Farkel,
You raise an interesting subject, and one which certainly has implications for Christians at the very least. I think the matter goes deeper than just one expression, “Get a life,” however. In his ‘sermon on the mount’ Jesus suggests that the elimination of anger and contempt are really at issue. He points out the moral inadequacy of the commandment ‘not to kill’ as a guide to relationships with others who anger us, and identifies a threefold elevation of hostility that includes (but supercedes) your concern:
“You heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not murder; but whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of justice.’ However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt [Raca] will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, ‘You despicable fool!’ will be liable to the fiery Gehenna.” (Matt. 5:21-22)
Of course, we all get angry at times. In its simplest form anger is a spontaneous response, and as such, it is not particularly controllable. It is a feeling that seizes our body and immediately impels us instinctively and often thoughtlessly to react toward some perceived interference with our life, our will. But it is in its own right—-independent of resulting actions-—an injury to others. When I discover your anger at me, I am already wounded, and my stress level is raised. It may also evoke my anger in return. As we know, anger feeds on anger.
As a response toward those who we perceive have interfered with us, anger includes a will to harm them, or the beginnings thereof. Some degree of malice is contained in every degree of anger. That is why it always hurts us when someone is angry with us personally. We never choose to have others angry with us unless some ulterior end were to be gained by it. We know that people who are angry with us intend to make a painful impression on us.
Anger first arises spontaneously. But we can actively receive it and decide to indulge it, and many often do. Some even seem to keep a reserve on hand, ready for any occasion, and any disagreement can evoke a torrent of rage in response. I believe we see this with some who get caught up in what might be called “poster rage” (similar to the modern phenomenon of “road rage”, but incidental to Internet forums such as xjw boards). Anger indulged, instead of simply waved off, always has in it an element of self-righteousness and vanity. Find a person who has embraced anger, and you find a person with a wounded ego. And inevitably, the sense of self-righteousness that comes with our anger simply provokes more anger and self-righteousness on the other side. There is nothing that can be done with anger that cannot be done better without it, including argumentation and debate.
Anger in this sense is pretty common to human life and is still no great sin (if you read Jesus’ words as hyperbole, which I do), even though it is still better avoided where possible. (Headaches are no sin, but do we really need them?) But anger can easily turn into something that is inherently evil and entirely avoidable.
Contempt is a greater evil than anger and so is deserving of greater condemnation. Unlike innocent anger, at least, it is a kind of studied degradation of another, and it also is more pervasive in life than anger. This is why, Jesus tells us, “Whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt [literally “Raca,” Aramaic] will be accountable to the Supreme Court.” The NIV footnote indicates “Raca” may be derived from the Aramaic word “empty” and have the sense of “empty-head” or, as we might call someone today, “braindead fundie.”
We can be angry at someone without denying their worth. But contempt makes it easier for us to hurt them or see them further degraded. Filthy language and name calling are always an expression of contempt. To be respected as having equal value is a vital need of every human being. Contempt spits on this universal and deep-seated need. And, like anger, contempt does not have to be acted out in overtly harmful ways to be evil. It can hurt so badly and destroy so deeply that it’s easy to see why Jesus juxtaposed such behavior with the hateful extreme of murder.
The expression “Raca” is not necessarily said in anger and might even be used at times with a certain amusement. “Fool,” on the other hand, in the sense implied in Jesus’ progression, is always an expression of malice as well as contempt. It does not simply have the sense of a term like “braindead”, but implies a deeper harm than either anger or contempt alone. Excuse the crudity, but a near equivalent in today’s language might be something like “bitch” or “bastard”, as said to someone who has just embarrassed or irritated us.
So, what is it, exactly, that is being done in Jesus’ delineation of this progression of prohibitions from anger to contempt to verbal desecration? The answer is that he is giving us a revelation of the preciousness of human beings. He means to reveal the infinite value of persons, including their sense of self-worth, their right to dignity. Obviously merely not killing others cannot begin to do justice to that. He is not setting out ‘rules’ or ‘laws’ to replace older ones; he is using hyperbole to demonstrate what kind of people we ought to be, how we ought to treat others. And I think implementing his lesson would preclude using expressions like "get a life" (not to mention the much more stringent ones!).
By the way, non-theists might appreciate the thoughtful discussions of David Hume on hatred, anger, and contempt in his Treatise of Human Nature, book 2, sections vi-x.
Regards,
Rational
