Because main evolved advantageous uses for emotion. We cry, and no longer have to communicate with words that something is wrong. It is advantageous to us to be able to communicate with emotions in more than a vocal manner. Things make more sense when we consider the real reasons they came into being. “We” have probably had these emotions for far longer than we could be considered humans.

Assuming we’re discussing the Abrahamic God, He used to be much smaller in scope; in fact, He was the ancient Jewish War God, back when they had a full polytheistic pantheon. So if we’re going back to the original myths, He didn’t really create humans, nor was He all-powerful or all-seeing, or ‘above-it-all’ in general.

(This is back in the days when Gods were more seen as local clan/town sponsors, like how Athena is the patron God of Athens. He was just a tribal patron god, one they prayed to in order to be safe and successful in war.)

Also, back then Gods in general were written as being much closer to humans, in term of emotions and motivations—again, Greek mythology gives a good showing of this, but you can read a lot of ancient myths and see it in play.

As Jehovah became more and more popular (due to all the wars in the region), He started to absorb many of the myths and abilities of the rest of the pantheon, which is why He seems kind of schizophrenic in the older stories. YHWH was actually the head of the pantheon, and as Jehovah supplanted Him as the ancient proto-Jewish tribes moved towards monotheism, the two Gods ended up essentially being merged with each other.

Still, back then, while Gods were seen as powerful, they were still somewhat seen as limited and fallible. In fact even today there is a strong Jewish tradition of questioning God (albeit politely and a bit indirectly so as not to get turned into salt or whatever).

But, as Judaism grew, and split off into Christianity and Islam, God’s followers began tack on more and more powers and abilities to make Him sound cooler (and increase the power of the Church). So that’s where the ‘all-seeing’ and ‘all-powerful’ Great-God-of-Everything business comes from, really.

TL;DR ‘God wasn’t all-powerful and was ‘written’ to have emotions much closer to humans when those creation myths were first being told.

Giving a serious answer with serious consideration that follows serious rules, is impossible with religion, as all the rules are made up, there’s no consistency, and they’re all silly.

Because it’s all made up. It’s foolish to expect any of it to make sense or be consistent.

First prove that this god even exists, then maybe we can have a discussion about it’s properties.

The answer to this is going to differ heavily from religion to religion. You’ve already been inundated with the atheist and agnostic response. Christian theology could give you a few different answers.

The Bible could been seen as man’s interpretation of God, therefore God’s will is placed in terms we understand: emotions. Calling God jealous, angry, sorrowful, or joyful is a lot easier than asking you to understand a four-dimensional physical space. The latter is beyond your perception, much like understanding the “feelings” God exhibits, so it is simplified to terms you can understand.

The second potential answer would be: why wouldn’t he/she be? You’ve made the assumption that emotions are bad or wrong, but if you throw out that assumption, there’s nothing wrong with an emotional God. Maybe being “beyond that” is in fact a mistake? If he/she made us in his/her image, then of course we are given emotions similiar to God. Ultimately, who are you or I to judge whether such feelings are good or bad, or make a being imperfect?

Admittedly, I am deeply agnostic myself, because I ultimately don’t buy any of the explinations I’ve provided here. But I’ve taken time and energy to understand Western theology, rather than dismiss it out of hand, and these are the explinations I suspect you are likliest to find.

The solution to that question is easy. Your premise is faulty; there is no such thing as a god or gods. They’re man made ideas and there is literally zero evidence to support any god exists. There is loads and loads of evidence that each and every god has been created by humans.

If there is such a thing as a god anyway, it is beyond what can ever measured and it also never interferes with human life or any physical process. In that case, it may as well not exist as it literally doesn’t do anything, making the question moot.

Going down the God rabbit hole is frustrating and ultimately unsatisfying. Every answer boils down to faith, which is basically belief without proof.

To paraphrase someone: If God is all-good, then God can’t be all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then God can’t be all-good.

I probably sound like I’m being dismissive of people who believe in God. That’s not my intent. Faith can be a healthy source of strength in difficult times, and when dealing with our chaotic world. I only have an issue when blind faith is allowed to override common sense, like not getting your kids vaccinated, or drinking raw milk.

The answer will, of course, vary depending on religion and even depending on sect or school of thought within the same religion, but here’s the Sunni Islamic answer as I understand it: God has emotions befitting of His grace and perfection, as opposed to our imperfect human emotions. For example a human might get angry and say or do something that they regret, but God’s anger doesn’t take away from His wisdom (I think Christianity has something about God regretting flooding the Earth in Noah’s time, but islam rejects that sort of thing out of principle). God’s mercy doesn’t make Him commit injustice, as a human might. Etc etc. We humans don’t need a deeper understanding of Allah than this, so Islam doesn’t really get into the details of these things, but that’s the gist of it. This does contradict your premise that God should be beyond emotion, but there’s really no reason for that to be the case. God should obviously be beyond imperfection, but emotions aren’t inherently imperfection; only humans’ flawed emotions are.

What gets me is in that belief god is essentially is the real person in the real world and he is the head honcho but there are other angels there. heck some things in the bible suggest other gods. definately a we oftentimes. well then our existence is created by him and he has totaly control of it. so from gods perspective our universe is essentially virtual reality. the matrix.

Well you kind of have the thing reversed.
All gods are created by man in mans image. And gods are generally exactly as selfish childish (narcissistic) and emotional as a 4 year old, because that’s the mentality of the people with the delusions that created the gods in the first place. And then the people who think they know what god is and want.

