Is anger a sin?
One of the things I love about my wife is her inability to hold beliefs without living them. The hard consequence for her is that sometimes she struggles with something the rest of us can shrug off. For example, several folks we know went through a Christian workshop in which they picked up the notion that anger is sin. It made enough sense to me at the time, given that often when I’m angry I do or say ugly things. It felt holy, too, to articulate a “higher standard” (lack of anger) to which Christians ought to aspire.
My wife really struggled with this, because unlike those of us who are content to philosophize, she couldn’t help but trace this to its logical conclusions. “Does this mean,” she asked me, “that Amanda [our friend whose husband molested some of their children] is in sin because she’s angry at what her husband did to their family? If all sin is an affront to God, is He just as offended by people angry at molesters as He is at the molesters themselves?”
“No,” I replied weakly, “but . . .”
But what, smart guy? What’s the answer? It depends on whom you ask. Google “anger is sin” and you’ll find professional and amateur theologians claiming that it is always a sin, that it’s a sin unless it’s anger at sin, that it’s a sin if it lasts beyond some ill-defined point, or that it’s a sin unless it’s “righteous.” Thomas Aquinas deduced that it was not a sin, because to have passion is to be human. John Calvin warned against the disease of lingering anger. Meanwhile, we’ve all heard the sermon on how we’re guilty of murdering our brother when we are angry at him. Or maybe that’s when we harbor anger for some amount of time that nobody can define. In other words, when you ask the modern Christian community whether anger is a sin, you don’t get a definitive answer.
The reality is that we’re all angry when we think about what this molester did to his family. My wife needed to know whether she is worshipping a God who, absent our repentance for it, holds that anger against us. I couldn’t answer her. Neither could other people. One person earnestly advised her to quit polling people and just pray about it, as if such answers come via personal revelation.
I’m a dullard, but I love her enough to feel some weight on my shoulders when she is burdened. This is why my eyes teared up last night when she boldly posed her question to a deeply learned man of God we were sitting across from at a banquet table. His entire life has been devoted to the Word and the Church. She laid out the story and put her tough question to him.
“Forgive me,” he replied, “but I don’t think that’s a hard question. Of course anger is not a sin. Why would the Bible tell us ‘to be angry but sin not,’ if it’s impossible to be angry without sinning?” What’s more, he noted, the Church has always taught that God gave the passions of men to them. They became diverted after the Fall, but they aren’t inherently evil. Our anger can lead us into sin, but it’s not itself inherently sinful.
It seems so simple now, but when there are so many voices claiming to speak with authority, and none of them speaking clearly or consistently, it’s like cool water to hear someone say, “Here is what the Bible tells us, and that interpretation is entirely consistent with what Christians believed for hundreds of years.” No hemming, no hedging, no “it’s up to your conscience.” There’s what the Bible says and how the Church interpreted it for a thousand years, and that is that, by golly.
Thank God for the Word and the Church. Thank God we don’t each of us have to figure it all out on our own.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top133 Comments to “Is anger a sin?”
Yes, thank God who also gets angry and he doesn’t sin doing it.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t there a thing called righteous anger?
Report comment to moderator
Intense, frequent, enduring, and satisfying anger is an addiction. Anger can be a useful tool for selecting a response and mobilizing behavior. It can also be a self-medicating drug that the brain depends on for stimulation. Inappropriate anger might not be as bad a sin as going postal, but it is probably just as damaging.
Report comment to moderator
Roy Masters would note it depends on what we mean by “anger.” “Anger” as a stance against something wrong, is fine. But anger as an emotion is always a sin. Jesus never once got angry, according to Masters, even when he drove the money changers out. He didn’t need to get angry to chase them out. He just chased them out.
Report comment to moderator
“Yes, thank God who also gets angry and he doesn’t sin doing it.”
Roy Masters would note that when God gets “angry” it’s something different. God is not “subject” to anger as an emotion as human beings are because God is not subject to anything.
Report comment to moderator
“Anger as an emotion is always a sin.”
Hmmm…I disagree. I’m not sure if one’s initial emotions are controllable. You can’t help feeling anger every now and then, which would not be a sin, but you shouldn’t nurse that anger – which would a sin. Give your anger to Christ.
Also, don’t act in anger. (Don’t post in anger on WMB
). Acting in anger is a sin.
“In your anger do not sin. Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry.”
Report comment to moderator
In other words, when you ask the modern Christian community whether anger is a sin, you don’t get a definitive answer.
Why should we expect a definitive answer? Perhaps, just perhaps, we are supposed to struggle with some questions, be discomforted by them, and examine our lives and actions in light of them.
Report comment to moderator
Matt,
On strict biblical grounds you may be right. I am positing an interesting position by Roy Masters, which he suggests is entirely biblical. I am not a disciple of his; yet, I want a to be a true philosopher and keep my mind open to religious and metaphysical truths to which many secular and atheistic philosophers have closed their minds. And that requires “entertaining” certain ideas, without necessarily believing them.
Masters would note salvation means no longer sinning and that means no longer getting angry. If you “react” with anger, then you aren’t saved. This is one reason, I believe Masters teaches reliance on a meditation exercise (which he dubbs “Judeo-Christian meditation”) as necessary for salvation. He says if you do the exercise enough, you get to the point where you no longer get angry or sin; and then you know you are saved. He said it took him over 40 years to save his wife. You can listen to the exercise here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkJhVHLQv1Y
Report comment to moderator
Salvation is not defined in scripture as getting to the point of no longer sinning.
I never said God lost his temper. I said he gets angry. There is a difference.
Report comment to moderator
Roy Masters would say in human terms there is no difference between getting angry, losing your temper, it’s all part and parcel of the same emotion. If a human gets angry but doesn’t “lose his temper” he just suppresses his anger which, according to Masters is deadly.
God’s “anger” is a completely different thing, something human beings have no ability to understand and cannot relate to. It’s something in your state of emotion, you’ve never felt and “anger” is arguably not even the right word for it.
Report comment to moderator
“Salvation is not defined in scripture as getting to the point of no longer sinning.”
1 John 3.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Report comment to moderator
Roy Masters can master himself entirely and it would not make him a Christian. It would not make me one, either, if I did the same thing. It might make him a really good practioner of another religion.
As far as the verses, they are true. They do not however define all of salvation. I have no time to sit and discuss it and don’t wish to, just pointing it out. You are free to reject my opinion and adopt Masters’.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “Jesus never once got angry, according to [Roy] Masters…” (see #4).
Clearly, Roy Masters (whoever that is) does not know what he is talking about in this case (if Jon Rowe is representing him accurately).
Jesus got angry in the story of his healing of the man with a whithered hand (Mark 3:5). He also told a parable in which the character (the Master) who played a role likened to that of the Lord, got angry at an unmerciful servant who refused to forgive others (Matthew 18). The same with another parable (see Luke 14:21). And in the temple, Jesus used a whip to drive out money-changers and it is clear in context that he was outraged. The disciples saw it as “zeal” for God’s house “consuming” Jesus.
Jon Rowe, no one said that God was “Subject” to anger. The point is that He clearly gets angry!
How does Jon Rowe come up with people who can read something and twist meanings and coclusions that have nothing to do (or stand in opposition) to what was written?
Report comment to moderator
BTW: I stand by the idea that anger and losing one’s temper are not synonymous. It is one of the things that parents must teach their children. My children were always free to feel anger, but they must not act in a sinful way no matter what they feel. It is difficult as a parent to make sure you are not telling them to do this and then losing your own temper. It is one of the things that must come under self-control, one of the fruits of the Spirit.
Report comment to moderator
The God of the Bible takes the severity of evil seriously. From cover to cover, the Bible affirms that evil is so real and serious, it justifies righteous wrath.
The problem is that too few Christians today fully appreciate the meaning and importance of the word “righteous.” It makes all the difference, in God’s eyes.
Another problem is that too few Christians even read the Bible much any longer.
As with any caring Father, it is God’s love for His children that lies at the root of His wrath toward whatever evil forces are arrayed to destroy and corrupt them. If He did not love so much, He would not care. But He does.
