?

Log in

Jul. 26th, 2004 @ 05:54 pm Frustrated About Anger
Current Mood: curiouscurious
Current Music: Faith Evans - I'll Be Missing You
When talking with friends, pastors, teachers, etc., the general interpretation is that Jesus, by his own words and lifestyle, was a pretty peaceful guy. His continual references to peace in relationships, peacemaking, and love for your neighbor stand as evidence for this belief. With the exception of one instance, Jesus rarely displays anger or disgust – though he continually comments on the inequities of the religious system, he seems for the most part to hold to a “gentle” stance in all that he did.

If all of our emotions are given by God, what place does anger have in the in scope of our relationship with Him, and our relationship with others?

Is anger ever ‘right’, and in what instances/issues is anger justified, if ever?

Give me some feedback…
About this Entry
somanche2
soman_fighter:
[User Picture Icon]
From:agentgross
Date:July 27th, 2004 01:00 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I know that Jesus was a man of peace, but I don't think that you can say he didn't show anger or disgust. When you say that Jesus only really got riled up one time, I assume that you are talking about his cleansing of the temple. Granted, Jesus, as presented in the gospels, was not prone to violent outbreaks. Few people are. Jesus was, however, one who became angry over sin. The same mouth that said "Blessed are the peacemakers" said, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." He was gentle with the woman caught in adultery, but when dealing with the religious elite, who believed that their works were going to win them a place in heaven, his phrase of choice was "Woe unto you." He called their souls painted tombs full of rot, and I doubt that he was all cherries and roses when he condemned Tyre and Sidon with the pronouncement that it would go better with Sodom and Gomorrah at the end of time than with them.

Jesus was gentle. He was a man who wept for his people, and showed what God's love is all about, but he was also capable of righteous anger. The bible says "In your anger, do not sin." The issue that we have to deal with, is how we are going to deal with anger, how are we going to use it. Are we becoming angry when we find ourselves falling into sin? Good. Do we become angry when we see God's laws flouted? Good again. Do we become angry when a waiter doesn't keep our pop glass full?....You get my point.
[User Picture Icon]
From:soman_fighter
Date:July 28th, 2004 10:17 am (UTC)

thoughts on anger..

(Permanent Link)
So then your response is that anger is okay as long as its a "righteous" anger. Then provide me a definition of the knowing of righteousness when it comes to anger? At what point does my anger turn "un"righteous? Though the waiter question is humorous, but what if the waiter is intentionally ignoring me b/c I am black? Is my building frustration then covered by righteouness?

On a broader level, is a nation of people permitted to responed, in anger, to an unlawful invasion? When the imperialist "cause" enslaves people under their own guise of righteousness, who's anger is more "right" - the mighty and powerful or the wondering massess who, filled with anger, call out to God and are pushed to a breaking point?

[User Picture Icon]
From:agentgross
Date:July 29th, 2004 10:37 am (UTC)

Hard One.

(Permanent Link)
I read your response last night, and, rather than respond to it off hand, decided that I should probably sleep on it and give the question a good thinking. To be completely honest, I don't know. Who is to say what anger is righteous? One thing I do know, when talking about your mutation of my waiter comment, is that few who are treated in that manner out of racial/sexual/whatever prejudice are going to refrain from becoming angry. I would not expect them to, and I don't really think that God would. My question is how they are going to respond to that anger. I have never in my life felt the need to repent for becoming angry, what I have felt the need to do is repent for the way that I dealt with my anger.

As for the comment on what is acceptable for a nation, I was not able to come up with an answer. One thing that I am sure of, is that I don't feel that the founders of our nation were wrong in their actions (with the exception of the whole slave thing, stupidity of stupidities). Therefore, on at least one level, I support civil disobedience based on anger, but on several other levels I don't.

Sorry man, my grey matter hasn't succeeded in dividing this issue into black and white.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:July 31st, 2004 06:58 pm (UTC)

Re: Hard One.

