But thou art not quickly moved to strike.
((Romeo and Juliet, Act 1 Scene 1))
So is this how it should be? Is Sampson here in the right? Being that he is not easily angered, but when he is, he can do some damage? Or is Gregory right to mock him later, when saying Sampson would run away rather than fight? Should we be slow to anger, or never angry at all? I understand that anger is a sin, but what would it be like, if anger did not exist with the rest of the sins? Would we have an easier chance at following the Law? Do all of the sins bounce off of eachother? Would there murder if there was no anger? Stuff like that. What if there was a way to get rid of just one sin. Which one would be best to rid...
That's just what I'm pondering right now. Romeo and Juliet has been on repeat in my head for about a month! Arg.
Well put
ReplyDeleteI'm going to just have to say that being angry isn't a sin, in Exodus 34:6 God is slow to anger, and there are countless other references to his anger. God being perfect, he can't sin, so anger isn't sin. It's what we do with it, if we blow up and hurt others, then yeah, thats a sin, but if we deal with it respectfully, then it's not.
ReplyDeleteWhich sin we could get rid of, I don't know. The one thing to counter sin is love, not romantic love, brotherly love, love between friends.
anger isn't a sin.
ReplyDeleteActing irrationally on it is. Grudges are.
But anger's not.