The cross itself is proof of God’s wrath with regard to sin.
Report comment to moderator
Scripture tells us that God’s wrath is unleashed by such things as:
Pride (Psalm 59:12-13)
Ingratitude (Psalm 78:19-21)
Dishonesty (Romans 2:8)
Rebellion or stubbornness (Romans 2:5)
Unrepentance (Romans 2:5)
Following evil (Romans 2:8)
Disobedience (Ephesians 5:6)
Idolatry (Colossians 3: 5-6)
Impurity (Colossians 3: 5-6)
Greed (Colossians 3: 5-6)
Lust (Colossians 3: 5-6)
Ultimate rejection of Jesus (John 3:36).
God’s wrath can:
Burn like fire (Psalm 89:46)
Roar like a lion (Proverbs 19:12)
Flow like a flood (Proverbs 27:4)
Make the earth tremble (Jeremiah 10:10)
Swirl like wind & fall like hailstones (Ezk. 13:13)
Feel like a rod (Lamentations 3:1)
Burst out like a storm (Jeremiah 30:23)
Fill cups like wine (Jeremiah 25:12)
Make us drunk (Isaiah 63:6)
Be stored up for us (Romans 2:5).
John the Baptist powerfully preached about the wrath to come (Matthew 3:7). For John, the sole solution to this wrath is repentance!
Jesus warned that the same treatment God gave to Sodom in the Old Testament would come again to towns that failed to welcome his followers (Luke 10:12).
The wrath of God and the reasons for it are also vividly exposed in the first chapter of Romans. For Paul, this is not an abstract concept. God’s wrath is specifically evoked by the manifold practices of godlessness, wickedness, and the suppression of truth. He continues, “For those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.” (Romans 2:8).
Yet, Paul knew it is precisely the blood of Jesus that saves us from God’s wrath (Romans 5:9). In an earlier letter, Paul wrote, “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:9).
All that said, here are a few “keep your cool” passages:
* Ephesians 4:31 – “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger…”
* Colossians 3:5-8 – “…rid yourselves of all such things as this: anger, rage, malice…”
* James 1:20 – “man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.”
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Roy Masters would note that NONE of the biblical passages that you reference refer to “anger” as an emotion, i.e., what you feel when I frustrate you on these threads.
They all relate to taking a strong position from a state of peaceful, still, strength. As the scripture says, “be still and know that I am God.” (Psalm 46:10)
I heard Roy’s son David tell a useful anecdote. He said he could walk into his house and find a man raping his wife, pull his gun out and righteously execute the man in defense of his wife, and not feel the “sin” of anger.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Again, Masters would note that you utterly confuse the “wrath” of God with your own sinful anger and frustration that you and other unsaved human beings feel (I am not making that judgment just giving Roy Masters’ position which deserves as fair a hearing as yours).
He would caution you to rethink that you really have been “born again” or saved, that if you “sin” (which feeling anger as an emotion qualifies) you are not saved.
As far as Masters is concerned, you can hear him debate Walter Martin, the late Bible Answer man, here:
http://tinyurl.com/5vjzr2
As far as who he is, the following are some notable followers of Masters. David Kupelian, the #2 guy at WorldNetDaily and author of “The Marketing of Evil” (many conservative Christian Churches promote his book and Masters is practically a co-founder of WorldNetDaily); the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson of B.O.N.D., Michael Savage (yes, that Michael Savage), Matt Drudge, and Joe Franklin. It was rumored that the late John Wayne was also a follower. In addition, Masters’ family owns “Talk Radio Network” that syndicates among others, Savage, Laura Ingraham, Tammy Bruce, and Mancow.
I’m pretty sure that TRN has made them a mint.
Report comment to moderator
God gave us emotions. They are a part of the makeup of a human being, and a person devoid of emotions is missing something, just as much as a person without sight or without hearing.
Emotions function as indicators, like the dials on a car dashboard. (That’s not all they do, but it is part of their purpose.) Anger and fear, in particular, are signals of a problem to deal with. We feel anger at the child molester because there is something very wrong that needs to be dealt with. Sometimes we feel fear or anger and don’t know exactly why, and it helps us take a look at the situation and realize what is wrong and needs to be dealt with.
How one deals with the situation is where the sin comes in (or doesn’t, if we deal with it the right way). Taking inappropriate action, or dwelling on the wrong and the anger without taking action, are both sinful. (Sometimes the appropriate action doesn’t eliminate the source of the problem, but minimizes the damage to ourselves and those we are responsible for.)
I don’t know what kind of feelings God has. I’m sure they’re not the same as ours, because ours are linked to various physiological responses, which of course He doesn’t have.
I’ve read that a fully mature person would be able to choose his emotions, rather than feeling driven by them. I don’t remember who wrote whatever I read that in, or whether or to what extent it is true, but it was interesting to think about it in terms of Jesus’ emotions as a man. He could choose to feel anger when anger fit the situation, and use the energy that anger gives to deal appropriately with it. He felt fear, I think, at his impending death, and dealt with it by prayer and surrender to His Father’s will.
Report comment to moderator
“One person earnestly advised her to quit polling people and just pray about it, as if such answers come via personal revelation.”
Tony – I agree with this person, if that is indeed what your wife was doing. (And I have done it myself a time or two.) It is one thing to seek out godly counsel, but another to ask every believer we meet, as if taking a poll.
As for praying about it (& I would assume your wife did take this struggle to the Lord), maybe God wouldn’t answer her audibly, but He could bring scripture to her memory, or lead her to just the right person to ask (as it seems He did), or give her a peace in her heart about the situation.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Jon,
I’m not familiar with Masters, but from your description he is trafficking in a couple of early heresies that the Church navigated its way through in the first centuries of its existence, namely, that Christ was not fully man (and hence without human emotions), and that man can by dint of his own righteousness enter the kingdom of Heaven.
What you have to take into account when reading Masters, then, is that for his teaching to be correct, the Christian church in all three of its primary manifestations (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and the major Protestant strains) had to have been fundamentally wrong from the beginning, which would seem to contradict the biblical promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. Surely if nearly all Christians unwittingly descended to hell, for not having Masters’s teachings available to them, that would qualify as an example of hell triumphing over the Church.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Karen,
You make a good point, and I wasn’t clear in my essay. She wasn’t actually polling people; she asked our pastor and a counselor.
In general I think you are quite right that we talk too much, and pray far too little.
Report comment to moderator
#17 Jon Rowe says, “NONE of the biblical passages that you reference refer to “anger” as an emotion”
Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines emotion as “a moving of the mind or soul.”
There were a lot of scriptures there. Take a look again at this one:
Mark 3:5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored.
Jon, you said, “They all relate to taking a strong position from a state of peaceful, still, strength.”
Though it is not an example of anger, have you considered that Jesus had emotion where “he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.” (John 11:33)
Jesus was deeply distressed even when He kept Himself completely under His Father’s authority. Peace comes with authority, but if I submit perfectly to God’s authority, I am not apathetic to others.
Jesus didn’t put his fingers in his ears on the cross and chant “for the joy set before me” my pain/grief doesn’t matter. He was grieved that he made mankind, but He didn’t change His mind, wishing He hadn’t created them. I think we humans tend to compartmentalize our emotions. God’s emotion is single-minded, though multi-faceted.
As for when anger becomes sin, I am going to think more about this, and I think Webster’s continued definition may be helpful….
Report comment to moderator
In our day and age, many people are looking for an excuse to justify what once used to be called sin. I would have to say that Roy Masters is wrong on a couple of points.
1.
“Masters would note salvation means no longer sinning and that means no longer getting angry.”
