Moral Outrage/Righteous Indignation--When is it appropriate???

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sometimes in this life, we open our eyes to the world around us and we see ethical inconsistencies and feel like we exist in some kind of moral and/or social disequilibrium. I suppose this is the case for just about any person, from any background, and of any political leaning, and it can be associated with just about any of the various ethical systems out there that a person might subscribe to.

So, when do you feel it is appropriate to express "moral outrage" or "righteous indignation" toward what you perceive are moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies within today's society? When do you think you have "the right" to be angry, and in what ways do you think you are privileged to address the moral issues which you think you indeed perceive?

Open question; open answers.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jacks

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
NOT when you perceive things, per se. Nothing from self nor of self.

As Jesus always said and did, "My judgment is not mine own, but the Father's"
"I do nothing on my own, but only as the Father shows Me."

HOW MUCH MORE , as Jesus ONLY did as the Father said, and always agreed with the Father's judgment - never Jesus' Own judgment....
HOW MUCH MORE the only judgment we can hope for to be righteous
is the Father's judgment.
Always and only the Father's view, as He shows us clearly, as His Word also says.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sometimes in this life, we open our eyes to the world around us and we see ethical inconsistencies and feel like we exist in some kind of moral and/or social disequilibrium. I suppose this is the case for just about any person, from any background, and of any political leaning, and it can be associated with just about any of the various ethical systems out there that a person might subscribe to.

So, when do you feel it is appropriate to express "moral anger" or "righteous indignation" toward what you perceive are moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies within today's society? When do you think you have "the right" to be angry, and in what ways do you think you are privileged to address the moral issues which you think you indeed perceive?

Open question; open answers.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
As long as you are talking to yourself, fine.
The wages of sin is death. Our existence
is only due to God delaying our death for
a time. So our entire life is an unjust
situation where we all deserve instant
death due to sin. Just be happy.

Your position is that this is paradise
and there are just a few bad eggs out
there. Actually we are all sinners and
the wages of sin, is death.
 
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,171
Florida
Visit site
✟766,603.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sometimes in this life, we open our eyes to the world around us and we see ethical inconsistencies and feel like we exist in some kind of moral and/or social disequilibrium. I suppose this is the case for just about any person, from any background, and of any political leaning, and it can be associated with just about any of the various ethical systems out there that a person might subscribe to.

So, when do you feel it is appropriate to express "moral anger" or "righteous indignation" toward what you perceive are moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies within today's society? When do you think you have "the right" to be angry, and in what ways do you think you are privileged to address the moral issues which you think you indeed perceive?

Open question; open answers.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
Make sure you have the facts.

Constructive criticism may do more good than desiring revenge or punishment.

A coworker used to sense someone was getting angry and said, "Do not kick a dead horse."

Sometimes you cannot remain silent about something.

Luke 19:40 (KJV) And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So, based on the responses so far, or really the prevalent lack thereof, is it safe for me to assume that not many people have thought much about how to determine when they can know they are indeed justified to feel righteous indignation or moral outrage?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ana the Ist
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
NOT when you perceive things, per se. Nothing from self nor of self.

As Jesus always said and did, "My judgment is not mine own, but the Father's"
"I do nothing on my own, but only as the Father shows Me."

HOW MUCH MORE , as Jesus ONLY did as the Father said, and always agreed with the Father's judgment - never Jesus' Own judgment....
HOW MUCH MORE the only judgment we can hope for to be righteous
is the Father's judgment.
Always and only the Father's view, as He shows us clearly, as His Word also says.

Well, sure. From a Christian perspective, I think we can agree that some level of righteous indignation can, at times, be felt by Christians since they may see the society around them as being out of alignment with God's Will in Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As long as you are talking to yourself, fine.
The wages of sin is death. Our existence
is only due to God delaying our death for
a time. So our entire life is an unjust
situation where we all deserve instant
death due to sin. Just be happy.
Actually, I'm not talking to myself. :rolleyes: ... I think you're correct in saying that we're all under God's righteous indignation, but what I'm wanting us to look at in this thread is how do you know when it is right for you as a person to feel your own sense of righteous indignation.

