Is anger evil/sinful?

[simonremi]

Anger is very important to us in African spirituality. Not emphasized over other emotions, but not demonized or downplayed. For example, we see anger in many of the Pataki, such as Shango and his anger as a force to bring change. But anything at an extreme or out of balancing is going to be harmful. You also have to have the disciple and control to direct anger into a positive direction. :beach:

 

[thedope]

Why do you think it is not justifiable? I think it is reasonable to become angry when faced with a situation that could call for it. A total meltdown isn't needed, as anger should always be controlled. Anger is an emotion like any other. The result of acting upon it is sometimes undesirable.

The reason that the fight or flight response is unresolved is because the threat if there is one has been misidentified. Anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so.

I have seen wild animals that I was sure had come to anger, but it was only in a position of dire personal emergency, they were cornered, being attacked and could not escape.
In that instance the most extreme response is required as a last ditch effort.

The peaceful equivalent to fight or flight is yes or no. The yes or no response, is interrupted by all sort of contravening considerations, i.e., what will they say if I say yes, or what will they say if I say no. It is personal unresolved conflict that causes irritation, not any actions that may be taking place around you. Our natural impulse is to do what we want when we want but our understanding of the world, what is required or what should be avoided, is insufficient to allay doubt. If you are truly in a position of peril then there will be no questions about any level of response.

A mind without anxiety is wholly kind.

 

[Boethiah]

The reason that the fight or flight response is unresolved is because the threat if there is one has been misidentified. Anxiety is caused by the misapprehension of what is so.

Anxiety is an emotional response to a stressor. There are times when the response to the stressor is valid. Anger or anxiety could result. Misapprehension is not always the reason for anxiety. For example, if I was attacked by someone who wanted to beat me, my fight-or-flight senses would kick in. Anxiety from the situation would cause me to either fight back or run. This would be an appropriate time for anxiety, and perhaps anger (in my view, anyway).

I have seen wild animals that I was sure had come to anger, but it was only in a position of dire personal emergency, they were cornered, being attacked and could not escape.
In that instance the most extreme response is required as a last ditch effort.

If anger comes from anxiety, and anxiety is a natural occurrence that is not inherently wrong, it could follow that anger is also not inherently wrong. It depends on the situation.

The peaceful equivalent to fight or flight is yes or no. The yes or no response, is interrupted by all sort of contravening considerations, i.e., what will they say if I say yes, or what will they say if I say no. It is personal unresolved conflict that causes irritation, not any actions that may be taking place around you. Our natural impulse is to do what we want when we want but our understanding of the world, what is required or what should be avoided, is insufficient to allay doubt. If you are truly in a position of peril then there will be no questions about any level of response.

So, are you saying that in a non-violent situation, anger is not necessary, but in a violent situation anger is justifiable?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

In Abrahamic religions, anger is a sin, not evil.

People commonly get mixed up with the terms.
Sin means to 'miss the point'.

Sin is what ultimately leads on evil if it is not balanced with good.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Can anger ever be a force for good?

When isn't it a force for good?

Is it bad as a rule, but the lesser of two evils in certain circumstances?

I'd just be interested to hear perspectives on this from a variety of different belief systems. It's a matter quite close to my heart, as it's something I find myself struggling with.

Anger is neither evil nor good. Anger is just an emotion. How the anger is manifested is good or evil depending on the situation.
For example, say one of my friends died in a fire due to poor building regulations. I could be angry with the builders for this reason. Suppose I wished to express my anger by killing off all the people who built the building. That is an evil manifestation of my anger.
However, if I channel my anger such that I put my life's effort in changing building codes and regulations for the better such that no further instances such as the one which took my friend's life occur, then I have done good by using my anger.

 

[Ungrateful]

Anger is not required to attempt to correct percieved injustice, it can be a powerful motivator, and some won't bother without it, but it isn't required. Having it motivate thought often leads to poor answers. Any display of it in trying to achieve the desired outcomes is very often counterproductive too.

Better solutions come with a calm mind.

 

[Ungrateful]

In Abrahamic religions, anger is a sin, not evil.

People commonly get mixed up with the terms.
Sin means to 'miss the point'.

Sin is what ultimately leads on evil if it is not balanced with good.

I've learnt something today, I'd never heard sin described in that way.

 

[Nisou Kitsune]

This is what I have to say about anger. From The Charge of the God

Let my worship be in the body that sings,
for behold all acts of willing sacrifice are my rituals.
Let there be desire and fear,
anger and weakness, joy and peace,
awe and longing within you.
For these too are part of the mysteries
found within yourself,
within me all beginnings have endings,
and all endings have beginnings.

 

[Sunstone]

First off, the concept of sin provides only a weak basis for opposing anything, let alone anger, for in practice, comparably few people really care whether or not something offends their deities.

Perhaps a better basis for opposing something is according to its effect on our well-being and happiness. And, in the case of anger, it can be seen that anger does not, by itself, necessarily threaten our well-being or happiness, and is even, at times, conducive to our well-being and happiness.

But it is nevertheless arguable that what does consistently threaten our well-being and happiness is dragging out anger, nursing it, cultivating it, and making it endure longer than it naturally would endure.

 

[thedope]

So, are you saying that in a non-violent situation, anger is not necessary, but in a violent situation anger is justifiable?

No, I was saying that I have not seen anger from an animal, except when all it's other responses had been exhausted. I have seen animals be violent in the normal course of their lives. That necessary predation does not possess the emotional spin of anger for either party. What I am saying is, that anxiety is a neurotic application. I find interesting that many consider anger to be a competent response to anything.