Where in the Bible does it say that salvation is no loner sinning??? Salvation is the free gift of God that we accept from God. Romans 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” This clearly shows that salvation is a gift we receive by accepting what God has done for us. The whole story of the Bible is about man’s sin and how God can forgive men of that sin. The entire gospel was written to show that Jesus came to the earth as a perfect human being. He came for the express purpose of dying on the cross to pay the punishment for our sin. He lived a sinless life, and thus he was able to atone for the sins of the whole world. The way of salvation is simple. Just like when you receive a gift, all you have to do is believe that it is for you. We have all sinned and we need to have a way to get to heaven one day. The only way to heaven is through Jesus’ blood. John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” We must come to God not on our own merit, but on the basis of what Jesus did for us on the cross. We must accept his gift of salvation, that he offers freely to all, to receive salvation.
2.
Anger is not necessarily sin. The Bible does say that we are to be angry and sin not. God hates sin and according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, hate is “intense hostility and aversion usu. deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.” If God hates sin, it would be reasonably incurred that we as humans can hate sin. That does not mean that we hate the person who sins. 1 Thessalonians 3:12 states, “And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men.” We cannot hate the person who commits sin (1) because we all sin, and (2) because God doesn’t hate them.
We as Christians need to stop looking for an excuse for our sin. Having anger against someone is sin because it directly violates what God has commanded us to do in Scripture. We are to “Love our neighbor.” We also need to be careful not to call our anger/hate of someone a hate of their sin. That is something that can be hard to distinguish. We have to be careful in our anger so that we do not disobey what God has commanded us and sin.
To end on a good note though, even if we do sin, as Christians, we have the assurance that “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness.”(1 John 1:9)
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, are you not able to speak for yourself? Why should we care what some guy named Roy Masters says? It’s fine to refer to him for illustrative purposes, but your ongoing attempts to speak for him or through him on this thread is rather meaningless.
But if he thinks that none of the biblical passages I cited refer to “anger” as an emotion, then he is presuming far more than he can know. Anger is, among other things, an emotion. So what? Why pretend otherwise? Jon, life is too short for pretense. To deny that those passages speak of anger as an emotion presumes to psychologically know what they meant.
Jon Rwoe wrote: “They all relate to taking a strong position from a state of peaceful, still, strength.”
Fine, and that does NOT eleimate the reality of emotion in the anger they felt and the stands they took. Besides, the passages speak for themselves. Your attempts to revise them (or Master’s alleged attempts) are void of credibility.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Note the “but I tell you”. Christ is specifically clarifying and modifying an Old Testament teaching
Paul:
“In your anger do not sin”[a]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry,”
Faced with two passages that are so difficult to reconconcile (note I said difficult, not impossible), I might submit that your friend was being too flppant to say “I don’t think that’s a hard question”.
I think we need to carefully examine ourselves to make sure our motive in exegisis is to find the actual truth, not to make it OK to sin because avoiding it is just really really hard.
Report comment to moderator
John,
He was far from flippant. His point was that it’s not a hard question precisely because we have Church tradition to guide us. We aren’t on our own in the twentieth century trying to divine, most of us from English translations, what scriptures mean, in other words. We can look to what centuries of God-seeking Christian fathers believed to help us understand those scriptures.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
The more you say about this Masters guy, the more dangerous he sounds. Maybe I’ll listen to that debate after all. When you were talking about him before, I thought you meant that he taught the “holiness doctrine” that a Christian can, potentially, stop sinning. That’s bad enough, but when he claims that he flat out doesn’t sin and that anyone who does sin is unsaved, that’s scary.
Report comment to moderator
Tony,
I have to say that I’m surprised that no one else gave your wife this same answer from Scripture and that you didn’t even find it on an internet search. I’ve heard many Christians answer the question this way, and I’ve always considered it the Biblical answer.
Report comment to moderator
Got it Tony. Actually you kind of said that in the article, didn’t you!
Report comment to moderator
Hi Tony,
Yes, you are right about Masters’ being a heretic according to traditional historic Christianity. His Christology seems to be Arian (I would note the “not fully God” as opposed to the “not fully man” as Masters’ major problem). I’m not sure how he would address fully the “gates of Hell issue.” I’ll note a few things. One, his interpretation probably isn’t much different than the “narrow path” teaching of orthodox evangelical Christianity — that the overwhelming majority of humans who claim to be “Christians” really aren’t, that the true church is very small in number. And second, he does believe there have been “real Christians” since Jesus’ time. There certainly have been lots of non-Trinitarian “Christians” since then (among them John Milton and Isaac Newton whom I’m sure Masters would love to claim). He speaks of salvation more of as a “mystical state” as opposed to belief in doctrine or dogma (though he has noted one must reject the Trinity to be saved). I don’t know who he claims as “true believers” of the past, but Masters does believe they exist.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, are you not able to speak for yourself? Why should we care what some guy named Roy Masters says? It’s fine to refer to him for illustrative purposes,…
Because he might be right. And that’s something that should concern you.
but your ongoing attempts to speak for him or through him on this thread is rather meaningless.
I come here on a philosophically minded search for the Truth. Would you rather I come here arguing the secular-atheistic perspective that most philosophers have “discovered”? Those folks are a dime a dozen and they aren’t me. Your beliefs, if you are confident in them, should be able to withstand philosophical scrutiny, no matter from which perspective they come.
But if he thinks that none of the biblical passages I cited refer to “anger” as an emotion, then he is presuming far more than he can know.
How do you know? Maybe he knows somethat that you don’t.
Anger is, among other things, an emotion. So what? Why pretend otherwise? Jon, life is too short for pretense. To deny that those passages speak of anger as an emotion presumes to psychologically know what they meant.
Masters would say that you, like Walter Martin, have a lack of understanding. The Bible is just words on a page and words on a page can mean a whole lot of things and are rife for erroneous interpretations. As an evangelical, you should know that because you are aware that many others who claim to be conservative evangelicals who believe the Bible the infallible Word of God end up irreconcilably disagreeing over what this infallible Word of God actually means on particular doctrines. Think of how all 5-points of Calvinism are disputed along these lines.
Masters would note if you “understood” what the Bible really meant (more than just words on a page) you would NEVER assert those passages have anything to do with anger as an emotion, because that kind of anger is a sin and Jesus did not sin.
Joel, have you tried Roy Masters meditation exercise because that’s the only way you are going to be able to “know” for yourself if he is right.
Report comment to moderator
Anger is sometimes a form of fear, and fear is always a sin.
Report comment to moderator
#32 Jon says:“Joel, have you tried Roy Masters meditation exercise because that’s the only way you are going to be able to “know” for yourself if he is right.”
Isn’t that saying that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the only way?
Romans 8:16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.
1 John 3
10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers.
18 Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence
20 whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
24 And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.
Report comment to moderator
I am ambiguous about this. My father would blow up — it taught me a certain formal reticence (and inner rage).
I can think how Anger can be righteous, but often it comes so clouded in my own issues, in my own need for justification, that rather than heal, my anger only harms.
The question perhaps is not about anger per se, but what happens next. That’s where the task of godliness really shines, how we take our anger and then speak and act.
Report comment to moderator
“Isn’t that saying that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is the only way?”
I think Roy Masters’ teachings (as he and his followers’ claim) is the exact opposite of this. That his way (which he claims as Jesus’ or the Bible’s way) is the only way to get beyond the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” because his “Judeo-Christian” meditation exercise is the only way to get beyond words on a page and to “understanding.”
Report comment to moderator
#33
Herb,
Why do you say fear is always a sin?
If I’m driving my car, and another car loses control (black ice, drunk driver, whatever the reason) and is heading towards me and about to crash into my car, I’m going to feel fear. You’re saying that’s a sin?
Report comment to moderator
Think of it this way: because Eve failed to use anger to resist the serpent’s lies, she failed to use a God-given gift to oppose Satan.
Think on how Jesus used anger in the temple to combat obvious sinful behavior. There IS a right way to use it
Report comment to moderator
Irish Eyes,
The Bible doesn’t say Jesus used anger in the temple to combat sinful behavior. It just says that he drove the money lenders out.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe—–
So far, the things that you have been saying about Masters have all contradicted the Bible. The Bible never says that we need to use some form of meditation to understand Scripture. James 1:5 says, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally.” We can have understanding by simply asking God to give us the Wisdom to do so.
