What Do You Think of This Scripture Passage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redeemerslove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redeemerslove

Guest
“Be angry but do not sin…” (Ephesians 4:26a)

What do you think about this scripture passage, and how it applies to Apologetics?
 
I take it to mean it’s o.k. to be angry, but don’t act on that anger. Am I any where near close?:hmmm: Sue.
 
Redeemerslove said:
“Be angry but do not sin…” (Ephesians 4:26a)

What do you think about this scripture passage, and how it applies to Apologetics?
Click to expand...

I think that the answer lies in the entire passage from 25 to the end of the chapter. It calls for a change in the lives of all believers. Be angry but do not let the sun set and you still be mad. IN other words, ask forgiveness while you can. Further,remeber this is writen after Jesus expanded the commandments to include thoughts, so being angry and wishing ill upon someone is a sin. Look at verse 31. Put aside all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander. Verse 32, be kind and tinderhearted and forgive eachother as Christ forgave you. I think that that is it.
 
Redeemerslove said:
“Be angry but do not sin…” (Ephesians 4:26a)

What do you think about this scripture passage, and how it applies to Apologetics?
Click to expand...

I guess it means it is OK to get angry, but you cannot allow this strong emotion to overtake, control and possess you.

How does it apply to apologetics? I guess, when you debate someone, it is OK to show displeasure or become indignant, but you cannot offend the other person.
 
Redeemerslove said:
“Be angry but do not sin…” (Ephesians 4:26a)

What do you think about this scripture passage, and how it applies to Apologetics?
Click to expand...

I believe one can be naturally angry, for a number of reasons. But, that is a different thing from other [sinful] emotions often associated with anger, such as jealousy, spite, hatefulness, etc.
 
THere is nothing wrong with getting angry, the problem is STAYING angry or using that anger to injure another person.
 
40.png
Theodora:
I guess it means it is OK to get angry, but you cannot allow this strong emotion to overtake, control and possess you.

How does it apply to apologetics? I guess, when you debate someone, it is OK to show displeasure or become indignant, but you cannot offend the other person.
Click to expand...
Excellent commentary IMO. 🙂
 
40.png
visualops:
I believe one can be naturally angry, for a number of reasons. But, that is a different thing from other [sinful] emotions often associated with anger, such as jealousy, spite, hatefulness, etc.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe such emotions are sinful. Rather it’s the vice, inclination of the will, and desire that is sinful. And these rest in the soul, IMO and that of many doctors of the Church. You may feel angry, but without an act of the will and intent; its bears no sinfulness.
 
40.png
cmom:
THere is nothing wrong with getting angry, the problem is STAYING angry or using that anger to injure another person.
Click to expand...
Actually I wouldn’t put a limit of time period to anger, in the context of this passage. Anger, as Paul states latter is a different thing than wrath. Wrath includes a desire to do harm. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines anger [wrath]:
Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry [vengeful] with his brother shall be liable to judgment.” (2302)
Click to expand...
 
Anger is not inherently sinful. With God, anger is an expression of his justice. We humans are not to judge each other, so we must make sure that when we are angry it is conformity to the mind of God (righteous indignation) and not from our own selfish nature.

Most importantly, we must not allow anger to fester into hatred or bitterness.
 
40.png
pnewton:
Anger is not inherently sinful. With God, anger is an expression of his justice. We humans are not to judge each other, so we must make sure that when we are angry it is conformity to the mind of God (righteous indignation) and not from our own selfish nature.

Most importantly, we must not allow anger to fester into hatred or bitterness.
Click to expand...
I thought I was clear, but maybe I wasn’t. There are two kinds of anger: Emotional and Spiritual.

Spiritual anger, as the Catechism states, is a desire for revenge.

Emotional anger, is a feeling of upset or outrage at being subjected to another person’s evil behavior. This happens when they violate our rights.

Spiritual anger is not allowed.

Emotional is allowed, and by Catholic psychologists; stated as intimately necessary.

Without a sense of being offended, there can be no identification of an offense; therefore there will be no correction of the offender. You must first identify the offense, and emotional anger is one way of doing that - before you can even be aware of the need for correction.
 
If I am not mistaken, did not Jesus become angry at the temple? How about with the Pharisees? It is okay to be angry at sinfulness, it is appropriate. It is when you use the anger to bring YOURSELF into sinfulness, or cause your brother to become sinful in spite of your anger when it is not longer a useful tool o the Lord.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
If I am not mistaken, did not Jesus become angry at the temple? How about with the Pharisees? It is okay to be angry at sinfulness, it is appropriate. It is when you use the anger to bring YOURSELF into sinfulness, or cause your brother to become sinful in spite of your anger when it is not longer a useful tool o the Lord.
Click to expand...
I would say that it is o.k. to be angry at sinfulness, when such anger is meant to correct. I think this is the exact case of Jesus in the Temple. But I don’t think that Jesus wanted his eye for an eye, or tooth for a tooth. 😉
 
40.png
Redeemerslove:
I would say that it is o.k. to be angry at sinfulness, when such anger is meant to correct. I think this is the exact case of Jesus in the Temple. But I don’t think that Jesus wanted his eye for an eye, or tooth for a tooth. 😉
Click to expand...
Precisely! Great point.
 
40.png
Redeemerslove:
I don’t believe such emotions are sinful. Rather it’s the vice, inclination of the will, and desire that is sinful. And these rest in the soul, IMO and that of many doctors of the Church. You may feel angry, but without an act of the will and intent; its bears no sinfulness.
Click to expand...
I think your post #12 stated my opinion more succinctly than I did- I do believe there is a vast difference between being “plain” angry, and being hateful, viscious, spiteful etc, or any of the forms of anger that bear ill will. Emotions that bear evil fruit, so to speak, such as spite and vengeance, are sinful IMHO.
 
40.png
visualops:
I think your post #12 stated my opinion more succinctly than I did- I do believe there is a vast difference between being “plain” angry, and being hateful, viscious, spiteful etc, or any of the forms of anger that bear ill will. Emotions that bear evil fruit, so to speak, such as spite and vengeance, are sinful IMHO.
Click to expand...
Well, I would state that theses are simply two different kinds of anger. Sin the emtions about bound up in any sin, it seems that many people can’t separate the two.

You may the outrage of a million people about having your car stolen, but that does not mean you should take a gun and shoot the perpetrator. Feeling angry is fine, taking revenge is something all together different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top