Your position is that this is paradise
and there are just a few bad eggs out
there. Actually we are all sinners and
the wages of sin, is death.
No, I don't think this is paradise, and I agree we are all sinners.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Make sure you have the facts.
Yes, I think this is good advice. If we're going to have a sense of moral outrage about this or that in life, it's probably best to get all of the fact together first before expressing that outrage.

Constructive criticism may do more good than desiring revenge or punishment.

A coworker used to sense someone was getting angry and said, "Do not kick a dead horse."

Sometimes you cannot remain silent about something.

Luke 19:40 (KJV) And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Ok. So how do you know "when" it is the correct or right thing to do to express righteous indignation to other people?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zephcom

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,396
1,650
76
Pacific Northwest
✟87,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Sometimes in this life, we open our eyes to the world around us and we see ethical inconsistencies and feel like we exist in some kind of moral and/or social disequilibrium. I suppose this is the case for just about any person, from any background, and of any political leaning, and it can be associated with just about any of the various ethical systems out there that a person might subscribe to.

So, when do you feel it is appropriate to express "moral outrage" or "righteous indignation" toward what you perceive are moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies within today's society? When do you think you have "the right" to be angry, and in what ways do you think you are privileged to address the moral issues which you think you indeed perceive?

Open question; open answers.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

This is a good question if one assumes that moral outrage can ever be justified. Implicit in the name 'moral outrage' one can assume that the question implies an emotional outburst. Emotional outrage rarely has an effect on how others perceive morality or ethics. The usual response to an outrage is to just wait it out and then go back to 'business as usual'.

As an example, take the separation of children from their parents at border crossings which is current events in America. There was an immediate outrage from the general population over the issue. A judge who set timelines for fixing the problem even became involved.

Now we find out that there have been some 200 parents deported...without their children. But the moral outrage has run its course and no one seems to care. And nothing has materially changed. We still have a border problem. We still have a moral issue concerning how that problem is addressed. We still have a dysfunctional government which has no moral compass.

Perhaps a better way to deal with moral outrage is to channel that energy into actions which are designed to plot a way for the nation to turn its leadership toward higher level moral actions.

Admittedly, that would be a long term project and people...Americans especially...have a difficult time staying focused on long term plans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Sometimes in this life, we open our eyes to the world around us and we see ethical inconsistencies and feel like we exist in some kind of moral and/or social disequilibrium. I suppose this is the case for just about any person, from any background, and of any political leaning, and it can be associated with just about any of the various ethical systems out there that a person might subscribe to.

So, when do you feel it is appropriate to express "moral outrage" or "righteous indignation" toward what you perceive are moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies within today's society? When do you think you have "the right" to be angry, and in what ways do you think you are privileged to address the moral issues which you think you indeed perceive?

Open question; open answers.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid
Being angry doesn´t do me any good, and it doesn´t help my case.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Being angry doesn´t do me any good, and it doesn´t help my case.

I can agree that anger doesn't really do a body good, but might there be times when you feel that you need to just "speak up" when you seem something that you feel is unjust taking place? (I'm just asking for discussion purposes. I'm not trying to hint at anything particular here. :cool: )
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This is a good question if one assumes that moral outrage can ever be justified. Implicit in the name 'moral outrage' one can assume that the question implies an emotional outburst. Emotional outrage rarely has an effect on how others perceive morality or ethics. The usual response to an outrage is to just wait it out and then go back to 'business as usual'.
I can see what you're saying, zephcom, but the kind of "moral outrage" or indignation I'm attempting to refer to, for the purposes of this thread, is the kind that makes you want to go out and either bring an important social issue to many people's attention or to put a bug in the ears of some lawmakers. In other words, it's the kind that makes a person want to be a social justice warrior or a strong Christian evangelist who wants to bring about reform. Those kinds of "moral outrage/righteous indignation."

As an example, take the separation of children from their parents at border crossings which is current events in America. There was an immediate outrage from the general population over the issue. A judge who set timelines for fixing the problem even became involved.

