I don't think this is about judgement, about our attempt to make calls that that only God is qualified to make. The eternal loss that is incurred is real, and to some degree this loss is plain to us. The loss isn't only subjective, being projected on another.

 

Maybe you're drawing out a nuance between anger and indignation. I think the word anger may carry meaning for you that it may not carry for me. I just don't see what's so wrong about being angry sometimes. Honestly, I DO think God is angry at times, and I think that's just another facet of his beauty. When God is angry, it's not ugly. I wonder if linguistically for you anger is always tied to ugly. If so, yeah, I see why you'd object that God is ever angry at us. I too would radically affirm that he's never ugly toward us!

Post Edited (Corey) : 1/1/2007 7:56:25 AM (GMT-6)

 

Creation is RELATIVELY MEANINGLESS to the SELF-EXISTENT God, right??

One more thing on Equanimity...from something else I posted.

From point Four, we experience Equanimity. Once we open to the riches of the heart and to the inexhaustible wonder of living in truth, we are filled from moment to moment with a kaleidoscope of powerful impressions, sensations, and feelings. Equanimity gives us the capacity to contain all of these ever-changing qualities without being swept into emotional reactions about them. Because the nature of spirit is ever changing, our experience of ourselves and of life is also constantly changing. Equanimity allows the identity of the Essential self to participate in the cornucopia of experiences and inner qualities without clinging to or fearing any of them, and without regretting their passing. In this way, the sense of oneself continually deepens so that powerful experiences are fully felt but do not overwhelm the Essential identity. We are able to feel both the heights of ecstasy and the full intensity of suffering without becoming lost in either.


In other words, I see the free God having PERFECT EQUANIMITY...where he FULLY RECOGNIZES LOSS...but is not made ANGRY about things.


************************

Corey:
Maybe you're drawing out a nuance between anger and indignation. I think the word anger may carry meaning for you that it may not carry for me. I just don't see what's so wrong about being angry sometimes. Honestly, I DO think God is angry at times, and I think that's just another facet of his beauty. When God is angry, it's not ugly. I wonder if linguistically for you anger is always tied to ugly. If so, yeah, I see why you'd object that God is ever angry at us. I too would radically affirm that he's never ugly toward us!

Ok. Please help define what anger means to you. Then help me understand how a completely FREE, UNCONDITIONALLY LOVING, OMNISCIENT (meaning that this being understands ALL FACTORS of a given situation) being could be angry at any of it's creations.

Please help me see what you are seeing.

 

 

 

Jeff: Yo, D! Happy New Year!!!

 

Last time we dialogued on this question, you said that God is not angry, though He does experience wrath. Is that still you're position? If so, I think it will be pertinent to Corey. If not, how have you changed in that regard?

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is Anger?

The Nature of Anger

Anger is "an emotional state that varies in intensity from mild irritation to intense fury and rage," according to Charles Spielberger, PhD, a psychologist who specializes in the study of anger. Like other emotions, it is accompanied by physiological and biological changes; when you get angry, your heart rate and blood pressure go up, as do the levels of your energy hormones, adrenaline, and noradrenaline.

Anger can be caused by both external and internal events. You could be angry at a specific person (Such as a coworker or supervisor) or event (a traffic jam, a canceled flight), or your anger could be caused by worrying or brooding about your personal problems. Memories of traumatic or enraging events can also trigger angry feelings.

Expressing Anger

The instinctive, natural way to express anger is to respond aggressively. Anger is a natural, adaptive response to threats; it inspires powerful, often aggressive, feelings and behaviors, which allow us to fight and to defend ourselves when we are attacked. A certain amount of anger, therefore, is necessary to our survival.

On the other hand, we can't physically lash out at every person or object that irritates or annoys us; laws, social norms, and common sense place limits on how far our anger can take us.

People use a variety of both conscious and unconscious processes to deal with their angry feelings. The three main approaches are expressing, suppressing, and calming. Expressing your angry feelings in an assertive—not aggressive—manner is the healthiest way to express anger. To do this, you have to learn how to make clear what your needs are, and how to get them met, without hurting others. Being assertive doesn't mean being pushy or demanding; it means being respectful of yourself and others.