“There is no god but man.” - Aleister Crowley

God didn’t design us in his image, we designed him in ours.

I asked a Christian friend of mine how an all knowing god could be jealous or angry if they were all knowing and the actions of the people they were angry/jealous at were part of his plan.

I never got an answer other than ‘mysterious ways’

Why are we satisfied with the idea that God made man intelligent in his image, while being all-knowing, but not this? Isn’t this the same thing? God could have made man with emotions in his image, while being in no way limited to those emotions himself. Why would we limit ourselves to an uncaring God above all that when he could also be all-caring, all-feeling

(Insert misogynistic crack about an all-emotional God being proof God is a woman)

This is “no stupid questions,” but asking rational questions about religion is a waste of time. In most religions, the answer ultimately “you are too stupid to understand the great plan of god.”

You can debate interpretation of religious texts, or how best to follow the laws religions set down; but questioning articles of faith is fruitless.

Christianity is especially full of self-contradictions and paradoxes: can God create a rock so big he can’t lift it? You can spend a lifetime poking holes in The Bible, and you will never get a rational, satisfactory answer that isn’t based on a version of “you are too stupid/not meant to know.”

Many religions are less paradoxical, but the monotheistic ones are mostly just an unbelievable shit-show, unless you’re especially susceptible to self-delusion.

No apologies to Christians: your religion is a fucking mess. You have to be particularly dumb to read the old and new testaments and come away thinking those are the same God. That the loving, caring one who sacrificed his son for people is the same one who allowed Satan to torture his most faithful worshipper on a bet.

Buddhism and most pagan religions make more sense. Buddhism in particular lacks most of the dependency on mysticism and unprovable articles of faith, and is almost more a philosophy than a religion. Buddhists, I can respect. But Christianity is all sorts of dumb.

Actually, taken by itself, the new testament is mostly OK; if you follow only Christ’s teachings, and ignore the peyote trips of post-crucifixion books, like, Revelations, it’s a solid basis for a society of decent people. But Christ was a liberal socialist, which is why most organized Christianity leans so heavily on the old testament and ignores Christ’s teachings of acceptance, communism, and forgiveness.

The following are my personal views regarding the divine. In order to better address my views, I’m going to use verbs such as “to be” (is/isn’t, are/aren’t) and “to have” (has/hasn’t, have/haven’t). However, it doesn’t mean factual statements, so it shouldn’t be taken as absolute truth. It’s just what I believe, so I may be wrong.

For context, my belief is the result of a syncretic approach that encompasses several religions and belief systems, with some borrowing from scientific concepts. I tend towards Luciferianism, but I’m neither restricted to a specific belief system nor I’m religious nor initiated.

Also, it’s very complex and multifaceted. It’s very complex and multifaceted to put into simpler words. Throughout this comment, I needed to try and simplify a lot of concepts, should it be much longer in order to fully grasp the complexity of the cosmic and divine principles.

I see the divine as two complementing poles, akin to Yin and Yang: there is a Goddess and a God. Many ancient religions used to believe and worship a dual divine, from Ancient Egypt (e.g. Isis and Osiris), Hebrews (Asherah and Yahweh), indigenous people such as Tupi-Guarani (Jaci and Tupã), among others.

They’re both opposite and complementary aspects within the divine. Complemented in balance, they make the Divine, similar to Baphomet: the androgynous, hermaphrodite, fully perfect Divine, the convergence of Lucifer and Lilith, whom are archetypes of the Divine.

Opposing, they get into a kind of a cosmic tug-war yet they seek balance, not exactly a “fight”/“war”, as It’s complicated to put into words, but it’s just the nature of opposites: they attract each other, but they are still opposites trying to be the frame of reference to the other (it’s like they’re eternally arguing: “Light came from my Darkness!”, “no, Darkness came from my Light!”; it’s just a matter of each one’s perspective, both are right).

This is mirrored within the creation of the cosmos (as per Hermetic Principle of Correspondence “As above, so below”): matter and energy, antimatter and ordinary matter, black-holes and stars/planets/asteroids/nebulae), etc. Fundamentally, it’s darkness and light, absence and presence, non-existence and existence. By darkness, it doesn’t imply “evil” or “bad”: what we see as “good” and “evil” are oversimplifications of a much complex cosmic tapestry. Neither She is necessarily evil nor He is necessarily good. They are both capable of both good and evil (just like there’s Yang within the Yin, and there’s Yin within the Yang).

However, what we see as “human emotions” are different kinds of energetic signatures. Scientifically, we could point out how neurotransmitters are composed by different chemicals, which are composed by different atoms, which are composed by a different sum of charges (different count of electrons and nuclei). This “energetic signature” could be seen as resonating with equivalent energetic signatures (so a happy song resonates better with a person currently in a happy mood, for example; a grayed sky, devoid of chromatic diversity, resonates better with a person currently in a sad mood, which is experiencing a “lower energy state”).

The distinct poles within the Divine resonate with different energetic signatures (with Goddess, imbued with what we’d call as feminine energy, resonating with a much larger spectrum of emotions than God, imbued with what we’d call as masculine energy), which in turn resonate with different “emotions”. We, humans, interpret this as “Divine with emotions”, but it’s just a cosmic principle. As we experiment “emotions”, we’re experimenting the same cosmic principle, so we are just the micro mirroring the macro, “as above, so below”.

Again, it’s just my current belief, it’s just my way of seeing the Divine. I may be wrong, I don’t know.