(Permanent Link)
The difference between righteous and unrighteous is actually quite clear. Anything the defiles or dishonors God or His temple (church) can and should give rise to righteous anger. Most other anger comes out of pride and is unrighteous.
[User Picture Icon]
From:agentgross
Date:August 2nd, 2004 09:19 am (UTC)

Not That Simple

(Permanent Link)
It's not that simple. Who is to say what dishonors God? Who are we to judge? There are many things that previous generations would damn us for, especially if we were to allow them into the church, or onto our bodies, that modern Christians don't find offensive at all. Has the truth changed?
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 2nd, 2004 04:44 pm (UTC)

Re: Not That Simple

(Permanent Link)
Who or what is to say what dishonors God? Is that a Joke? The Bible, you know, God's Word is very clear about what does and does not dishonor God! Other generations could not say anything to a modern christian who lives by the gospel. Absolutely nothing. the problem lies in the fact that many christians think the Bible is some book about Jesus. So many christians have given up on the literal reading of the bible and replaced it with some other form of doctrine. Post Salvation through Christ, itdoesn't matter when you lived or are living, SIN IS SIN. Culture doesnt dictate what sin is, GOD DOES! But in love, knowing you bible is key, not singing or drinking coffee, the BIBLE! Please feel free to repsond!
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 2nd, 2004 06:10 pm (UTC)

Re: Not That Simple

(Permanent Link)
A couple more thoughts:

1. Only God can damn any Man, so naturally no christians would have damned us.
2. God's word is so clear we dont need to judge for ourselves.
3. I hope you didn't mean that sin is relative to any time or place.
4. to be honest about the church thing, you are absolutely right. Christians of generations past would have been horrified if the saw secular movie clips in churches (at all)or worse, being equated to scripture. And rightfully so. But that has nothing to do with them and everything to do with GOD's Word.

[User Picture Icon]
From:agentgross
Date:August 3rd, 2004 10:23 am (UTC)

Language

(Permanent Link)
I had written an extended response to this post, however I tried to post it at the same time as Anonymous posted the treatise below titled "Re:Simply Gray," and apparently the website didn't appreciate the excess attention. Therefore, since the conversation has changed, I will eventually respond to the most recent post instead of rewriting my previous response. First, however, I want to say something about the English language. Ours is not a language in which we have one meaning for each word, and one word for each meaning. English, and every other language for that matter, is filled with ambiguities and shades of meaning. For instance, if you were to look up "damn" in Webster's unabridged third edition dictionary, you would find that the definition is roughly as long as the Soman Fighter's post "Simply Gray." However, if you didn't have access to that particular dictionary, and would rather look the word up on the internet, you would find that dictionary.com gives five different definitions of "damn," and only one of them applies to God's damning a sinner to hell. The others justify my usage of the word, and definition one (To pronounce an adverse judgment upon.) justifies me when I damn this instance of uniformed use of the english language.
[User Picture Icon]
From:soman_fighter
Date:August 2nd, 2004 07:00 pm (UTC)

Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
Interesting, “…SIN IS SIN. Culture doesn’t dictate what sin is..” Though I appreciate your response and the spirited conversation, I have to admit your response troubles me on two fronts:

First, if sin is sin, then I wonder do you chastise women who fail to cover their heads when praying/prophesying? Do you stone a child for his/her disobedience? Will you flout the laws of the land, even though Paul reminds us all to adhere to the laws of our government, when issues of gay marriage arise – and might be passed? These all seem to be clearly delineated in the bible – God’s word; how might I respond to those seekers beyond my culture club called "Church" to these questions? When you refer to sin, aren’t these against the directions? Or do you mean strictly the ten commandments?