ALSO, what does using meditation as a means to understanding have anything to do with whether anger is a sin? You seem to be setting forth the doctrine of Masters even if it has no bearing on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
“The Bible never says that we need to use some form of meditation to understand Scripture.”
Masters says “be still and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10) is the biblical textual support for his meditation and that doing it is the only way to get to that state.
“ALSO, what does using meditation as a means to understanding have anything to do with whether anger is a sin? You seem to be setting forth the doctrine of Masters even if it has no bearing on this thread.”
Masters believes that getting angry and upset is part of man’s fallen sinful nature. Masters also believes that salvation means getting to the point where you no longer sin, that you “overcome that sinful nature.” That means getting to the point where you no longer get upset or angry. And his meditation exercise is the means to that end.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
The Bible never says that salvation means sinlessness. That is something that Masters is trying to set forth. He is trying to, in essence, say that we can become like little gods here on earth. Jesus was the only person that was ever sinless on earth, and he was fully God. The Bible says in Romans that all have sinned, and that there are none that are righteous. According to Masters’ “theory” even the disciples who were with Jesus were not saved, because we see them sinning in the Bible. Moses sinned and could not enter the Promised Land with the Isrealites. Who then can be saved according to Masters’ theory?
Report comment to moderator
If interested, I linked to Masters debating Walter Martin (an “orthodox” source accusing him of being a cult leader), and now is a link to a TV Show of him debating mainly secular media sources accusing him of being a cult leader.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf2BYhuzcAQ&feature=related
Report comment to moderator
DRFree,
You need to listen to the Masters-Martin debate because he answers your critique. He never says he is WITHOUT sin, but that being saved means NO LONGER sinning. That’s what you are saved from. And the following is his biblical textual authority.
1 John 3.
6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Report comment to moderator
I do not need (or want) to hear Masters. We need to be basing our philosophies in life on the Bible, not on someone elses teaching. Until you can give me verses from the Bible that teach what Masters is teaching, I am going to have to stick with my beliefs. You should be reading the Bible to come up with your standards, not listening to Masters.
Report comment to moderator
On that argument, you contradicted yourself.
“He never says he is WITHOUT sin, but that being saved means NO LONGER sinning.”
Is that not saying that same thing? According to his teaching, he is not saved.
Report comment to moderator
No it’s not contradictory. Masters believes all HAVE sinned (except Jesus) just as the Bible says. He believes true salvation means no longer sinning, again, just like the Bible says in the verses that I quoted above. The unsaved person sins, the saved person does not. All saved people were once unsaved (when they sinned). Hence Masters sinned when he was unsaved and now that he is saved he doesn’t sin, making him both someone who is not “without sin” (as no one is without sin except Jesus), but who no longer sins (again just as the Bible says). I don’t see why this is so hard for you to understand.
Report comment to moderator
“Until you can give me verses from the Bible that teach what Masters is teaching,…”
I just did. See post 44. Also if you listen to the Masters-Martin debate you’ll see Masters appeals to the Bible for authority just as Martin does.
Report comment to moderator
So, you are going to say that the only person in the Bible who was saved was Jesus? What about the thief on the cross? Jesus said that the thief would join him in Paradise that day. Had he somehow attained “no longer sinning” while on that cross?
Report comment to moderator
“So, you are going to say that the only person in the Bible who was saved was Jesus?”
This assumes that Jesus’ early followers still sinned. Masters would argue that once they became “born again” they stopped sinning.
“What about the thief on the cross? Jesus said that the thief would join him in Paradise that day. Had he somehow attained ‘no longer sinning’ while on that cross?”
Masters would say yes because he was truly born again at that moment.
And by the way, Masters is not an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, but there are a number of orthodox Trinitarian Christians who believe in this doctrine. If I am not mistaken our own Victoria believes being saved means no longer sinning and she is free to correct me if I am wrong.
Report comment to moderator
What Masters is saying in the posts you mentioned does not agree with what Scripture says. I agree, if I understand you correctly, up to where you say that we no longer sin. We must not take one passage of scripture and forget the others. If you were to go through the whole Bible, you would see that Everyone sins, and will always sin. David in the Bible sinned many times, and yet if you were to read the Psalms, he would show you not only his sin, but his relationship with God. Are you saying that David was not saved then?
Report comment to moderator
We have the example of Peter. He sinned by denying God and cursing…which shows he was angry, incidentally…When they had taken Jesus away. He obviously sinned. Do you want me to give you more examples of people who sinned and would still be considered Christians?
Report comment to moderator
“We must not take one passage of scripture and forget the others.”
But that passage that I cited seems pretty clearly to say being saved means no longer sinning.
“If you were to go through the whole Bible, you would see that Everyone sins, and will always sin.”
I’m confident that you can develop a strong hermeneutic, which might be even more convincing that Roy Masters’. But he has his hermeneutic that teaches once you are saved you no longer sin. That’s one reason why I don’t take, “we need to read the Bible alone and see that it teaches X.” It’s always more than that. It’s always the Bible plus hermeneutic. As I noted above all points of Calvinism are disputed on “the Bible alone” grounds.
Re Peter, Masters might argue that he wasn’t saved at that point in his life. I don’t know how he would respond to David; but since David is an OT character, a different set of rules may apply.
Report comment to moderator
According to what you just said, you must add something to the Bible to understand it. Did I understand that correctly?
Report comment to moderator
NO, not necessarily. It’s theory on how to interpet the Bible. Unless you consider that “adding” to the Bible. But those theories are not only necessary, but lead to contradictory results. Hence you have party A saying the infallible Bible teaches X and party B saying, no the infallible Bible doesn’t teach X, but Y. If it were just the Bible alone, this wouldn’t happen. It’s the Bible plus theoretical interpretation.
OR — again using Calvinism as an example. The Calvinist will say the 5 points are in the Bible. What will the Arminian or non-Calvinism who rejects the Bible teaches such things as “election” or “total depravity” respond? That the Cavlinist “added” to the Bible?
Report comment to moderator
I cannot continue this right now. I have other things to do, but more on this later tonight.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks. Anyone else is free to step in though and continue where you left off.
Report comment to moderator
Why does it matter what Calvin said? He was just a man and not Jesus Christ. Do you really think you’ll get away with walking up to God and using the “but Calvin, Luther or whoever, said so defense?
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
A lot of folks here would agree that theologians like Calvin, Luther or whomever are necessary for helping you understand the Bible. If not, then why are ministers even necessary?
Re defense and God, I’m not at all convinced that God, if one exists, even cares about what I’ve done such that I need to defend myself; though I do believe in cosmic justice.
Report comment to moderator
#32, “Because he might be right. And that’s something that should concern you.”
That was not an answer to my question, Jon. I had already dealt with my view of whether your version of what Masters was saying was right and I gave solid biblical citations to back up my view. So that possibility did concern me and I showed my concern already. Please pay attention.
But it is still strange for you to spend so much time putting your spin on what another man allegedly thinks and continuing to use his name for points you seem to want to say. It is convaluted and unpersuasive and I just wanted to know why you were not able to transition to speaking for yourself at some point. But you did not answer my sincere question.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe asked, “Would you rather I come here arguing the secular-atheistic perspective that most philosophers have ‘discovered’?”
Sure, argue whatever you like. But at some point, please do so in your own name and not in the name of another who is not even here to participate.
Report comment to moderator
#32, Jon Rowe wrote; “Masters would note if you “understood” what the Bible really meant (more than just words on a page) you would NEVER assert those passages have anything to do with anger as an emotion, because that kind of anger is a sin and Jesus did not sin.”
I have never read a sentence more pregnant with logical fallacies.
1. Jon Rowe may not even be correct about what he thinks Masters would allegedly note in response to me.
2. The entire sentence falls if the presumption behind the “if” statement is wrong, which I think it is.
3. The presumption of what I would assert if I presumably understood the Bible differently or like Masters allegedly understands it, is a presumption that cannot be projected upon me.
4. The presumption that anger as an emotion is a sin is an unproven assumption and it is used here as a straw argument for what I would allegedly assert.