Now we find out that there have been some 200 parents deported...without their children. But the moral outrage has run its course and no one seems to care. And nothing has materially changed. We still have a border problem. We still have a moral issue concerning how that problem is addressed. We still have a dysfunctional government which has no moral compass.

Perhaps a better way to deal with moral outrage is to channel that energy into actions which are designed to plot a way for the nation to turn its leadership toward higher level moral actions.

Admittedly, that would be a long term project and people...Americans especially...have a difficult time staying focused on long term plans.
Yes, you are quite right, particularly about that last bit you said. ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I can agree that anger doesn't really do a body good, but might there be times when you feel that you need to just "speak up" when you seem something that you feel is unjust taking place?
When something rubs me the wrong way, I often want to and will speak up. The more important question to me seems, though: What attitude, what inner posture will help my speech in being most effective?

On another note, it is my experience that strong emotional resistances to something are a token that this something resides in me, as well. I´m not seeing a point in fighting it in others. Time for introspection and self-reflection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jacks
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
When something rubs me the wrong way, I often want to and will speak up. The more important question to me seems, though: What attitude, what inner posture will help my speech in being most effective?
That's just too sensitive, thoughtful and introspective of a position for me to ponder, Q.........! ^_^

Actually, your approach sounds like something akin to what the Christian approach should be. (Are you sure you're not ready to convert?)

On another note, it is my experience that strong emotional resistances to something are a token that this something resides in me, as well. I´m not seeing a point in fighting it in others. Time for introspection and self-reflection.
......uh, now you're REALLY starting to sound Christian. I'm not sure what to do with all that kind of thing. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
That's just too sensitive, thoughtful and introspective of a position for me to ponder, Q.........! ^_^

Actually, your approach sounds like something akin to what the Christian approach should be. (Are you sure you're not ready to convert?)

......uh, now you're REALLY starting to sound Christian. I'm not sure what to do with all that kind of thing. :rolleyes:
Well, I on the other hand am not sure how you arrive at the idea that anything of what I´ve said would fall into the Christian trademark domain. ;)
As far as I can tell, it´s rather ideas such as "righteous outrage" that we would find there. :hug:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, I on the other hand am not sure how you arrive at the idea that anything of what I´ve said would fall into the Christian trademark domain. ;)
As far as I can tell, it´s rather ideas such as "righteous outrage" that we would find there. :hug:

...no, no, now. Last I time I checked, principles such as mercy, grace, patience, forbearance, compassion, being slow to speak but quick to listen, having foresight, and so on and so forth were ingrained within the New Testament paradigm. "Righteous Outrage" as expressed by Christians, not so much....unless a fellow Christian steals from the Church or pagan sorcerers or possessed children try to horn in on the ministry work that Christians do (ala Peter and Paul in the book of Acts).

So, yeah. You're thoughtful composer sounds kind of Christian, quatona. ;)
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Sometimes in this life, we open our eyes to the world around us and we see ethical inconsistencies and feel like we exist in some kind of moral and/or social disequilibrium. I suppose this is the case for just about any person, from any background, and of any political leaning, and it can be associated with just about any of the various ethical systems out there that a person might subscribe to.

So, when do you feel it is appropriate to express "moral outrage" or "righteous indignation" toward what you perceive are moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies within today's society? When do you think you have "the right" to be angry, and in what ways do you think you are privileged to address the moral issues which you think you indeed perceive?

Open question; open answers.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Slavery, homosexuality, and gender equality are three topics which come to mind, as they relate to the Bible.

In slavery, the primary 'moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies' pertain to elevating Jewish males above and beyond all other races, while also favoring males. If God's claim is being just, righteous, fair, and loving to all humans, then why favor only certain humans, for traits in which humans have NO authority to control (gender and race)? This appears inconsistent and more-so demonstrates human-only authorship of it's time, rather than universal objective laws and dictates. Why also consider such humans as property (especially if all humans are special - above and beyond all other creatures on earth)?

