The Bible tells us to be angry, but do not sin. I'm not sure where this falls in the continuum here.

So it's not the anger that's the problem, it's how you allow the anger to take control.

Rage is unrestrained anger. The sin is not the anger, it's the lack of restraint.

And also to add to this, the object of the anger is also important. Notice that in none of the Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, and John) was Jesus ever described as being angry. Stern, yes. Decisive, yes. Never angry...

I wonder why Jesus said this:

Mat 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.

"Angry without cause" might be a better rendition, as it is the intention here, but the words about calling another a fool or casting insults is pretty clear.

CV

I'm not sure I agree. One could make a credible case that the scene with the money changers was out of righteous anger.

An old and short-lived thread: Justice and Vengeance

I don't disagree that Jesus was angry. The question is this: Is Jesus angry that the temple is being defiled, or is he personally angry at the money changers.

I would argue that it is the first. if that is the case, and we are looking to this passage as an example, I would further argue that we are to be angry at the adultery, more than at the WS.

Why? because it is a more righteous anger than focusing it on the person themself.

Just a thought here.
CV

Is Jesus angry that the temple is being defiled, or is he personally angry at the money changers. I would argue that it is the first.

Don't hurt yourself twisting your interpretation too much, CV!

"We don't hate the soldiers; we just hate the war!" spoken right before screaming "baby-killers" at 19 year-old Marines! This is a reminder that people looking for redress/correction are not geared to be as nicely definitive as would be ideal!

I'll graciously yield to your more extensive knowledge of Scripture over mine,
my friend, but would respectfully point out that using a flail is an act against
PERSONS, not a concept as abstract as "desecration".

I would certainly doubt that the desecrators in this case would find salve
for their injuries by maintaining that Jesus was not really enraged at them,
but at their business practices.

At some point the perpetrator OF an injury becomes the avatar FOR the injury.
When? Don't know - probably depends on the type of transgression, and length of commission.

As the proximate cause of blatant, soul-killing, family destroying, infidelity, I would submit that the "usual" WW has a small window to escape BEING the sin.

Lol... I'll try not to! heh heh heh.

While the flail is against persons, there is an over arching concern here, and it isn't the money changers themselves, it is the purity of the temple. See, the money changers were baring the way to worship, and particularly gentiles coming to worship. The temple was supposed to be a light to the nations and they had made it a den of thieves. Jesus' purpose in chasing them away wasn't so much as discipline for the money changers as it was restoration of the proper use of the temple. That is.. Allowing the people free access to God.

There is much historical evidence that the Sadduccees had vested interest in this. They were largely supported off the temple tax and the money changers provided additional income here (See Sinclair Furgeson's book "Let's Study Mark" for more info on this.)

On another more related note, I agree that the window is small. My point was to show that we do need to be angry at sin. Sinners sin. it is what they do. It is not an excuse, but rather a simple fact. We should not be surprised when a sinner sins. in fact, using the MB analogy of anyone is capable of an affair under the right circumstances, we could substitute any other sin in place of adultery and it would be true.

But where I was going with this was a little more allegorical than that...

What I was thinking of in connection with the passage was indeed the call to flee sin, particularly sexual sin.

1Co 6:18-20 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. (19) Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, (20) for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

Paul's concern here is the same as Jesus'. He isn't saying you're a skank if you do this, but rather "flee from sexual sin". Why? Because you are a temple of the Holy Spirit and you were created to worship, glorify and enjoy God. You can't function as you were created when you engage in this type of sin. Married couples perform their created function/role/purpose together and adultery stands in the way of that.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

CV

Here's my whole take, NG;

When a man tells me several months later that he finds it strange that I think we should no longer insult waywards to their BS, when I didn't do so while helping him, it tells me something.

It tells me that what I put into type affected that man. That he remembers it even now, that he remembers who said it.

It tells me that had I said those things to his face rather than from behind a keyboard, that I would likely still be passing my own teeth in my stool.


It tells me that my "intentions" give me no right to be an [censored].


But, I know why I did it. I did it because I followed my peers, rather than following the program.


The day that Dr. Harley writes or speaks about a wayward in the same fashion some board members excuse themselves into doing because they are "calling a spade a spade," is the day I leave this site. Until that day, that behavior is not acceptable for myself.

True.
Hey! I just discovered if you want to know what word was censored, hit quote & you can see the original word pre automatic edit.
Accidental discovery of the week!



Agree.

Thanks Pep! Now we are all hitting the quote button to see what that [censored] CV just typed!



CV

[censored] !

Stop! Stop! I keep hitting quote!