Secondly, It seems to me that your position is very vacuum packed as to the black and white of the text, and though you do not state this, you seem to imply that inspiration is limited to the confines of the canon only with a phrase like “some other form of doctrine”. With some latitude, I wonder if you think inspiration is unattainable today? Cannot other culturally relevant doctrines, which compliment the Torah, Gospel, whatever, be directing as well to today’s culture? Obviously, in your addition, you allow that some things the culture of the Church has allowed, i.e. movies, though we can easily rest assured Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Catherine, - all those other equally inspired individuals – would most likely call us all heretical in our approach to presenting and interpreting the sacred text. Some clarification is needed please, because these are issues that I am wrestling with!


Finally, It just seems to me that strict adherence – though often preached – is so rarely adhered to because we choose prefer context and cultural relevance when convenient. Then when this issued is questioned the “Grace card” is immediately played when issues like this are raised. I write this all with a great deal of love, in a spirit of wondering, and desperately seeking some response that can at least keep the door open with the generation that I am called to.

Lets continue this dialouge..
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 3rd, 2004 09:56 am (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
If you'll notice my response, I used the words post-salvation. So stoning children would be a little severe due to the fact that we dont follow "the law" as it referred to the Jews. I also notice all you reponses to Sin are you against others. Which is interesting because it follows along with my thought that "modern christians" often fail to see the negative about themselves and fix it according to the gospel.
Ultimately, as a christian, you have to decide who you are going to be. (although it is really God's doing) Are you going to be weak or strong in the faith? (and there is a difference) If you are going to be strong, you must have an adhereance to the New testament commandments as well as having reverance for the Old testament. If there is such thing as a Grace card, I would instantly say that God's grace is awesome and all encompassing; however, it isn't God's grace that will define us in heaven. It's how well we followed God's commandments. Logic tells us that if some of us will present ourselves approved to God as workmen that do not do not need to be ashamed (2 Tim 2:15), that the is another side to that Judgement. Scary.

There are to many "seeker" friendly churches out there that have left out the individual responsability of christianity. When you're saved, it isn't supposed to be some pleasure cruise of grace and mercy where SIN is relative and all we do is "be" christians and it will all work out. No, when we get saved, thats when the battle begins. Consequently, the less you know of God's Word the less you will be able to: a. Defend yourself agaist Satan and b.Fight back against Satan for God! When you put on the WHOLE ARMOR OF GOD, if your faith is weak, your sheild is small. If your knowledge of God's Word is lax, your sword is non-existent.

As far as Paul's request we adhere to the laws of our government, we must. Do we have to agree, no. Now that isn't to say if a law of our government directly contradicts God's Law we must OBEY it. For instance, if this was China and they tried to take you second child away, you should fight back with rightoues indignance and not relinquish. Do you see the difference though? In one circumstance, the government wants to remove my gift given by GOD himself; in the other, the government is allowiing others to go against God's law. Well thats sad, but we have no place to stop non-believers from doing anything (and if they are participating in a gay marriage, they are non-believers). We dont have to have Gay marriages in our church if we, as a church, are a godly church. What you may not know is that Paul lived in Rome during NERO's reign and he wrote that. So if Paul, the chosen mouthpiece for God (notice the conspicuous apositive), can submit to a christian killing non-believer who could quite possibly have been the most fleshly Roman ruler in all of it's history; then we can submit to a government which permits Gay marriage.

As far as the Fact that I believe the bible is the only truly inspired doctrine, and NO OTHER DOCUMENT OR WORDLY PHILOSPHY SHOULD EVER ACOOMPANY IT, its true. Its entirely bibical. Paul often warns through the epistles that any and all wordly philosphy should be kept out of Good christin doctrine (the Bible). The second you use anything secular, like a movie clip, you have directly rejected the gospel in part; thus, you have rejected the whole body of the Word.

As a christian, A BLOOD BOUGHT BONDSERVANT OF GOD, you have to decide, Is the bible the Whole truth as it says and should I folow its teachings as such? I say yes and yes. Is your work going to be made of straw and burn in the fire? Are you going to present yourself as shameful man worhty of blame? God's Word is black and white, follow it as such. Now the examples you gave have nothing to do with your PERSONAL SIN, which is always the same, now and in the future and in August of 406 A.D. My lusts of the flesh are the same as all the great servants you listed above. But we won't realize it until we as christians stop preaching and learning that knowing God's grace is all that is required of us. I am a slave for God, and you aren't, you are a slave for Sin.