That was fun.
Report comment to moderator
#39, “The Bible doesn’t say Jesus used anger in the temple to combat sinful behavior. It just says that he drove the money lenders out.”
Go back and read the passages, and don’t forget to include John, chapter two. They speak for themselves.
Jesus overturned the tables and the benches… He pointed out that God’s house was being made into a den of robbers. He used a whip of cords to drive them out. He said, “How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market?” And his own disciples interpreted Jesus’ actions as revealing his “zeal,” using a very emotional term for it in Greek.
See #13, for further refutations of Jon Rowe’s presumptions about what Roy Masters might have thought about this.
Report comment to moderator
Jon #39
YOU WRITE: “The Bible doesn’t say Jesus used anger in the temple to combat sinful behavior. It just says that he drove the money lenders out.”
You should check out the passage of Scripture accurately John – “he had made a whip of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple” the whip of small cords wasn’t made to dust the floor of the temple it was to drive those who were using the Temple for the wrong reasons OUT – and out they went – Christ with whip in hand – it couldn’t be clearer.
It’s good to study the Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
I am back if you desire to continue what we were talking about earlier.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
If you were to look at the original Greek text, you would find that there is no mention of anger in that passage. It merely states that he went and commanded the moneychangers to leave. That is literally what the original Greek text says.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
If you were to look at the original Greek text, you would find that there is not mention that Jesus was angry. It merely states that he went and commanded the moneychangers to leave. That is what the Greek says.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry about posting the same thing twice there. My Internet had a glitch.
Report comment to moderator
67 – dfree706 03.28.09 AT 6:06 PM
YOU WRITE: « * » “Victoria, If you were to look at the original Greek text, you would find that there is no mention of anger in that passage. It merely states that he went and commanded the moneychangers to leave. That is literally what the original Greek text says.”
Christ did much more than merely command them to leave.
The Greek points to a whip, a Roman lash as the passage says “scurge” – Christ wasn’t happy, when HE made the whip/scourge, he litterally drove them out with the whip/roman lash which is was used by the Roman’s as a public punishment – it’s very clear. There is righteous anger and it’s evident in this passage of Scripture.
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; John 2:15
I’m very sure Christ wasn’t smiling as he poured out the money or overthrew the tables – righteous anger at what they had done in the Temple is obvious.
scourge – whip definition Strong’s Greek dictionary
phragellion – frag-el’-le-on
neuter of a derivative from the base of fragellow – phragelloo a whip, i.e. Roman lash as a public punishment:–scourge.
Report comment to moderator
Right, BUT it also says that he did it out of jealousy. That is later in, I believe, verse 16. I am not saying that it is wrong to have righteous anger, I am merely pointing out the facts.
Report comment to moderator
63,
I’m off to the gym so more later. But I stand by my assertion (learned from Roy Masters) that the Bible doesn’t say Jesus got angry just that he drove the $$ changers out. I also gave one of Masters’ examples on how you can be very stern and effective with people without getting angry. Masters’ son David noted if he found a man raping his wife he could pull his gun out and righteously execute the man in defense of his wife without getting angry.
Report comment to moderator
Point taken from that passage. I was merely pointing out that that passage might not be the best one to use.
Report comment to moderator
Dfree706 – 74
Why not?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 43
YOU WRITE: “If interested, I linked to Masters debating Walter Martin (an “orthodox” source accusing him of being a cult leader)”
Walter Martin passed away June 26, 1989 – Walter Martin was a great teacher, he was loved by many people. My husband and I had the pleasure of meeting him a few years before he passed away.
Report comment to moderator
The English translation does not mention jealousy, but the Greek could be translated that way. That was my point. I have to go, but I can come back later to post more.
Report comment to moderator
dfree706 – 78
YOU WRITE: “The English translation does not mention jealousy, but the Greek could be translated that way. That was my point. I have to go, but I can come back later to post more.”
The point being it isn’t translated that way at all. “Could be” isn’t good enough, it either translates or it doesn’t –
And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. John 2:16
Nothing in the above verse which can be translated in Greek to mean jealousy. Check you post 71 again –
If you want to make a point, post the Scripture – guessing at what a verse might be as you did in 71 and then “could be” in #78 aren’t sufficient to discuss Scripture.
Report comment to moderator
77,
If that’s the case then did you listen to the Martin-Masters debate. I think you would greatly enjoy it, as would many others here.
http://tinyurl.com/5vjzr2
Martin, as usual presents a very good side for historic Christianity and if someone made a printed word text of the debate it would look like he won.
Walter Martin also likes to bully his opponents; I’ve seen him bully many of those whom he regards as a “cults.” But he can’t use that trick on Roy Masters. One reason why Masters has developed a so called “cult following” is because he really does have a certain talent for “interpersonal” interactions and a very charismatic sounding voice (though he has a face for radio; after listening to him and not seeing his face, when I first saw it I was shocked at how unnattractive his faced looked as compared to voice; it should surprise no one that he made his mark in the “radio” age). Listening to the audio alone, I’d give the edge to Masters.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark wrote:
#32, Jon Rowe wrote; “Masters would note if you “understood” what the Bible really meant (more than just words on a page) you would NEVER assert those passages have anything to do with anger as an emotion, because that kind of anger is a sin and Jesus did not sin.”
I have never read a sentence more pregnant with logical fallacies.
I don’t think you will be able to name one.
1. Jon Rowe may not even be correct about what he thinks Masters would allegedly note in response to me.
Or I may be right. I based my response on listening to Masters for many hours and his debate with Walter Martin. That’s how he responds to Walter Martin when Martin makes similar arguments. Did you listen to the Masters-Martin debate? If not, then you aren’t in a position to tell me how Roy Masters would react.
2. The entire sentence falls if the presumption behind the “if” statement is wrong, which I think it is.
No it doesn’t. I was simply relaying Masters’ response that he gives to many people on how to properly understand the Bible as more than just words on a page. If you don’t do his meditation exercise, Masters argues, you won’t be able to “see” what those words really mean. Have you tried his meditation exercise which I linked to?
3. The presumption of what I would assert if I presumably understood the Bible differently or like Masters allegedly understands it, is a presumption that cannot be projected upon me.
Of course it can be. I just did.
4. The presumption that anger as an emotion is a sin is an unproven assumption and it is used here as a straw argument for what I would allegedly assert.
The only way, Masters would argue, to prove anger is a sin is if you have a special mystical understanding of the Bible, which can’t be done simply by reading the words on a page. You have to try his meditation exercise and open your mind to his teachings first. That’s how to “know” these things. It’s a valid claim, not a straw man.
That was fun.
I agree. And I was right that you didn’t name one logical fallacy.
Report comment to moderator
But it is still strange for you to spend so much time putting your spin on what another man allegedly thinks and continuing to use his name for points you seem to want to say. It is convaluted and unpersuasive and I just wanted to know why you were not able to transition to speaking for yourself at some point. But you did not answer my sincere question.
Here is your answer: It’s because I am a student of world religions in particular the history of the Christian religion in its orthodox and unorthodox theologies. In short, I am interested in Roy Masters’ theology just as I am interested in YOUR theologies, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, JWism and so on and so forth.
I also try extremely hard to represent fairly whatever theological position I study. And I think I have proven on these threads that I understand theological orthodoxy/historic Christianity pretty d–m well. Indeed, I try to be so balanced, detached, scholarly and non-personal when I discuss theological dynamics that many folks here, on my own personal blogs and elsewhere think I am an orthodox Trinitarian Christian, when I am not.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 80
YOU WRITE: “If that’s the case then did you listen to the Martin-Masters debate. I think you would greatly enjoy it, as would many others here.”
I wouldn’t spend five minutes listening to Roy Masters, Walter Martin was brilliant – Masters couldn’t keep up with him – That was a long time ago.
Roy Masters has been around for a long time, I don’t know even one person here who pays any attention to what he’s doing or saying.
He believes he can save people by ‘hypnosis’ – He was sentenced to jail for practicing medicine without a license after the AMA brought charges against him.
