Does a christian have the right to feel offended and to get angry?

[xdisciplex]

I have a few questions. If you respond please keep the answers short, thanks.

1) Once I heard a pastor say something which goes like: As a christian you're dead. You died with Jesus. A dead man has no rights. Have you ever seen a dead man complaining about something abusing him? I haven't. This means that as a christian you have no rights. Do you agree with this? I don't. I think this is absolutely silly. This would mean that christians have to allow themselves to be abused and mistreated and because they're "dead" they mustn't even care or get angry or demand justice for their rights.

2) If somebody mistreats you and you feel like he cannot treat you this way then is this okay or is this basically a reaction of your own flesh? I mean I bet you know these situations where somebody mistreated you and you're angry and something inside you screams "He cannot do this to me. I cannot allow this. My rights have been injured." Is this a legitimate reaction for a christian or is this the flesh?

3) If somebody offends you and does not apologize do you still have to forgive him? I mean if somebody apologizes then it's okay. But what if he doesn't? What if he refuses to?`Do you still have to forgive him? Does God demand this from us? If somebody did me wrong and then even refuses to apologize then this would make me even more angry, I don't know if I could simply forgive and forget in such a situation.

 

[Chemnitz]

1. That pastor needs to spend more time reading his Bible. Romans 6 makes it quite clear we are alive in Christ.

2. We have every right to be offended, how we respond to the offense is another question. Gentle reproof and correction is encouraged and repentance and forgiveness will not happen unless the offense is confronted.

 

[av1611jim]

1Pe 2:19
For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
1Pe 2:20
For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
1Pe 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pe 2:22
Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1Pe 2:23
Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
1Pe 2:24
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Doesn't ANYBODY believe Scripture anymore? Rather than asking a bunch of anonymous people on a message board what their opinons are, you ought to be asking God what His word says.

 

[Daisy]

I have a few questions. If you respond please keep the answers short, thanks.

No patience for the longs ones? Ok.

1) Ideally, as a Christian, it is correct to turn the other cheek, give the thief your shirt as well as your coat and walk two miles with the guy who makes you walk one.

2) You're a fleshy Christian. You feel what you feel, but it is your decision what to do about your hurt feelings - nurse them into a deadly grudge or pat them on the head and let them go.

3) Christ said, paraphrased, that any fool can love his friend and brother so what merit is there in that? Love your enemy, Christ said.

eta: imHo

 

[Brother Bob]

Does a christian have the right to feel offended and to get angry?

Yea! what about it?

 

[xdisciplex]

But what if I can't do what God demands from me? I mean I simply cannot not get angry, I can't! What do I do now? Huh? What do I do now? Somebody tell me.
When somebody mistreats me then I become totally angry, sorry. I can't change it.
Reading in the bible that I should be different also doesn't help me. So what am I supposed to do? Pray to not get angry anymore? I have done this, nothing changed. And now?

The problem is when I feel like a person is a threat to me, for example when this person can somehow harm me, then I tend to get very negative and hostile feelings towards this person. But later on when this person isn't a threat to me anymore the feelings also go away or at least they become weaker. I don't know why this is. If I could be totally relaxed and had this feeling that nobody can harm me then I could walk around not being angry or offended at anybody because it simply wouldn't matter. But unfortunately I do not feel this safe. I bet that Jesus felt much safer than I do. Maybe this also made it easier for him to forgive others because ultimatively he was in control.

 

[Brother Bob]

Someone else have to help you, I am so mad I can't.

 

[xdisciplex]

Someone else have to help you, I am so mad I can't.

mad at me?

 

[Brother Bob]

mad at me?

No, I am not mad at anyone. I am just joking. peace

 

[xdisciplex]

No, I am not mad at anyone. I am just joking. peace

I know. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[El_Guero]

First you were so mad you were afraid you would hurt your professor.

Then you tell everyone that you cannot get angry.

Multiple personality disorder . . . MPD.

How many of you have been diagnosed so far?

Oops the mad one is gonna come out.

 

[xdisciplex]

Then you tell everyone that you cannot get angry.

where did I say that?

you know what a double negation is, don't you?

 

[El_Guero]

But what if I can't do what God demands from me? I mean I simply cannot not get angry, I can't! What do I do now? Huh? What do I do now? Somebody tell me.

Like this?

 

[El_Guero]

In English it is a grammatical error . . . .

where did I say that?

you know what a double negation is, don't you?

So do not absolutely whatever you do make certain that you do not even come close to killing your self . . .

But if you do . . . just remember that you must double negate your death.

 

[xdisciplex]

I don't believe that this is a grammatical error. I simply expressed that I cannot not get angry. This is the same as saying that I cannot keep from becoming angry. Anyway, I think I made myself clear. :sleep:

 

[Daisy]

I don't believe that this is a grammatical error. I simply expressed that I cannot not get angry. This is the same as saying that I cannot keep from becoming angry. Anyway, I think I made myself clear. :sleep:

Your sentence was clear and correct.

Anyhoo, no one said you can't get angry - it's what you do with it that counts, whether you use it for good or evil.

And most people won't know or care whether you forgive them or not. Do it for the sake of your own soul and sanity.

edited to add: Well, they said it but they were joking.

 

[El_Guero]

A double negative is the nonstandard usage of two negatives used in the same sentence so that they cancel each other and create a positive. In Shakespeare's day, double negatives were considered emphatic, but today, they are considered grammar mistakes.

leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html

It’s probably best to look smart and use the double negative only when you want to imitate

Bartleby's

grammarians since the Renaissance have objected to the double negative in English. . . . This rule, vigorously advocated by teachers of grammar and writing, has become established as a fundamental of standard usage.

Americann heritage dictionary.

The use of double negatives began to die out in standard English around the beginning of the seventeenth century

http://www.askoxford.com/worldofwords/wordfrom/negative/

 

[El_Guero]

Daisy

I didn't mistake my grammar just for you.

Aren't you feeling special?

 

[Daisy]

Daisy

I didn't mistake my grammar just for you.

Aren't you feeling special?

The examples on leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html were stylistically appalling. The site states the rule incorrectly.

Nevertheless, a double negative is not a grammatical error unless it's along the lines of "You don't know nothing" where two negatives are meant as an emphatic negative. However, if the two negatives are used to cancel one another out, such as "That's not nothing", it is not incorrect.

I stand by the classical Strunk & White.

 

[El_Guero]

I reckon that would be from the sticky note in your copy on your shelf . . .

Because The Elements of Style from my shelf disagrees with your usage of not. One chapter is titled: 'Be Clear' and another, 'Prefer the Standard to the Offbeat'.



Did ya' really think that a preacher that quotes such obscure resources as I quote, would not have Strunk, et al.?

My personal English Rhetorical library is over a dozen books . . . not counting those that directly impact preaching . . .

Two great exemplars are Dialogue and Semantics. But, a word ot the wise, Dialogue is a much easier read than Semantics.

So when you join your colleague in absolutely not eliminating yourselves through your not killing yourselves . . . remember you only got out on the limb because you chose to remain obtuse . . .