From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 3rd, 2004 10:09 am (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
I meant, "IF", your arent a slave for God, you are a Slave to sin.
[User Picture Icon]
From:soman_fighter
Date:August 3rd, 2004 12:07 pm (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
Well stated.

As I roll-up my sleeves, allow me to query the following comments, you wrote:

1) “Which is interesting because it follows along with my thought that "modern christians" often fail to see the negative about themselves and fix it according to the gospel.”

2) “As far as the Fact that I believe the bible is the only truly inspired doctrine, and NO OTHER DOCUMENT OR WORDLY PHILOSPHY SHOULD EVER ACOOMPANY IT, its true. Its entirely biblical. Paul often warns through the epistles that any and all wordly philosphy [sic] should be kept out of Good christin [sic] doctrine (the Bible).”

First, “modern Christians” – I would agree with your statement were it not so pointed against the “post” movement we are witnessing in the emerging church today. If you are referring to the cookie-cutter Christianity the country witnessed during the late 19th to middle 20th century – bang your right on; however, I must assume you mean the previous, so it is here where I take contention, “(we) fail to see the negative about (our)selves,” are you serious? This postmodern movement is honest with itself – we embrace the concepts of salvation and discipleship – we just believe they might come about in a different order: discipleship to salvation? We realize the negative aspects of our internal lives and the outward by-product this plays in our relations with community. This is sed contra to the window dressing many Christians bought into throughout the 20th century, i.e, the holiness movement. This “(post)modern Christian” movement just might be the most honest generation with itself to date and we openly seeking mentors who are willing to discuss the nature the self in relation to God. Believe me, this generation knows it has flaws and we are more than upfront and honest about them.


Furthermore, were it not for the blatant moral failings and gross corporate judgments of the Church and its leaders, both at times in complete denial of said incidents, the decline of the Church would not be so glaringly apparent today. This “(post)modern Christian” movement just might be the last building block the Church has to a generation that has recent evidence that the shiny-happy world so many church goers are living-in is not the “Six Flags Over Jesus” as some would try to present it as. This is a very troubling position to me and one that wafts Constantinian crusade rhetoric to it. (“repent my way or die”)

Second, its funny to me that you would cite Paul and his words concerning any addition to the doctrine (Bible). Because, as you know, there was no formal “bible” as it were – there was teachings, letters, etc., so which Bible is Paul referring to - you must mean the Vulgate? Hebrew Canon? Protestant canon, which? Which version? Since when does inspiration have a terminal point?

Please elaborate and support your position.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:27 pm (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
I agree that sin is sin... But.. you have to take some verses in context of time and meaning. Now the verse you speak of "women covering their heads" is in 1 Corinthians 11:4. Paul was writing to the church of Corinth. In the same area as the church of Corinth there was another temple.. It was a temple to the goddess aphrodite, in this temple you would find temple prostitutes, the male prostitutes would grow their hair out very long and the female prostitutes would keep their heads shaved. What would happen is you would go to this temple and pay to do lude sexual acts with a temple prostitute and that would be how you were to worship the goddess of love. Now another thing that this means is that in the church of Corinth there were new converts from the temple of aphrodite. So Paul wrote to the church of Corinth and told the men to keep their hair short and the women to keep their heads covered (until their hair grew out), so that there would be no confusion as to how people were supposed to worship Jesus Christ.

The Bible is very clear about obeying the laws of the land and the Bible is also very clear that homosexuality is an abomination. But just because it is now legal marry someone of the same sex DOES NOT make it ok.. It is still wrong in the eyes of Christ and is still very much a sin.

I believe Paul wrote this to the church of Corinth, not because women have to have their heads covered everywhere, but to keep the church from stumbling. To keep confusion as far from the body of Christ as possible.

