been thinking about this alot lately so thought I would write it down here for further reflection.
"All anger is by no means sinful; it was designed by the Author of our nature for self-defense; nor is it altogether a selfish passion, since it is excited by injuries offered to others as well as ourselves, and sometimes prompts us to reclaim offenders from sin and danger, but it becomes sinful when conceived upon trivial occasions or inadequate provocations; when it breaks forth into outrageous actions; vents itself in reviling language, or is concealed in our thoughts to the degree of hatred" (Buck's Theological Dictionary).
I don't know how i feel about that definition truthfully, I am not religious. I do however know Anger is often a veil for another emotion I am not dealing with.
this seems like a more agreeable definition to me as its non secular and to the point:
Main Entry: righteous indignation
Part of Speech: n
Definition: retribution, retributive justice; anger and contempt combined with a feeling that it is one's right to feel that way; anger without guilt.
my question is this though what makes anger justified to you? to me if its a primary emotion rather than being used as a veil that for me is rare, and I know its different for others.
No comments:
Post a Comment