Masters doesn’t know the Word of God, he claims he is saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, but he doesn’t believe that Jesus is GOD, he actually believes that doctrine is a curse. Another nutty idea –
He’s popular in many parts of the US, but in Southern California no one pays much attention to him, even though his radio broadcasts are here – there are many who start cults, but that doesn’t mean their following is a big deal in So. CA. –
You might be enamored with Masters, however you are the first person I’ve heard mention the guys name in 10 years.
Report comment to moderator
I wouldn’t spend five minutes listening to Roy Masters, Walter Martin was brilliant – Masters couldn’t keep up with him – That was a long time ago.
If that were true then Roy Masters wouldn’t be featuring the debate on his group’s website. It’s not a smart thing to do to feature a debate where you end up looking or sounding bad.
“He believes he can save people by ‘hypnosis’”
Actually no; he believes people are already hypnotized and his meditation exercise and teachings are a way of un-hypnotizing people.
He’s popular in many parts of the US, but in Southern California no one pays much attention to him, even though his radio broadcasts are here – there are many who start cults, but that doesn’t mean their following is a big deal in So. CA.
He’s actually quite influential in various circles. Again, David Kupelian, Jesse Lee Peterson, Bob Just, Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, Joe Franklin, and others aren’t exactly no-bodies. Further his family owned Talk-Radio-Network is hugely successful.
You might be enamored with Masters, however you are the first person I’ve heard mention the guys name in 10 years.
Actually I am not enamored with him or a follower. I think his religious beliefs hold the same right to a fair hearing as yours. AND I personally consider his group to be on the same level as the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Report comment to moderator
Lest anyone think I am a follower of Roy Masters, I am actually better known on the Internet as a critic of his. You can read one of my blogposts criticizing him here. And note the very interesting comments.
http://tinyurl.com/c45ps4
Though, as noted, when I invoke the positions of various people and groups I just want to make sure I represent them fairly. I would do the same for y’all.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – 84
YOU WRITE: “Actually no; he believes people are already hypnotized and his meditation exercise and teachings are a way of un-hypnotizing people.”
LOL, yep that’s him –
YOU WRITE: “He’s actually quite influential in various circles. Again, David Kupelian, Jesse Lee Peterson, Bob Just, Matt Drudge, Michael Savage, Joe Franklin, and others aren’t exactly no-bodies. Further his family owned Talk-Radio-Network is hugely successful.:
That’s supposed to impress me? LOL
Jon, you don’t live here I do – people from other states find lots of cults interesting -
Report comment to moderator
Jon, you don’t live here I do – people from other states find lots of cults interesting
What is it about your state that has anything special or relevant to do with the cults. Roy Masters would say that you’ve been tricked by the devil and, the saddest part about you is that you think you are going to Heaven, but are really going to Hell.
I don’t personally believe that. But I think his religious position as is defensible as yours.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
If I never hear Roy Masters name again, it may be too soon. I can assure you, that no, we don’t need to care what he thinks, because, yes he is wrong. It should concern you that such a wise soul as he, while being able to pinpoint the sins of others with such accuracy, has seemed to overlook his own sin… let me give you a hint… it starts with a P, ends in an e and has rid somewhere in the middle.
Here are some other red flags: Non- trinitarian, may or may not be a cult leader, or a heretic, and last but not least, is quoted quite often by at least one person, who says he is not a “disciple” of his, yet seems to be able to quote him with ease, and while not believing what he says to be true, is willing to post an inordinate amount of comments espousing and defending his postions. Read your bible, Read the Church Fathers, True Philosophy takes akesis and humility.
Report comment to moderator
CL,
Just having some harmless fun, that’s all. But realize I DO do these things:
Read your bible, Read the Church Fathers, True Philosophy….
Report comment to moderator
last but not least, is quoted quite often by at least one person, who says he is not a “disciple” of his, yet seems to be able to quote him with ease, and while not believing what he says to be true, is willing to post an inordinate amount of comments espousing and defending his postions.
This is a talent I have, I guess. I can also do the same thing with various strands of orthodox Christianity and Mormonism.
Some people assumed I was a Cavlinist when I defend Calvin’s position on Romans 13, which is, based on his writings in “Institutes,” that he would have opposed the American Revolution as un-biblical and supported the British Tories.
Check out this thread where I do this and at the very end my Christian interlocutor (who believes in the biblical right to revolt against tyrants — Calvin, I argue did not,) is relieved to find out that I wasn’t a Christian. I can look for the thread (the one I’m thinking of is not on WMB) if anyone is interested. But somehow, I think you are not.
I can also link where I debated (not as a call in guy, but as a guest on an equal footing) Regent University’s Founding Law Dean Herb Titus where a great deal of the time touched upon whether the American Revolution was biblical, at least according to Calvin’s understanding. I sounded like a follower of Calvin there as well.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
- My apologies for the typo. I said, “BUT it also says that he did it out of jealousy. That is later in, I believe, verse 16.” I was wrong. It is in verse 17 which people on this thread were also trying to use as proof that Jesus was angry. The zeal mentioned in verse 17 could be translated jealous zeal or envious zeal. This COULD mean that Jesus did this out of jealousy for his Father’s house being kept holy. It might not mean that, but it could.
“The point being it isn’t translated that way at all. “Could be” isn’t good enough, it either translates or it doesn’t”
– This argument does not hold water. The Greek could be translated that way into English. Just because it isn’t, does not mean that it is not correct to translate it that way. REMEMBER, the Bible way translated into English by humans. If we want to be technical in our understanding of God’s Word, we should be looking at the original language to grasp all the intricacies of the passage. To give an example…In the Greek, there are 4 different words that translators have chosen to use the word “love” for. We read love, but it could be any one of four words.
That is what I was saying.
Report comment to moderator
dfree706 – 68 through 92
YOU WRITE #68: “Victoria, If you were to look at the original Greek text, you would find that there is not mention that Jesus was angry. It merely states that he went and commanded the moneychangers to leave. That is what the Greek says.
dfree706, I proved that what you stated wasn’t correct in post #70 which reads:
AS YOU WROTE:
“It merely states that he went and commanded the moneychangers to leave. That is what the Greek says.”
I proved that this was incorrect, from there you went to another verse as “could be” – you really didn’t know what the next verse was, and NOW THIS POST #92 – this isn’t a good use of my time -
dfree706 if you bother to read our exchange AGAIN you will notice clearly that I have already proven that what you alleged isn’t true. “Could be” doesn’t work, you’re guessing, going from verse to verse –
Have a nice day -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Thank you for your insight. I was not trying to disagree with you. I was merely stating that the verses in that passage point to Jesus clearing the temple of the moneychangers. The whip very well could have be used in a righteous anger, but that was not what I was referring to. The whip is the only indication that I see in the Greek text that could refer to anger.
Thank you for your time in the consideration of this. I’m am sorry if I have offended you, but I was just questioning the validity of your argument based on your logic. I agree that there is such a thing as righteous anger. please refer to post 24 for my opinion.
Thanks
Report comment to moderator
Here are some other verses for the consideration of those who are reading this thread.
Ephesians 4:26 “BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger”
Isaiah 5:25 “On this account the anger of the LORD has burned against His people, And He has stretched out His hand against them and struck them down and the mountains quaked, and their corpses lay like refuse in the middle of the streets for all this His anger is not spent, but His hand is still stretched out.”
Proverbs 22:24-25 “24 Do not associate with a man given to anger; or go with a hot-tempered man, 25 Or you will learn his ways, And find a snare for yourself.”
Colossians 3:8 “But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.”
James 1:19 “This you know, my beloved brethren but everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger”
These should give some insight into the discussion here.
Report comment to moderator
#67, DFREE706 wrote; “If you were to look at the original Greek text, you would find that there is no mention of anger in that passage.”
DFREE706, did you not catch John 2:17 where the word “zelos” is used in relation to Jesus driving out moneychangers in the temple? ‘Zelos’ means, zeal, rage, envy or ardent concern. It’s use in context makes it certain to refer to Jesus’ anger.