The first time I accidentally discovered that, I was afraid to quote the post because I was afraid the word would show back up! (and it was a juicy one, too!)

Sinners sin. It is what they do.

Again with the dancing around the meat of the matter!

CV: Sinners We all sin. It is what they we do.

I know you would have to agree that excepting a certain Galilean woman and her child, there are no examples extant of a perfectly-free-from-sin human. (Even NG has sinned, if only of the sin of PRIDE from being so otherwise morally spotless!)

We are, however diverging from the true thrust of this site in that discussions about acts of PERSONAL BETRAYAL as opposed to acts of SIN, is why we're here. I can more dispassionately observe some person's sin, even of an extremely serious nature, if I were not directly involved, without having that rage develop, than I could while fully understanding that an offense(in this case, infidelity) were committed against ME and MY interests (family). Think you're immune? Consider your reaction on hearing that a drunk driver caused a non-injury-accident. Now have the other (innocent) driver be your teenage daughter, and reconsider the rage that would develop.

Returning to Jesus with the flail, however: He did strike the transgressors with it (Hey, how was that not a sin?), as opposed to peacefully organizing a protest and petiion drive to compel the Sanhedrin(?) to establish a "Change-Free Zone" 500 feet surrounding the Temple. Gandhi did it with the British salt monopoly; Parks did it with the busses in Montgomery. No, Jesus flailed away, with great effect directly at the TRANSGRESSORS, not the SIN they maintained. He was royally (sacredly?) PEEVED! (NG likes Him all the more for it!)

I would agree with this, but I would add that the key word is emotion.

We have all said a few things on here geared at getting BSs riled up a bit when they are shaking with fear.

We say

Man/woman up

How can you stand for this?

It looks complacent/it looks like you do not CARE.

We do not tell them to be more logical or follow the plans more exactly. Well we do, but we also cry out - where is your FEELING? CARE more. Show EMOTION. We are not calling for rage exactly, but definitely something with more fire in the belly.

For what its worth, before I found MB and discovered my H was having an affair I was having whopper AOs because I didnt understand what was wrong and I had no boundaries/controls to enforce. So I lashed out like a witless animal.

Ironically it was due to discovering that my H was having an affair that I learned to control my temper for the first time in my life.

Once I found a PLAN I kept my inner fire controlled and focused towards working the plans. When a BS will not it is because their emotions are paralysed. Feeling plays a part too. But of course it must be controlled

Nuh uh. Cause I don't know CV to curse.

(Even though studies show a good [censored] or [censored] relieve mre stress and tension than an "oh, poopie!")

I think you have hit on an important fact. It is the betrayal aspect. Some sins simply have worse consequences than others. Adultery seems to be the top of the list with murder, and other sexual crimes like rape and incest (IMO) running close second. Why? because it is a **personal** offense.

To answer your question about the passage I quoted... Easy.. It wasn't a sin because Jesus is God. Ghandi, whatever good he did wasn't, and this too is an important point. We aren't God. We cannot act (even if we are ghandi) without (the danger of)sinning.

CV

Nuh uh. Cause I don't know CV to curse.

(Even though studies show a good [censored] or [censored] relieve mre stress and tension than an "oh, poopie!")
[/quote]

Lol. Ah the joy of internet anonymity. If my wife reads this thread, I'm done for! My reputation is gone!

I do this all the time, Pep, and would've been happy to share the secret with you if I'd known you didn't know!

Call the Guinness record-keepers! Alert UPI and Reuters!

PB, Trip, CV (and others?): I'm forced to admit that my unabashed, unqualified (if lonely) advocacy for the selected use of accumulated rage is flawed.

My judgment in this was substantially based on the concept that such a storehouse of white-hot energy was controllable, not only in its release, but in its duration as well. Sadly, I'm beginning to see that for some people, the "pile" of rage is not dispersable, and remains a toxic threat long after its utility has passed, like tailings from a goldmine, or spent nuclear fuel. Discharging the no-longer-needed remnants evidently requires a level of emotional rigor that might not be the norm.

(You health-pros might prefer the analogy of rage being similar to excess fat cells formed during childhood. Even shrinking them does not eliminate them, leaving the adult so equipped prone to faster weight gain later in life.)

Celebrate if you will, but have compassion for this writer, as well. He will need to formulate a new philosphy for dealing with high-stress incidents, and it'll take a while. (Since a call is into Guinness anyway, could I order about three cases for sustenance during the re-formulation?)

Hey, three cases ain't NEARLY enough!
Moderation might be a new standard, Hot-stuff!