsibility to say what you& #39;re not saying, because a whole lot of people have drastically misused that idea, more than it& #39;s been used well.

Otherwise, you& #39;re not entirely faultless if people assume you mean that, e.g., most people on earth will be damned to endless excruciating torment for being part of the wrong religion. Because that& #39;s an incredibly common way that "the wrath of God" is interpreted.

It& #39;s an idea that is way too potentially harmful to be reduced to some kind of "owning the libs" exercise.

And I& #39;m very much not even saying that you can& #39;t talk about God and wrath, just that you& #39;ve got to be careful and specific when you do, otherwise people are going to assume that you& #39;re something like a Fundamentalist who believes the things that Fundamentalists believe.

And if you& #39;re like "what& #39;s the problem with that" (which seems to be how some people think about this), fine. You& #39;re communicating what you want to communicate.

If that& #39;s not what you mean, then you& #39;ve got to say so or a people who don& #39;t know you will likely assume that it is.

I mean, hundreds of millions of people (maybe billions?) have been taught that God is enraged with them essentially for existing. If you& #39;re talking about this topic in a way that doesn& #39;t take into account... I just think that& #39;s a bad idea.