Anger can be suppressed, and then converted or redirected. This happens when you hold in your anger, stop thinking about it, and focus on something positive. The aim is to inhibit or suppress your anger and convert it into more constructive behavior. The danger in this type of response is that if it isn't allowed outward expression, your anger can turn inward—on yourself. Anger turned inward may cause hypertension, high blood pressure, or depression.

Unexpressed anger can create other problems. It can lead to pathological expressions of anger, such as passive-aggressive behavior (getting back at people indirectly, without telling them why, rather than confronting them head-on) or a personality that seems perpetually cynical and hostile. People who are constantly putting others down, criticizing everything, and making cynical comments haven't learned how to constructively express their anger. Not surprisingly, they aren't likely to have many successful relationships.

Finally, you can calm down inside. This means not just controlling your outward behavior, but also controlling your internal responses, taking steps to lower your heart rate, calm yourself down, and let the feelings subside.

As Dr. Spielberger notes, "when none of these three techniques work, that's when someone—or something—is going to get hurt."

----------------------------------------

Now, going by this...can anyone tell me why I "should" be angry with my children for any reason?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jeff: I tend not to think that's all anger is. Regardless, mere feelings that are non-volitional can not be wrong, IMO. But granted, we do change the frequency of emotional occurrences by our disciplined change of focus. So presumably we could completely outgrow the sheer experience of some. But that would not prove they had no legitimate function in our natural, soulish state.

 

Exousia: Jeff:
I think humans DO tend to have a unique negative emotion associated with wrong done when they think people "know better."

How is this not emerging from "judgement"...pure and simple?

 

Jeff: Actually, D., I'm trying NOT to judge people for merely experiencing a non-volitional feeling. Sure, we ought to encourage people to focus their attention on good that can be done. This will entail disciplining ourselves to manage anger, etc. But it is impossible, IMO, to literally cease experiencing anger overnight. Nor does God require it of us, IMO, since non-volitional feelings are not wrong. God requires us to manage our anger until we grow out of the dysfunctional extremes of it that we have become accustomed to. If the sheer non-volitional feeling of anger was wrong, then God would expect us to stop it overnight. And He would empower us to do just that. But I'm not seeing from scripture or philosophy why God would demand an instantaneous cessation of a non-volitional experience. Why wouldn't this entail a process in time just like our acquistion of endurance and long-suffering--in which case I ought not judge the mere experience of the feeling of anger?

 

So if it turns out that in our discipline we end up literally extinguishing the emotion of anger, great. The Spirit may do for us without anger all we need to do. But in the meanwhile, I'm not going to say it is inappropriate to merely feel a non-volitional feeling. I'm gonna talk about what we ought to do and not do (including restraining anger that occurs non-volitionally), and let the Spirit modify our emotional life.

 

But even then, I don't see how we can get from that to saying God can't feel a unique feeling analogous to what we experience as anger. Because feelings, per se, are neither benevolent or non-benevolent. Only actions that arise from the impulses attending emotions have any such quality, as I understand it.

 

Is this not the same thing you're doing, Exousia, by judging anger as inappropriate? Aren't you saying that because I am similarly situated insomuch as I have the same Spirit leading me, that I ought to try to rid my life of anger? How is that not a judgment? To me, it is not judgment that we should avoid, but inaccurate judgment. Which just gets us back to what constitutes the proper criteria for judgment.

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the point where I think we might still disagree is on whether God might actually have a mere feeling that is similar in quality the to feeling of human anger. I have no problem with this. Because whether anger or disgust, God is having a negative experience. His resulting action is what is important. Once this is understood, I think we can allow that God may truly have such a feeling even if we are to extinguish our own anger.

 

Indeed, it may be that our own naturally-occuring feeling of anger, and the strength of its naturally-associated impulse to action, exists to give us a sense of how transgression makes God feel and how it requires Him, too, to forebear with longsuffering. If this were all it did, it would serve a legitimate function, I think. We would still be able to see the inappropriateness of expressing our anger in a host of circumstances. Virtually all people do see this much. And it could still be true that the Spirit diminishes the occurrence of this emotion in us as we grow. I don't see how any of this is contradictory.

 

What I have trouble believing is that there is any emotion that is completely dysfunctional. It would seem that the very existence of an emotional capacity indicates some role it should play in our life. Dysfunctional emotional life, as I understand it, is when certain emotions and defense mechanisms become excessively over-used in inappropriate contexts. But I don't see how this implies that there are emotions that have absolutely zero adaptive value.

---