NationStates Jolt Archive

So, definitions of wrath...
intense anger (usually on an epic scale)
belligerence aroused by a real or supposed wrong
persecute fiends and hunt down criminals (for justice)

And certain governmental leaders who are supported heavily by a group that counts wrath as a serious sin seem to be guilty of at least three of those three definitions, and are highly praised by that group for it...

So just out of curiousity, how does something like that work? How does a sin get to be a virtue?

So, definitions of wrath...
intense anger (usually on an epic scale)
belligerence aroused by a real or supposed wrong
persecute fiends and hunt down criminals (for justice)

And certain governmental leaders who are supported heavily by a group that counts wrath as a serious sin seem to be guilty of at least three of those three definitions, and are highly praised by that group for it...

So just out of curiousity, how does something like that work? How does a sin get to be a virtue?

The motive determines whether it is sin or not. And the means also.

It is neither a sin nor a virtue, IMSAO.

It is neither a sin nor a virtue, IMSAO.

But by many is perceived to be, was my point, and often for the exact same examples on both sides.

How does a sin get to be a virtue?
The time-honoured practice of hypocracy.

Also, relativity (but don't tell them that).

The time-honoured practice of hypocracy.

Also, relativity (but don't tell them that).

Yay relativity! And subjectivity, just in case.

Fear the wrath of the Daleks!

Fear the wrath of the Daleks!

Remember kids, Wrath backwards is htarW. Which would be a really weird name for a kid.

Remember kids, Wrath backwards is htarW. Which would be a really weird name for a kid.
Wrath (http://www.fullmetal-alchemist.com/forums/uploads/1156299498/gallery_39345_4_42470.jpg), on the other hand, is a perfectly good name for a kid.

Wrath (http://www.fullmetal-alchemist.com/forums/uploads/1156299498/gallery_39345_4_42470.jpg), on the other hand, is a perfectly good name for a kid.

Born from a sloth's child...

How does a sin get to be a virtue?

The ends justify the means...

The ends justify the means...


So it is OK to do evil if the end result is good?

Wrath has no moral value in itself. If you wish to assign moral value you must examine how we allow it to manifest itself within our actions.

So it is OK to do evil if the end result is good?

So long as that evil can be controlled to it's original goals, then, yes.

I feel that acting on your wrath is what is really wrong; you should only use violence when you are threatened and have to defend yourself, and never use it for aggression or vigilantism unless absolutely necessary. It's better to forget the petty, noncriminal stuff and leave the rest up to the law; you stand to lose as much as anyone if you try to act like a vigilante and avenge the wrongs yourself.

There's nothing wrong with getting angry; it's when you use than anger to hurt others or lash out at friends trying to help that it becomes a wrong. Wrath is only wrong if innocent people are hurt, and turning your wrath in to action is always wrong unless absolutely necessary.

It's a little hard to quantify exactly what I mean.

Wrath, as a sin, is more in line with "pursuing destruction for destruction's sake" than any of the definitions of the OP.
It could also be said that "wrath" isn't one of the seven deadly sins, instead the sin is "ira", which is Latin and, therefore, irrelevant.

It could also be said that "wrath" isn't one of the seven deadly sins, instead the sin is "ira", which is Latin and, therefore, irrelevant.

"Ira" is more accurately translated as "rage"; generally, rage implies anger that leads you to commit violent acts against others. I think the sin is more a combination of anger and acting on that anger than just being pissed at someone; people get pissed at others, but we don't go off and beat the shit out of them because of it.

We control our anger, and that's what makes it not a sin.

Wrath has no moral value in itself. If you wish to assign moral value you must examine how we allow it to manifest itself within our actions.


Which sounds like NO sin is a sin until it has a consequence. So the sin/virtue aspect is decided entirely by motive and outcome?

Which sounds like NO sin is a sin until it has a consequence.

It means that we are not moral in our emotions, we do not truely control those. We are moral in how we behave, specifically in handling and overcoming our emotions.

So the sin/virtue aspect is decided entirely by motive and outcome?

I would say that the true basis is motive, but since that is never open to us, we tend to go by outcome.

This is probably for the best, as it is becoming increasingly difficult to show that we have the prerequisites to actually have "moral" motives.