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

Otherwise, you'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's an incredibly common way that "the wrath of God" is interpreted.

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

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

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

If that's not what you mean, then you've got to say so or a people who don'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're talking about this topic in a way that doesn't take into account... I just think that's a bad idea.