In homosexuality, it also again appears more-so written by only humans, who thought homosexuality was 'icky', like the majority of the population even thinks today, and yet, passed anti-gay law in the Bible as objective fact. It also appears fairly evidence the Bible was written at a time, before it was later concluded that whom one is attracted to is not a choice. Seems as though a universal and objective claimed God would not tell humans whom they are allowed to have life long relationships with, based purely on the fact they are the same gender. If they are two consenting adults, with the ability to make 'freewill' decisions, who is actually harmed in such a scenario? I also recognize, ahead of time, all the arguments one may present in opposition to this observation :)

In gender inequality, the Bible stating women cannot lead also appears human inspired, without the aid of any divine authorship.

These are three topics which appear to warrant 'moral outrage', as to actually enforce such objective stated moral law would be only appealing to the subjective human opinions, written long ago.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Slavery, homosexuality, and gender equality are three topics which come to mind, as they relate to the Bible.

In slavery, the primary 'moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies' pertain to elevating Jewish males above and beyond all other races, while also favoring males. If God's claim is being just, righteous, fair, and loving to all humans, then why favor only certain humans, for traits in which humans have NO authority to control (gender and race)? This appears inconsistent and more-so demonstrates human-only authorship of it's time, rather than universal objective laws and dictates. Why also consider such humans as property (especially if all humans are special - above and beyond all other creatures on earth)?

In homosexuality, it also again appears more-so written by only humans, who thought homosexuality was 'icky', like the majority of the population even thinks today, and yet, passed anti-gay law in the Bible as objective fact. It also appears fairly evidence the Bible was written at a time, before it was later concluded that whom one is attracted to is not a choice. Seems as though a universal and objective claimed God would not tell humans whom they are allowed to have life long relationships with, based purely on the fact they are the same gender. If they are two consenting adults, with the ability to make 'freewill' decisions, who is actually harmed in such a scenario? I also recognize, ahead of time, all the arguments one may present in opposition to this observation :)

In gender inequality, the Bible stating women cannot lead also appears human inspired, without the aid of any divine authorship.

These are three topics which appear to warrant 'moral outrage', as to actually enforce such objective stated moral law would be only appealing to the subjective human opinions, written long ago.

As a Christian myself, I actually agree (with some admitted variance) that the use of oppression within society upon other individuals, as can be seen in most forms of forced servitude, or in some forms of sexual censorship, and in gender inequality, is cause for some expressions of "righteous indignation." However, cvanwey, as you know, you and I will probably still disagree over the nuances which we both think we see within the actual inherent makeup of these particular social and moral problems.

As for the issue of the Bible being inspired by God or not, that's not an issue I'm overly concerned with here even within this particular thread. Again, it's not an issue I'm going to argue people into or out of because I don't think it is a linchpin in our efforts to understand the Bible. It does contribute to our willingness to adopt what we read in the Bible, but our willingness is also contingent upon how we read it and what we think we understand about the meanings of the ideas we find within it's dusty old pages. Personally, I've always begun with the Bible at a grassroots epistemic level rather than at the traditional Top down, Hierarchical, Church Driven level; I don't believe the Bible is God's Word just because "the Church tells me so." Instead, I personally think one can just existentially read the Bible as an ordinary book and, as one moves through the hermeneutical circle to gain insight and understanding about its contents, the realization that there's something "special" embedded in the pages of the Bible can grow and emerge within the understanding of the person whose interests lie therein. The upshot of my existential approach is that I also have little to no expectation that I'll be able, or should be able, to CLEARLY AND DISCERNIBLY demonstrate to another person that the Bible is indeed some very special, sacred book above all other books. No, the imparting of that kind of demonstration will have to come from .... elsewhere, but not from me.