Well that's all I have to say for now....

-adam
[User Picture Icon]
From:soman_fighter
Date:August 3rd, 2004 06:56 pm (UTC)

Re: Simply Gray

(Permanent Link)
Good point and right on. But not wanting to rabbit trail this conversation out too much, BUT if a gay couple is married (legally) despite our own biblical guidance, and this couple comes into relationship with Christ - does the Church tell them to get divorced?

Before you jump all over me on that one, keep in mind that sin is sin and there are countless numbers of people struggling with sin and yet totally connected to Christ, but it might be years before they overcome their issues/addictions, etc. What are we supposed to do?

thanks for joining the conversation - cool.

soman

From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 4th, 2004 08:53 am (UTC)

Gay Marriage

(Permanent Link)
To the question of whether a gay couple gets saved should they get divorced. I would say yes. Because biblically it is not a real marriage. God says that homosexuality is an abomination. So I don't think the church should view gay marriage as legitimate whether it is legal or not. And if the gay couple gets saved they should get a divorce. Not to say that it would be easy for them to give up that lifestyle. But God can help them through that and over time God can help them to overcome that. I really have more i want to say on this topic but i have to get back to work.
-Jaimie


[User Picture Icon]
From:agentgross
Date:August 4th, 2004 09:48 am (UTC)

Changing Sin, and Homosexual Marriage

(Permanent Link)
I have two thoughts that I am trying to reconcile right now, one about the earlier subject of sin changing with culture, and the other about homosexuality, marriage, and the church.

1. Regarding the previous thread of this conversation. I know that the heart condition behind sin doesn’t change, and that there are certain important kinds of sin that never change—such as lust, covetousness, murder, taking God’s name in vain, etc.—but there are other things that I believe are sin within one cultural context that aren’t within others. After all, even the apostle Paul said that eating meat that had been offered to idols wasn’t a sin, but that if it caused new believers to stumble in their faith, then it became, if not sinful, problematic.

Here’s an example that might help to illuminate my position. When my grandmother was young, the only people who had their ears pierce were what she called “hussies.” At that time, for a woman to wear earrings and to claim to be a follower of Jesus was a contradiction in terms. Within my grandmother’s culture, it would have announced her as rebelling against the “Christian” culture of her day to wear earrings, and thus have been sinful.

My mother, on the other hand, is an A/G minister, and the women’s director for the Ohio district of the same organization. She has her ears pierced. What’s more, no one thinks twice about her ears being pierced. My father, however, remains unpierced, and within the culture of his day would have encountered the same cultural stigma as a pierced woman during my grandmother’s. Has the truth changed?

Now, within the context that we, the emerging church of the twenty-first century, find ourselves, many men have pierced ears (and other things) without any fear of religiosocial ostracization, and fully secure in the sinlessness of their actions.

I believe that sins dealing with heart matters, are often changed in their manifestation, and various actions that have been sinful in the past are no longer so.


2. Regarding the issue at hand. I think we are dealing with two separate issues here. First, should a gay marriage be dissolved subsequent to the salvation experience? I think that anyone who recognizes the 66 books that believers refer to as The Bible as the actual inspired word of God would agree that this is necessary. The question that I find interesting is whether or not the Church body should demand a divorce. On this issue, my response would be a resounding no based on the moral and ethical change that I believe begins to occur in a person entering into relationship with God.

Before I expound upon this reason, allow me to preface this comment by saying that, just as I would not expect a known child molester, person living in an adulterous relationship, person involved in unethical/illegal financial situations, etc, to be in a place of leadership within the Church, I would not propose that we allow anyone involved in any repetitive and blatantly sinful act who has not taken the steps involved getting free from it. However, if we demand instant change that God has not yet prepared those in homosexual marriages to accept, we will inevitably alienate them from the Church that represents the God with whom they are beginning to become reconciled.