Perhaps you also missed that the more specific word for anger (’orge’) is used directly for what Jesus felt in Mark 3:5 when Jesus healed the man with a whithered hand. He also told a parable in which the character (the Master) who played a role likened to that of the Lord, got angry at an unmerciful servant who refused to forgive others (Matthew 18:34). The same with another parable (see Luke 14:21).
Report comment to moderator
#63, Jon Rowe wrote; “But I stand by my assertion.. that the Bible doesn’t say Jesus got angry just that he drove the $$ changers out.”
In the USA, Jon Rowe, you are free to stand by any opinion that has been clearly proven to be dead wrong. You can stand by it all you want.
Report comment to moderator
#81, Jon Rowe wrote; “I don’t think you will be able to name one… And I was right that you didn’t name one logical fallacy.
“
Then you are not paying attention or reading my comments with your mind turned on, Jon Rowe. I pointed out your logical fallacies clearly and specifically. The main one was false presumption. You illogically and arrogantly presumed to aver (against my own will and in contradiction to my own stated points) that you know what I would have to assert if I presumably understood the Bible is some way that you seem to understand it or differently from the way I understand it.
Jon Rowe, one of your logical fallacies is that you write as if you were me or as if you can think for me. You aren’t and you can’t. Please don’t be so illogical.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
The Bible doesn’t say Jesus felt anger as an emotion when he droved the money changers out. You didn’t prove it. I think Roy Masters scores a valid point here.
On the other hand, I do note Mark 3:5 uses the term “anger,” but Roy Masters would insist that’s not what YOU think it means. It’s not that feeling that YOU get when YOU get angry or mad or “upset” as an emotion.
And there was NO false presumption on my part. Roy Masters would note if YOU had the proper “understanding” (something you can only have by practicing his meditation exercise) you would never assert that Jesus got angry in an emotional sense, because that is a sin and Jesus didn’t sin.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
As to your comments about the zeal mentioned in John 2:17, please refer to post 92 to see my point on that.
As to your other comments, I am not saying that Jesus never got angry, I am just saying that the passage of Him driving out the moneychangers may not be the best one to use as proof of that. If you refer to post 95, I have listed several other passages that show that anger might not be sin, depending on the context. If you read those verses and are confused as to how they relate, I will be glad to explain further, but I think that they should be fairly self-explanatory.
Report comment to moderator
Roy boy, doesn’t have a clue what the Bible says -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I agree whole-heartedly!!
Report comment to moderator
#99, Jon Rowe,
The passages to which we have referred all speak quite clearly for themselves. It is my impression that you have not considered them carefully or objectively. What you are pretending they say, is often the opposite of their clear meaning as I read them. But let everyone simply read those passages for themselves and think for themselves. Also, your attempts to represent Roy Masters leaves the impression that he never even read those passages with understanding in the first place.
Smoke and mirrors work with some, but not with people who read and think for themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Joel,
While we could dicker over whether anger is a sin or Mark 3:5 where modern translations actually use the term “anger” (which might not refer to what you THINK it does), the passages relating to Jesus and the money changers most certainly do NOT “speak” that Jesus “felt” anger when he drove them out and you don’t need to follow Roy Masters’ teachings to conclude this.
Indeed orthodox evangelical dfree706 who considers Roy Masters biblically “clueless” concludes this.
Report comment to moderator
I have a post on Anger in the Workplace.
Check it out here:
http://redletterbelievers.blogspot.com/2009/03/anger-in-workplace-is-it-ever.html
Report comment to moderator
Dfree706 – 102
Report comment to moderator
are useless arguements sin?
Report comment to moderator
guess you’ll have to look into that one day
Report comment to moderator
Where did that come from? I have found this thread very inspirational!
Report comment to moderator
Also, Reg,
This cannot be considered a useless argument because it is a topic covered in the Bible.(see post 95 for some verses in this topic) That make it useful inherently!
Report comment to moderator
Dfree706 – so have many others
Report comment to moderator
Dfree706
My post 111 was in response to #109 – I hadn’t noticed your post #110 sorry for the confusion -
Report comment to moderator
No confusion! Where did Reg go?
Report comment to moderator
“Is anger a sin?”
Not necessarily, but what you do with it may well be.
Is calm tolerance a sin?
Not necessarily, but it might be if you are tolerating an egregious evil that you could have prevented or stopped had you followed a righteous anger inspired by the Holy Spirit and stood up against that evil with appropriate courage. No loving father could ever abstain from righteous anger when his innocent children are being molested, corrupted or destroyed on his watch. The sin in such cases would be passive or calm tolerance.
Report comment to moderator
Not necessarily, but it might be if you are tolerating an egregious evil that you could have prevented or stopped had you followed a righteous anger inspired by the Holy Spirit and stood up against that evil with appropriate courage. No loving father could ever abstain from righteous anger when his innocent children are being molested, corrupted or destroyed on his watch. The sin in such cases would be passive or calm tolerance.
Again, Roy Masters would note — and it’s not just Masters but I’ve also heard Deepack Chopra and some others make the same point — you don’t need to get angry as an emotion to motivate you to do the right thing. See David Masters hypothetical of being able to pull his gun out and execute the man he catches raping his wife without feeling anger.
I’m not saying I am at that point yet; but I do get their point that you don’t need to get angry to give someone knuckle sandwich, say the right thing, do the right thing, even at the point of taking someone’s life in defense of yourself or others.
In many way contrary to motivating you to do what’s right, anger gets in the way, and makes it so you don’t respond properly or proportionately and has ill health effects.
Report comment to moderator
If a man doesn’t get angry while witnessing his wife being raped, there is something very wrong with that man.
Report comment to moderator
Karen,
Why? What if the person does the right thing in defending his wife and even so far as pulling out a gun and shooting the perp. dead?
Again, I’m not saying Roy Masters or Deepack Chopra are right. And I’m certainly not claiming to be at that point. But they would note you are or such a person is living in that emotionally caught up world where your emotions rule you and you don’t rule them. Roy Masters then connects that with the biblical fallen world of original sin. Deepack Chopra doesn’t. But they both argue peace of mind (Masters argues salvation!) comes from living in a “still” world detached from fight or flight emotions. Not all emotions or even all negative emotions (they would argue there is a peaceful, non-stressful way to feel negative emotions, to cry), but all fight or flight emotions of anger, rage, resentment, fear, anxiety, stress, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline (37) -
You ask why fear is always a sin.
Does God have a perfect plan? Is everything going according to plan? Got a problem with it?
I’m pretty sure that “be not afraid” is Jesus most frequent commandment. Whenever he comes upon the apostles, it’s his greeting. You’ll never find him saying “hail friends well met” in scripture.
Consider some of his parting words to the apostles just before his crucifiction. He knows that all but one of the apostles are going to die a martyr’s death, and he’s still saying “don’t be afraid”.
Fear is a very human failing, and I’m sure you won’t get to Heaven and hear God say “you were doing pretty good, but you freaked out in that car crash, so I can’t let you in”, but you can make the following argument, even to an atheist:
Looking at the stars, it’s hard to argue that it’s all about you.
If it’s not all about you, it’s hard to argue that a little bit of it is about you.
So it’s hard to argue that it’s about you.
Why do you fret when it’s probably not even about you?
But such is not our way. We sit behind our eyeballs and mouths, touching and feeling only with our own skin, feeling pain only when we ourselves are injured, and our whole perspective makes us the center. And this is what we must lose to die to Christ.
Anger can be a symptom of our “me” perspective, and when it is, it’s a sin too.
Report comment to moderator
Herb,
I would agree that fretting is a sin. But I do not consider fear the same as fretting.
People use fear to refer to a range of feelings and attitudes, including worry and cowardice. But it also refers to the biological response to imminent danger, which is a warning signal to tell the person to take action to reduce or eliminate the danger. That is the kind of fear that I do not consider sinful; rather I consider it part of the way God made us.