Anyway, in essence, I agree with you on some level that there is room for moral outrage when we see other people being oppressed. On the other hand, I think that we might also consider that our feelings of moral outrage are contingent upon what we each think qualify as bona-fide manifestations of immorality and injustice in our society, and in the three cases you've listed in your previous post, I'm absolutely sure that you and I have different perspectives on what we think we see is actually being said in the Bible about these three specific issues: slavery, homosexual discrimination, and gender inequality.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
As for the issue of the Bible being inspired by God or not, that's not an issue I'm overly concerned with here even within this particular thread. Again, it's not an issue I'm going to argue people into or out of because I don't think it is a linchpin in our efforts to understand the Bible. It does contribute to our willingness to adopt what we read in the Bible, but our willingness is also contingent upon how we read it and what we think we understand about the meanings of the ideas we find within it's dusty old pages. Personally, I've always begun with the Bible at a grassroots epistemic level rather than at the traditional Top down, Hierarchical, Church Driven level; I don't believe the Bible is God's Word just because "the Church tells me so." Instead, I personally think one can just existentially read the Bible as an ordinary book and, as one moves through the hermeneutical circle to gain insight and understanding about its contents, the realization that there's something "special" embedded in the pages of the Bible can grow and emerge within the understanding of the person who's interests lie therein.

I hear what you are saying. However, one must then still contend with the axiomatic assertion:

'16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.'

Or even the verses below, which you have already commented upon in some of our past exchanges:

5 Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.'

The upshot of my existential approach is that I also have little to no expectation that I'll be able, or should be able, to CLEARLY AND DISCERNIBLY demonstrate to another person that the Bible is indeed some very special, sacred book above all other books. No, the imparting of that kind of demonstration will have to come from .... elsewhere, but not from me.

Then again, please address the two sighted verses above, (which appear to be in direct conflict with your epistemic conclusion).

Anyway, in essence, I agree with you on some level that there is room for moral outrage when we see other people being oppressed. On the other hand, I think that we might also consider that our feelings of moral outrage are contingent upon what we each think qualify as bona-fide manifestations of immorality and injustice in our society, and in the three cases you've listed in your previous post, I'm absolutely sure that you and I have different perspectives on what we think we see is actually being said in the Bible about these three specific issues: slavery, homosexual discrimination, and gender inequality.

Agreed. However, when one reads the Bible, and reads the 'reasons' the Bible gives for homosexuality, for instance, being a bona-fide abomination:

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."

And in the very next verses states:

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.
24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.
'

Which again suggests man written 'objective assertions', all above for the same 'icky' reasons. - (i.e.) having relations with the same gender is 'icky' for some of the same reasons having relations with animals is 'icky'.... Rather than stating something to the effect of, both parties must be consensual and of sound cognitive mind. Or even, species are to remain with alike species, or another prolific and forward thinking concept (and not only restricted to the thoughts of it's current age in history) - which does not appear to reflect inspiration from a divine entity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Get my point, Web-Maker ???
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,159
9,957
The Void!
✟1,130,864.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
We seem to have a misunderstanding here, cvanwey. Let's begin with the basics: THIS IS MY OP THREAD; NOT YOURS! You don't get to come into this conversation and try to 'turn' the thrust of the inquiry back upon me and thus skip around the fact that I have already laid out in the OP that 1) this thread is for YOU or anyone else to present your reasons for how, when and why you think you have the right to feel moral outrage or righteous indignation. You haven't yet done this.

2) My OP isn't predicated upon a biblical stance; rather, it's simply predicated upon the idea that we can enter into a bilateral discussion here about those issues that pertain to how, when, and why people feel moments of moral outrage?

If you want me to deconstruct and hermeneutically analyze the epistemic qualities expressed in Proverbs 30:5, that's not going to happen here in the specific thread. Are we clear?!

I mean, if we're going to go about this attempt at a discussion, and if I allow you to begin interacting in this discussion as if it is a 'stump the professor' game, then we won't really get anywhere, will we? If I wanted to play this discussion as a game where I try to push my interlocuting opponent to the edge so that I can try to tear off the mask which I suspect is being worn by my opponent, then I could just pull up out the current JUNE 2018 issue of Commentary magazine, look at the cover story and wonder if all that kind of thing applies somehow to you in the expression of your questions and in the intentions behind them here on CF. But, I won't do that.................:rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0