As for the necessity of the divorce, those who have actually begun as relationship with God will eventually mature to the point where, if they are being taught the scriptures in their churches, they will take that step on their own without having to be asked by any human agency. After all, God does have other ways of speaking than through the dictates of his earthly institution.

Any thoughts?
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 4th, 2004 12:45 pm (UTC)

Re: Changing Sin, and Homosexual Marriage

(Permanent Link)
Now we are getting to the heart of it. The fact that Society thought girls with earrings are sinful doesnt mean God does (did). I am not at all talking about what the church as an assembly body deems as sin, but what God says is Sin. Now you are absolutely right, if the government says pancakes are illegal and you eat them, you are in the wrong. I on the other hand, was addressing the type of sin into which righteous anger falls. These are the sins of man that don't change, i.e. Lust, wrath, adultery,fornication, pride, etc......
For some one to say that there is no clear guidelines as to what honors and dishonors God, is just not biblical. Even if it isnt expressly said, you know excessive gambling is wrong, How? Because God has laid out the groundwork, THROUGHT THE SCRIPTURE, to help you apply your experience to his law. The key is to seperate what God hates, and what the "church" hates.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 4th, 2004 12:50 pm (UTC)

Re: Changing Sin, and Homosexual Marriage

(Permanent Link)
Also, why would homosexuals need to get a divorce when there marriage never was in the eyes of God?
[User Picture Icon]
From:agentgross
Date:August 4th, 2004 01:30 pm (UTC)

Yet Again: Changing Sin, and Homosexual Marriage

(Permanent Link)
And yet, can you deny that within that cultural context, to for a Christian to wear earrings would dishonor God in a way that it would not for a man to wear them today?

As for the marriage thing, to persist in an ungodly legal covenant would dishonor God, whether the Church recognized the union or not.

Well?
[User Picture Icon]
From:fleur77
Date:August 4th, 2004 09:26 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I came across this community randomly and decided to follow the conversation, and frankly it amazes me how frustrating the American view of the Bible is so fixed and unforgiving. None of your conversations seem to be even remotely beneficial to your lives. Its no wonder you demand a separation between your government and the cross - you would be both imperialists and confused if you were ever allowed things to come together.

What if all this discussion is for not?

You complain about Israel and the Palestinians and the "absolute chaos" of their state - but yet you bicker amongst yourselfs as like muslim and jew. What has their bloodshed taught you - apparently nothing, because if this debate is a window into your lives then you will soon be ultimately divided, yes?

I read books about how your precious Church is in decline and could this be the reason - "cultural" "not cultural" - what if this is all for not?

What if you were being judged on a completely different scale - one which none of you controlled, then would you be so eager to split the hairs of your brothers head?

Furthermore, I say stop and save yourself before you run into the trees while searching for the forrest.


From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 5th, 2004 07:16 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well said Fleur but sometimes to benefit our lives we need to discuss hard issues. I do believe the they can be over discussed and not enough action though, which is what has happened here I believe.
[User Picture Icon]
From:agentgross
Date:August 5th, 2004 09:56 am (UTC)

Clarification

(Permanent Link)
Fleur,

The point of this discussion is the achievement of a cross-fertilization of ideas. The difference between our conversation and the Jewish/Muslim issue is that we are just having a friendly debate. I feel no animosity toward the good Dr. Anonymous, and I certainly hope that he feels the same toward me.

In fact, the bulk of our conversation is a question of word usage and nothing more. I believe that the sins outlined in the Bible, and the issues of the heart dependent upon them don’t change, and that truth is truth.

I apologize if anything in our conversation has left the impression that our discussion is anything but friendly.

AG.
From:(Anonymous)
Date:August 5th, 2004 03:39 pm (UTC)

Re: Clarification

(Permanent Link)
100% agreed. Ultimately, whether we agree or disagree, we dont affect each others salvation. Christians debate and admonish in love. This is not true of the other example Fleur gave. It isnt like we debate in spite of the truth; adversely, we seek out the truth more openly.