+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 19

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

    Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

    We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.

    “I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.

    Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

    Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?

  2. #2

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Anger can never signify righteousness. If you became angry at your neighbor and his dog that just left his waste on your lawn and you shoot the dog or both of them is that righteous? Would that fall under the moral or divine law or any other law?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,778

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst View Post
    Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Webster informs us that righteous is “acting in accord with divine or moral law”.

    We often see US citizens, in our streets and byways, expressing their anger at certain actions taken by our government. On occasion this anger is directed at Big Bankers or some other group but generally it is directed at some action of government institutions.

    “I’m mad and I won’t take it anymore” seems to be the general attitude often displayed by these demonstrators. I have concluded that most people identify the connection of anger to an argument signifies the righteousness of the argument and the person making the argument. Perhaps this is because anger often accompanies the pronouncements of preachers, priests, imams, rabies, and talk show hosts.

    Do you think that anger necessarily signifies righteousness?

    Do you think that anger signifies righteousness; but only for those protests for which you agree?

    When righteous anger becomes ungodly, sinful and malicious it ceases to be righteous.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,549

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Depends upon one's definition of "divine or moral law".


    .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    38

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    hmmmm...

    interesting question....trying to imagine jesus walking into the vatican...

    sure he would toss a few tables over..lots of money changers there...and i'm pretty sure he'd have a thing or two to say to the child molesters....and those who continue to prostitue children for their sic idea of what turns them on..

    damn..I'd almost bet my life that jesus might just throw a lightning bolt...forget flipping tables...they cost the poor congregations way too much hard earned cash...

    yep..lightning bolts would be His best bet....

    I wanna be there to watch the light show..personally..

    Always did love a good "righteous anger" scene.:rasta:

    :freak3:....oops...maybe he's sending batman instead :

    long as the job gets done I say...:

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    where groids don't
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    johhny knows what anger is




    Signature back in one week

  7. #7

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Quote Originally Posted by sheye View Post
    hmmmm...

    interesting question....trying to imagine jesus walking into the vatican...

    sure he would toss a few tables over..lots of money changers there...and i'm pretty sure he'd have a thing or two to say to the child molesters....and those who continue to prostitue children for their sic idea of what turns them on..

    damn..I'd almost bet my life that jesus might just throw a lightning bolt...forget flipping tables...they cost the poor congregations way too much hard earned cash...

    yep..lightning bolts would be His best bet....

    I wanna be there to watch the light show..personally..

    Always did love a good "righteous anger" scene.:rasta:

    :freak3:....oops...maybe he's sending batman instead :

    long as the job gets done I say...:
    I would just about bet that there are those that would chip in to buy you a one way ticket to that show.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Anger is an emotion.

    I once took a college course in acting. Acting 101 informs me that an actor is more effective it s/he makes the motions associated with an emotion than if that actor tries to first create the feeling and then the action will follow.

    Emotions equal instinct. First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

    What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

    Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

    ”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

    The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

    “Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

    Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

    “It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

    First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

    Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

    The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

    Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

    Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

    I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

    In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.

    Quotes from The Feelings of What Happens by Antonio Damasio

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,779

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    well, righteousness is either relative or absolute!? if man's then relative, if god's then absolute!? of course, we have men act as if they are god, and claim the same anger on his behalf!? so the final answer is......maybe!? :spin2: :judges: :
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  10. 03-27-2010, 01:06 PM

    Reason
    no need to

  11. 03-27-2010, 01:07 PM


  12. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Quote Originally Posted by Old Timer View Post
    bump bump bump
    is this how you manage to get 5,000 posts?

  13. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,193

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Quote Originally Posted by coberst View Post
    is this how you manage to get 5,000 posts?
    No, it's how we manage to get rid of unwanted asshole trolls like you on here. Your reign of cut and paste spamming is over, pal.
    Last edited by put it out there baby; 03-27-2010 at 01:39 PM.

  14. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,779

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    let's get back to the material presented!? it would have been better to break it down into smaller pieces as there is a lot to digest in 1 setting/reading!? at least for most people encountering this kind of material for the first time!? here's something that stood out for me........

    Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension.

    now first we could ask, what is a 'background' emotion!? or for that matter, what is a 'foreground emotion' !? is the answer in the material provided!? i also think there is some mix up of emotion as being instinctive and habitual!? not recognizing that emotions belong to instinct for protection of the material organism(body)but can get out of their zone and infect higher centers of function in man!? to say that they function normally as a auto defensive mechanism but can attemp to become an auto aggressive mechanism!? which also indicates they have a life of their own in relation to consciousness!? what i am saying is that emotions are ether useful/helpful or controlling!? the determining factor being self identification!? :freak3: :nervouss: :
    Last edited by lexx; 03-27-2010 at 08:42 PM.
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  15. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    let's get back to the material presented!? it would have been better to break it down into smaller pieces as there is a lot to digest in 1 setting/reading!? at least for most people encountering this kind of material for the first time!? here's something that stood out for me........

    Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension.

    now first we could ask, what is a 'background' emotion!? or for that matter, what is a 'foreground emotion' !? is the answer in the material provided!? i also think there is some mix up of emotion as being instinctive and habitual!? not recognizing that emotions belong to instinct for protection of the material organism(body)but can get out of their zone and infect higher centers of function in man!? to say that they function normally as a auto defensive mechanism but can attemp to become an auto aggressive mechanism!? which also indicates they have a life of their own in relation to consciousness!? what i am saying is that emotions are ether useful/helpful or controlling!? the determining factor being self identification!? :freak3: :nervouss: :


    These are excellent questions and my posting of this work of Damasio is for the purpose of electing such curiosity. These questions can form the foundation for going to the book and starting the process of self-actualizing self-learning.