I am also saying that if we have correctly identified the nature of the worldly circumstance before us, anxiety does not arise.

 

[PhAA]

Anger is an emotion, which means that it's just normal. If you tell me that you never exprienced anger before, then you're a hypocrite. It's the action that you take when you're angry that could be morally wrong. Abrahamic gods experienced anger and used it to kill people, not only sinners, but also the innocent. I don't see that as morally right.

 

[Sweetvoice]

In Buddhism, anger is seen as an emotion brought on by the senses and sense-objects. It becomes "bad" only when we act upon it, which has karmic consequences. Because the goal of buddhism is to attain a state of enlightenment, anger still remaining or felt as such will never lead to that state.

 

[thedope]

Anger is an emotion, which means that it's just normal. If you tell me that you never exprienced anger before, then you're a hypocrite. It's the action that you take when you're angry that could be morally wrong. Abrahamic gods experienced anger and used it to kill people, not only sinners, but also the innocent. I don't see that as morally right.

Emotions are normal. You may also have emotions that are based on false information. The emotion is real enough but it is based on some observation that was not correct. Emotions are not good indicators of truth. They aren't going to tell you what is genuinely inside of you, they can only tell you how you yourself have regarded the world.

 

[PhAA]

Emotions are normal. You may also have emotions that are based on false information. The emotion is real enough but it is based on some observation that was not correct. Emotions are not good indicators of truth. They aren't going to tell you what is genuinely inside of you, they can only tell you how you yourself have regarded the world.

Yeah, I know!:yes: Like what they say, don't make decisions when you're angry, and don't make promises when you're happy.

 

[Foxfire]

Anger, simply isn't usefull.

Anger punishes the person who is angry and seldom really affects the ones it is pointed at.

The stress of anger shortens ones life span and causes health problems, in the end the only one effectively punished by anger is the one who is angry.

My children look at me funny when I ask them why they would make themselves miserable, unhappy and angry because someone else did something wrong, logically speaking it really doesn't make any sense. Best to forgive and forget, you will be happier, live longer and be much less judgemental.

So many people see the commandments and biblical teachings as something you should do to make things better for others, actually these things are not for others benefit, they are for our own direct benefit, which will then in turn benefit all those around us.

Well said, MountainGaurdian. I would also add that anger in itself should be used as a useful warning sign that all is not right in a person's world. It can be used to explore what the deeper meaning is of this outburst. Perhaps it does have one good use and that is to point us in the right direction for personal growth.

 

[Morpheus]

Cannot see any useful purpose being served by anger. Yes, you can use anger as a tool to get things done, but there is always a far more powerful and elegant tool to achieve the same result. Anger is relatively weak requires the expenditure of much energy. It also often leaves a trail of damage behind it!

 

[Nisou Kitsune]

Cannot see any useful purpose being served by anger. Yes, you can use anger as a tool to get things done, but there is always a far more powerful and elegant tool to achieve the same result. Anger is relatively weak requires the expenditure of much energy. It also often leaves a trail of damage behind it!

I dont think anger is weak, esp when we hear that a husband has murdered his wife and her lover. Damage? Oh yes. There are plenty of people in jail because they went on an anger induced rampage. :yes:

 

[Morpheus]

I dont think anger is weak, esp when we hear that a husband has murdered his wife and her lover. Damage? Oh yes. There are plenty of people in jail because they went on an anger induced rampage. :yes:

I mean weak from an energy perspective. Destruction is weak, violence is weak. When compared to the power of love, gratitude, selflessness. These may appear on the surface to be weak but that is superfiscal. Look at what Ghandi acheived through the apparent weakness of passivity. Look at what Mother Theresa achieved through her apparent weakness and frailty. Look what Nelson Mandela achieved through embracing his captors and and showing them forgiveness. These apparent weaknesses are in fact true power.
Think about it... someone wrongs you - you can get angry or you can forgive them. Which has more power? Think about how you would feel after getting angry, after forgiving. Forgiveness wins every time.

 

[Nisou Kitsune]

I mean weak from an energy perspective. Destruction is weak, violence is weak. When compared to the power of love, gratitude, selflessness. These may appear on the surface to be weak but that is superfiscal. Look at what Ghandi acheived through the apparent weakness of passivity. Look at what Mother Theresa achieved through her apparent weakness and frailty. Look what Nelson Mandela achieved through embracing his captors and and showing them forgiveness. These apparent weaknesses are in fact true power.
Think about it... someone wrongs you - you can get angry or you can forgive them. Which has more power? Think about how you would feel after getting angry, after forgiving. Forgiveness wins every time.

Honestly, it depends on what they did to me. If they stole from me, then I would punish them, and then forgive. If they raped me, or one of my family members or friends, they will die a violent death, plain and simple.

As someone who is energy sensitive, I can tell you that raw emotion is very powerful, be it love or anger. However, I can understand the feelings after each emotion. All emotions are powerful, and each gives a different feeling once you go back to "normal". Personally, I dont get mad very easily, which is why I can say that if I do happen to get mad, there will be severe consequences.

 

[PhAA]

Anger is not bad (since I can't use the word sin.lol) If one claims that he doesn't experience anger, he's a hypocrite. And yes, it can cause more damage to you. But you can control it. It's primal, so if you act out your anger for your survival, then it is not bad. But if your purpose is just to hurt somebody, the it is bad.