If I am in a situation where I encounter danger and I feel fear, there are different ways I can respond. If I can do something to remove or reduce the danger (swerving to avoid the oncoming car), fear has accomplished its purpose and I do not consider that an instance of sin. If I can’t do anything, but continue worrying about it because I am not trusting God, that is a different matter, and that would be sin. If I can do something but do not because of fear, that is cowardice, and not trusting God, and that is sin.
Report comment to moderator
Jon – I believe God gave us our various emotions to help us, & yes, we need to deal with each emotion in the proper way. I agree that we need to learn to master our emotions as much as possible, but I don’t think initial feeling of the emotions is necessarily wrong.
If a man witnessed his wife & children being slaughtered in front of him, would it be wrong to feel great grief & sorrow? Or does Masters consider that a different kind of emotion from anger?
Speaking of Masters, he would be on the radio while I drove home from work, 23+ years ago. What I remember is that he seemed very anti-woman, as if women were evil & much more sinful & devious than men.
Report comment to moderator
If a man witnessed his wife & children being slaughtered in front of him, would it be wrong to feel great grief & sorrow? Or does Masters consider that a different kind of emotion from anger?
I think I remember hearing him address this question (what if his wife died?) he said he would feel sad, might cry, but would not have any kind of “stress” feelings, and I think he considers grief a form of anxiety. He wouldn’t get depressed either. In short it wouldn’t break his inner peace.
You are right about his seemingly anti-woman stance. But he, again, goes to the Bible for authority. It was, after all, Eve who tempted Adam. And he sees women as having an “Eve” tendency.
On a personal note, I find his teachings on stress to be somewhat valuable and reject his biblical theology; but that’s mainly because I reject conservative biblical theology to beging with. His does seem to have a fair, albeit novel and creative, “literal” reading of the Bible.
My whole point of the exercise here is if we are “searching” for truth, his theories deserve as much of a fair hearing as those of orthodox evangelical Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Anger, the emotion, is not necessarily a sin. What we do with it might be. Just keep the Holy Spirit close and listen carefully as you go and He’ll help you discern between sinful anger and righteous anger.
#115, Deepack Chopra may actually have less credibility than the ’straw’ Roy Masters that Jon Rowe keeps propping up for obfuscation purposes. Imagine that!
Report comment to moderator
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.”
Psalm 111:10.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
Trying to “poison the well” by casing off what Dr. Chopra thinks because you don’t like the source?
The point is, whatever you think of their overall philosophies and theologies (and they have disagreements between them; I don’t know if Chopra knows of Masters but I do know Masters likes *some* of Chopra’s teachings) they may be right on this essential point. Quoting myself:
[Y]ou don’t need to get angry as an emotion to motivate you to do the right thing….[Y]ou don’t need to get angry to give someone knuckle sandwich, say the right thing, do the right thing, even at the point of taking someone’s life in defense of yourself or others.
Report comment to moderator
I just wanted to drop in and say that I for one admire Jon Rowe’s ability to argue in a relatively neutral manner for positions that he himself does not hold. I don’t see why people are upset about it.
(Disclaimer: I got bored and didn’t read all the posts in the thread: just maybe 30 of them. Hopefully my comment’s still relevant.)
Strangely, of the posts I did read, no one would bother to attempt to refute Mr. Masters’s interpretation of the verses Jon Rowe posted. I just saw a bunch of people stating that they wouldn’t give Masters an ear or asserting the same points everyone else was making without addressing Masters’s arguments. Great way to win a debate, guys.
Hopefully that situation’s been remedied by now. I sheepishly admit that I haven’t read many of the recent posts.
As for my input before I head off to bed (it’s almost 2 here, so I really shouldn’t even be online right now):
1. I do not believe that anger is a sin per se. However, like sexual desire, it can frequently and naturally (thanks to The Fall) result in sin. The fruit of the Spirit is self-control, not lack of emotion.
2. I think Masters is mistaken. He appears to be fixating on certain passages to the exclusion of others, a dangerous practice that is quite easy to fall into. If I come back tomorrow, I’ll scan through and try to see if the question of “why he’s wrong” about those verses has been satisfactorily addressed, and perhaps I’ll take a crack at it.
3. We need to be very, very careful when we build a philosophy or even a single practice or teaching based upon the meanings of specific words. This is especially dangerous if we’re seeing a word in a Bible translated in, say, 1970 and going off based on the definiton of that word from an 1828 English dictionary. If we’re going to fixate on specific words or phrasings at all, we should consult at minimum a concordance that will tell us the most likely meaning of the Greek/Hebrew word for that verse. If possible, we should also consult a linguist. This would avoid statements like, “The point being it isn’t translated that way at all. “Could be” isn’t good enough, it either translates or it doesn’t -”. If you can’t see what’s wrong with that statement, please study a foreign language. If you already know one (say, Spanish), study another one from the opposite side of the planet (say, Japanese). It will give you a feel for how languages and translation actually work.
Sorry for the rant. One of my interests is linguistics.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe- Everthing can’t be right or true.
It seems that you want to give validity to all ideas, as you say,
“they deserve a fair hearing.”
Why would they deserve a fair hearing?
Why is it necessary to be fair with other beliefs that contradict mine if I believe they are wrong?
Is there any religion that you believe is wrong?
The guy with the gun and the rapist was pure theory. If he actually had that experience and say that was how he handled it, fine.
To be able to predict that this is how you would react in a given situation, especially one of violence to a loved one, is indeed curious, as well as incredible.
Report comment to moderator
Cuthalion,
Please see post 24 for one of the refutations on the post of Roy Masters, or even Jon Rowe if that is what he believes.
Also, if you begin reading in post 39, Jon Rowe and I had quite a discussion on the beliefs of Roy Masters. It is fairly lengthy, and I hope it meets your standards of a good refutation.
Please feel free to leave comments on our discussion.
P.S. I appreciate your backing me up on the translation thing. That comment directed at me, did not make any sense to me, and I am glad you see that as well.
Report comment to moderator
Jon (still here?) – I have to kinda laugh at Masters pointing the finger at Eve.
So I wonder…Considering that it took Satan to tempt Eve, but Adam was tempted by a mere woman, does Masters believe men to be weak-willed wimps?
The Bible itself contradicts Masters – About anger, there is the verse that says “be angry but do not sin” (as I think has been mentioned). And as for blaming Eve, the Bible (I’m specifically thinking of Romans) lays the blame at Adam’s feet.
Report comment to moderator
I’m still here but too busy at the time to respond to everything (plus I think I’ve said enough). Though I want to thank everyone for the dialog. Re “be angry…” I’m sure Masters would say that doesn’t refer to what we think of as “anger” as an emotion, but something else, that it’s a translation/language issue.
Re Eve, he blames men too. He says men fall either into the trap of being weak willed wimps OR the opposite, angry mean tyrants with their wives. He considers women to be the ones who, in present reality, most often tempt men into sin and do the work of the devil. He terms this the “Adam and Eve Syndrome.”
His teachings on women certainly don’t mass modern PC test, but then again neither does orthodox Christianity which holds men head of households. Masters has very interesting teachings on sex as well. He’s been married to his wife for about 60 years and has 5 kids with her. Yet, he said he stopped having sex with her when they were in their mid-40s and he sees that as an accomplishment.
Report comment to moderator
Here is one of Roy Masters’ clips on women. Note, I personally find this to be sexist and it contradicts my more secular libertine worldview. But I don’t see how this contradicts either what the Bible says or in this specific regard conservative Christianity. Biblical Christianity does NOT teach equality within the household but that women are to submit to their husbands and husbands to God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAwF02rbVJ8
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
#125, “[Y]ou don’t need to get angry as an emotion to motivate you to do the right thing….”
But if you do get angry and still do the right thing, it is no sin.
“[Y]ou don’t need to get angry to give someone knuckle sandwich, say the right thing, do the right thing, even at the point of taking someone’s life in defense of yourself or others.”
But if you do get angry and still do the right thing, it is still no sin.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe said…Biblical Christianity does NOT teach equality within the household but that women are to submit to their husbands and husbands to God.
Submission is not an equality issue.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!