    Physicists began in the early twentieth century to study the inner world of the atom. This world, they quickly discovered, is nothing like our world. Mechanics is the study of effect of force on bodies; this new physics is called Quantum Mechanics. It deals with the effect of forces on the bodies within the world of the atom.

    Newtonian Mechanics deals with force acting on bodies. In our world bodies follow a continuous course when acted on by force whereas in the atom world bodies change position in increments rather than continuously. Bodies in the world of the atom move in quantum leaps and do not occupy positions in an analog manner.

    Physicists are unable to see directly the forces and the bodies within the atom but they have nevertheless developed the knowledge about these matters to the extent that they can very accurately predict the ongoing actions within this atomic world.

    The study of consciousness might be compared with QM. The world of consciousness is directly ‘seen’ only to a very small extent by the subject itself and only very indirectly by the scientists studying consciousness. Nevertheless this subjective world can be studied scientifically just as the world of the atom.

    Antonio Damasio is a scientist who has set out to organize a scientific study of human consciousness. Damasio utilizes a rather unique method that involves careful observation of individuals who have been deprived of some aspects of consciousness because of brain lesions caused by accidents. He studies brain dysfunction caused by such things as strokes and accidents.

    Damasio wrote “Descartes’ Error” in which he focused on brain-injured patients in an effort to comprehend human consciousness. These partially dysfunctional patients help him to locate the area of the brain in which certain elements of consciousness are centered and to observe the patients performance without that particular function. One primary patient observed was Phinaes Gage, a Vermont railway foreman, who suffered sever brain damage in an accident.

    Damasio uses the performance of an orchestra piece whose score is being created during its performance to give us an idea of his theory of the human as a living organism. He speaks of several parallel lines of performance unfolding in time. “Wakefulness, background emotion, and low-level attention will be there continuously; they are present from the moment of awakening to the moment when you fall asleep.”

    I cannot effectively answer all these questions without essentially writing the book. Go to your local library and borrow the book and discover the delight of developing the comprehension of important theories.

    If your local city library does not have the book then find a local college library and for a small yearly fee of $25 you can access to the books of a great library.

  16. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,779

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    i suppose i myself am drawn to tree style learning presenting basic axioms/observations then selectable for ever increasingly complex/diverse explanations!? i suspect you are hand picking paragraphs that interrelate for you but for me i can get lost rather quickly!? but still i have to admit i tried harder on this subject as i find it the most important subject for mankind to completely understand!? :freak3: :smurf: :
    Last edited by lexx; 03-31-2010 at 03:47 PM.
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  17. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,549

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Quote Originally Posted by put it out there baby View Post
    No, it's how we manage to get rid of unwanted asshole trolls like you on here. Your reign of cut and paste spamming is over, pal.
    It's painfully obvious... the guy's a psych major regurgitating his new-found information.
    Once he graduates he'll be too busy working in a McDonald's or as a CPS caseworker to bother anyone.


    .

  18. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    374

    Re: Is anger a sign of righteousness?

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulM View Post
    It's painfully obvious... the guy's a psych major regurgitating his new-found information.
    Once he graduates he'll be too busy working in a McDonald's or as a CPS caseworker to bother anyone.


    .

    The natural sciences, especially physics, have been very successful at learning the rules of the game. Our didactic (teaching by telling) educational system has been very successful at teaching these rules to their students. The students have been very successful at using these rules and the algorithms and paradigms developed from these rules in developing the high tech economy that we have. We have not been equally as successful in matters regarding the human sciences; thus we kill and destroy constantly.

    We are animals who can no longer depend on our animal instinct—we must depend upon our self and on others who, in turn, lean on us—life is overwhelming and the world is infinitely expanding and beyond our comprehension—we survive by chewing off chunks, narrow small digestible chunks—we must become oblivious of the rest or we are consumed by the enormity—Becker says “repression is normal self-protection and creative self-restriction” is our substitute for instinct—this is the meaning of partialization—we partialize the world—the well-adjusted man or woman partializes the world so that s/he can normalize anxiety.

    The Holy Roman Empire, i.e. the Catholic Church, packaged life so that the uncritical could exist within the womb of dogma. This lasted for a millennium; post Enlightenment humans became too sophisticated for such slavish attachment and thus we moderns must create our own zone of normalcy.

    We have become sophisticated enough to have removed from our life the total domination that the Church had over us but we have not yet discovered how to replace that all encompassing grasp with something more suitably designed to allow us to live together with our overwhelming technology.

    They “tranquilize themselves with the trivial”.—Kierkegaard

    How can we become intellectually sophisticated enough to survive our own technological success?

Similar Threads

  1. Why is there anger: Taxes
    By danrush1966 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-19-2010, 08:37 AM
  2. Episode 15: ANGER 101
    By franKg in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2007, 03:12 AM
  3. Righteousness and Salvation
    By Solve et Coagula in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-12-2007, 03:43 PM
  4. The Anger of the Left
    By franKg in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-21-2007, 08:09 AM
  5. Voice Your Anger @ Sunrider
    By SunriderSucks in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-23-2007, 12:17 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •