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

[cvanwey]

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.................

Skeptics, non-believers, atheists, etc, cannot logically appeal to an 'absolute standard' for moral values and duties. On the other hand, theists do. I would assume you are a Christian, based upon your profile and statements. Where else might you get your 'absolute moral foundations,' aside from the Bible? For theists, the conclusion appears very simple. It is either from the Bible, or their brain (which is thought that the cognitive conclusions are controlled by the ultimate claimed organized transcendent mind), and the brain may disagree with the Bible in some aspects....

If you are wanting to navigate a very specific direction, that's fine. I am not trying to take over the thread I'm not trying to 'hornswoggle' you, 'stump' you, or other.

I cannot help to mention the Bible, along with it's pronouncements, assertions, and tenets, as the Bible is the claimed and asserted absolute moral foundation for such values and duties.

Without referencing the Bible, what foundation for moral conclusions may the Christian (i.e. you) use? If (you) do not draw upon, or conclude upon, the Bible, then I guess you are stating your opinions; based upon enlightenment, evidence, and continued discovery, is just like any other non-believer.

But then I must ask... Why are you then a Christian? (rhetorical question really, as I do not want to 'hi-jack' the OP)

If you do not care to engage, that's fine, this is your post; have at it

****************

But I do feel below remains within the direct scope of your OP, if you have more to add:

So to recap, the 'moral outrage' stems from the fact that slavery, anti-homosexuality, and women's inequality, (all once legal in America), could have all been further justified and continued as legal, using and referencing verses from the Bible itself. This appears to be in direct conflict with some of God's claimed attributes.

Peace

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Skeptics, non-believers, atheists, etc, cannot logically appeal to an 'absolute standard' for moral values and duties.

....if this is indeed the case, it seems that you, as a skeptic, don't have much in the way of a firm moral platform from which to assert the "rightness or wrongness" of the social and moral issues you've brought up here, cvanwey. No, it seems that in this case, all you can do is let the rest of us know that you're 'displeased' with how the whole social structure of the world has thus far bumped along ...and you presently feel 'moral outrage.' [I would actually empathize with you, but that would be beside the point, wouldn't it?]

The thing is, some secular humanists will assert that morality isn't really "subjective" and that they can proceed to offer some kind of platform by which they think a strong moral alternative to biblical moral principles can be delineated, such as that presented by the humanists, Ronald A. Lindsay or Greg M. Epstein.

Article: How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters--Without God

On the other hand, theists do. I would assume you are a Christian, based upon your profile and statements. Where else might you get your 'absolute moral foundations,' aside from the Bible?

Personally, I find the whole concept of epistemic and moral Foundationalism to be wanting, which is something you probably should have seen coming since I explained that I work from a more existential, but also a very hermeneutical type of approach in handling the Bible (or any religious or moral text, for that matter).

For theists, the conclusion appears very simple.

Unfortunately, nothing is ever really as 'simple' as it may at first seem.

It is either from the Bible, or their brain (which is thought that the cognitive conclusions are controlled by the ultimate claimed organized transcendent mind), and the brain may disagree with the Bible in some aspects....

Actually, I beg to differ. Since the Bible isn't comprehensive in either it's epistemological exposition nor in its directives about how human beings should fully apply the core moral principles found in its pages, it does require the additive and complimentary efforts of human minds to further inquire, learn, become educated, have additional insight and experiences, and to cull personal notions of intuition to put into effect something like the injunctions of Jesus.

So, Christian moral thought, and its attending senses of 'righteous indignation' can, and often do, come out of a complex, ongoing confluence of considerations that surround the Bible at their core, and the end results are not always manifested in "absolute" terms but in terms of relevance and care that are appropriate to the complex situations we often find ourselves in, such as was the case with slavery in the U.S.

If you are wanting to navigate a very specific direction, that's fine. I am not trying to take over the thread I'm not trying to 'hornswoggle' you, 'stump' you, or other.

I cannot help to mention the Bible, along with it's pronouncements, assertions, and tenets, as the Bible is the claimed and asserted absolute moral foundation for such values and duties.

I think it's better to see the Bible as a dynamic core rather than as an absolutist foundation.

Without referencing the Bible, what foundation for moral conclusions may the Christian (i.e. you) use? If (you) do not draw upon, or conclude upon, the Bible, then I guess you are stating your opinions; based upon enlightenment, evidence, and continued discovery, is just like any other non-believer.

No, a Christian can be stating "opinions"; the caveat in my saying this is that opinions are NOT equal. Some opinions, or personal subjective viewpoints, can approximate what it takes to assess and deal with reality BETTER than do other opinions; when this happens, we then tend to apply the label "objective" to those personal viewpoints.

But then I must ask... Why are you then a Christian? (rhetorical question really, as I do not want to 'hi-jack' the OP)

....I'm a Christian because at this juncture of time, and in comparing all of the various fruits and vegetables of religion and other ideologies, Christianity is the most aesthetically appealing to me, existentially speaking.

If you do not care to engage, that's fine, this is your post; have at it

Oh, I'm engaging ......don't worry about that.

****************

But I do feel below remains within the direct scope of your OP, if you have more to add:

So to recap, the 'moral outrage' stems from the fact that slavery, anti-homosexuality, and women's inequality, (all once legal in America), could have all been further justified and continued as legal, using and referencing verses from the Bible itself. This appears to be in direct conflict with some of God's claimed attributes.

Peace

Ok. So, that's how you see it, and this is why you feel 'moral outrage.' On some points, I will agree with you, and on some other points, I will disagree.

 

[FireDragon76]

Evangelicals should be cautious of moral outrage because of a bad track record managing it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evangelicals should be cautious of moral outrage because of a bad track record managing it.

Yes, that's an excellent point, FireDragon76! In your understanding of the faith we both hold in common fashion, where do you think the limits and parameters are situated for our feelings of moral outrage/righteous indignation? What do we Christians need to be mindful of if and when we're a little irritated by the social and moral disequilibrium we perceive exists around us?

 

[Hazelelponi]

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

I dont feel any person who is a follower of Christ has any reason for moral or ethical outrage where concerns things of this world (ie the political or social ).

The only times Christ showed moral or ethical outrage was in matters that concerned the church and its behaviors, turning the temple of God into a money making scheme, being righteous to be seen of men, leading people astray.. etc.

But He was never outraged at the world. For them He offered a message of Hope and Love through faith. He showed them a better way without outrage. We see that with Him eating with the sinners etc.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 tells us what the world does is not our concern.

So.. we should have different stances - we reach out to the lost unsaved world with love and a message of hope and a better way, i.e. the Gospel, and save our moral and ethical outrage for the church after making VERY sure we have removed our own mote and can see clearly..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I dont feel any person who is a follower of Christ has any reason for moral or ethical outrage where concerns things of this world (ie the political or social ).

The only times Christ showed moral or ethical outrage was in matters that concerned the church and its behaviors, turning the temple of God into a money making scheme, being righteous to be seen of men, leading people astray.. etc.

But He was never outraged at the world. For them He offered a message of Hope and Love through faith. He showed them a better way without outrage. We see that with Him eating with the sinners etc.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13 tells us what the world does is not our concern.

So.. we should have different stances - we reach out to the lost unsaved world with love and a message of hope and a better way, i.e. the Gospel, and save our moral and ethical outrage for the church after making VERY sure we have removed our own mote and can see clearly..

Those are all great points, Hazelelponi! And I very much agree with most of what you've said here. But, what if we envision 'moral outrage' as something prophetic in nature rather, like what the Prophets of old expressed, or John the Baptist expressed, or Peter and Paul expressed as they were led by the Holy Spirit to do so? Should we say that Christians should never be angry about the moral and spiritual problems we find in the world?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Those are all great points, Hazelelponi! And I very much agree with most of what you've said here. But, what if we envision 'moral outrage' as something prophetic in nature rather, like what the Prophets of old expressed, or John the Baptist expressed, or Peter and Paul expressed as they were led by the Holy Spirit to do so? Should we say that Christians should never be angry about the moral and spiritual problems we find in the world?

Please point out these instances where they were expressing moral outrage at the state of the world outside of Israel and the Church or outside of the preaching of the Gospel to the lost..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Please point out these instances where they were expressing moral outrage at the state of the world outside of Israel and the Church or outside of the preaching of the Gospel to the lost..

To do that, we'd have to agree on what we mean by "outrage" or "indignation," wouldn't we? Am I sensing that you might think that anger has no place at all in the Christian emotional framework?

 

[Hazelelponi]

To do that, we'd have to agree on what we mean by "outrage" or "indignation," wouldn't we? Am I sensing that you might think that anger has no place at all in the Christian emotional framework?

No.. we dont have to agree on anything for you to point out instances where John the Baptist was expressing moral outrage at/about those who were not included in the definition of Israel or the Church..

I simply want you to point out the instances your talking about... this will help us to understand one another.

My stance is that it never happened in the way your indicating it happened - but to get on the same page you have to show, from the Bible where these people were politically or socially motivated in worldly matters not associated with Israel, the church, or spreading the Gospel.

Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world, and I never saw any instances where any of the apostles seemed to think the world was a concern for them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No.. we dont have to agree on anything for you to point out instances where John the Baptist was expressing moral outrage at/about those who were not included in the definition of Israel or the Church..

I simply want you to point out the instances your talking about... this will help us to understand one another.

My stance is that it never happened in the way your indicating it happened - but to get on the same page you have to show, from the Bible where these people were politically or socially motivated in worldly matters not associated with Israel, the church, or spreading the Gospel.

Jesus said His Kingdom is not of this world, and I never saw any instances where any of the apostles seemed to think the world was a concern for them.

These too are all good points you're making, Hazelelponi! And I think that if you knew me better, you'd see that you and I have some similar evaluations about how we are to envision the essential nature of Christ's Kingdom as it presently resides here on earth. However, if Jesus says that part of our faith is to define and bring about God's Social Justice in the world in which we still live, then we may have to "speak out" on behalf of those who are oppressed in some way and not able to "speak out" for themselves. It might even require our willingness to vocalize our faith in Christ and spread His Gospel message in such a way that in not only is heard, but when accepted, disrupts the world's capital and trade which often involve idolatry and human exploitation. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Hazelelponi]

However, if Jesus says that part of our faith is to define and bring about God's Social Justice in the world in which we still live

Show me where Jesus said that...

You know, chapter and verse.. simple simple.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Show me where Jesus said that...

You know, chapter and verse.. simple simple.

Well, let's just look at one verse at a time, without getting sidetracked on to an array of various quotations that no one has time for all at once. And one of these verses would be Matthew 23:23, and here we find Jesus implying something to the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees that they already should have known from having read and known the entire Old Testament. Bringing about or promoting Justice on behalf of the oppressed, not only on a spiritual level but also on some specific social level, isn't optional. The lawyers, scribes and Pharisees failed to do all of God's Will in this regard.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Well, let's just look at one verse at a time, without getting sidetracked on to an array of various quotations that no one has time for all at once. And one of these verses would be Matthew 23:23, and here we find Jesus implying something to the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees that they already should have known from having read and known the entire Old Testament. Bringing about or promoting Justice on behalf of the oppressed, not only on a spiritual level but also on some specific social level, isn't optional. The lawyers, scribes and Pharisees failed to do all of God's Will in this regard.

Where does that tell us to become embroiled in worldly affairs?

It doesn't!

Jesus is speaking to the religious leaders and the uber religious of Israel. Tithing was only on corn, oil and wine, but these super religious went one step farther in their tithes, and tithed even on their spices.

But, with their extra care in tithing, they forgot the important things such as shown in Micah 6:7-8

That doesn't in any way indicate that we should concern ourselves with what the world does but rather make sure our own actions are Godly.

Next...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Where does that tell us to become embroiled in worldly affairs?

It doesn't!

Jesus is speaking to the religious leaders and the uber religious of Israel. Tithing was only on corn, oil and wine, but these super religious went one step farther in their tithes, and tithed even on their spices.

But, with their extra care in tithing, they forgot the spirit of the law..

That doesn't in any way indicate that we should concern ourselves with what the world does but rather make sure our own actions are Godly.

Next...

Actually, Jesus was simply reflecting motifs of the Law of Moses that the Lawyers, the Scribes and the Pharisees should have known apply to ALL OF GOD'S PEOPLE at ALL TIMES. All one needs to do to understand this implied injunction from Jesus is to find those passages in the Old Testament to which Jesus as alluding ... It's not that hard, really. It's just hard to put into effect since there's way too much bigotry and ethic strife and hatred in our supposedly democratically advancing world.

So, in essence, the whole idea of the separation of Church and State is a new invention that has been foisted upon the world in modern times and isn't actually precluded by the way in which Jesus pronounced that the Kingdom would manifest itself in the world. However, what Jesus didn't say was that Christians should or would always have the "upper-hand" in national or world politics. And this is where Christians at times go overboard with some kind of Postmillenial, Theonomic, Reconstructionist glee that, to me, seems very misdirected. In the meantime, our politics should still be vocal and promote, at the least, biblical justice for the oppressed and the uncared for.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Actually, Jesus was simply reflecting motifs of the Law of Moses that the Lawyers, the Scribes and the Pharisees should have known apply to ALL OF GOD'S PEOPLE. All one needs to do to understand this implied injunction from Jesus is to find those passages in the Old Testament to which Jesus as alluding ... It's not that hard, really. It's just hard to put into effect since there's way too much bigotry and ethic strife and hatred in our supposedly democratically advancing world.

So, in essence, the whole idea of the separation of Church and State is a new invention that has been foisted upon the world in modern times and isn't actually precluded by the way in which Jesus pronounced that the Kingdom would manifest itself in the world. What Jesus didn't say was that Christians should or would always have the "upper-hand" in national or world politics. And this is where Christians at times go overboard with some kind of Postmillenial glee that, to me, seems misdirected. In the meantime, our politics should be vocal and promote, at the least, biblical justice for the oppressed and the uncared for.

Should God's people be "good" people, yes..

Should we be worldly people concerning ourselves with "social justice" or the "sins of unbelievers"?

Nope!

Show me where Paul railed against Roman homosexuality except where it affected those inside the church!

Show me where Jesus went around using miracles to feed the hungry outside of where it affected Him teaching!

Show me where Peter worked to overthrow the Roman idea of slavery!

Show me where any of these social justice fights occurred that didn't involve Israel, the church, or the spreading of the Gospel!

You can't do it because it never happened... if you want to change the world then do what Jesus COMMANDED you to do.. preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost!

Otherwise your teaching a gospel other than the one taught to us.. Galatians 1:8 and are to be ignored.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Should God's people be "good" people, yes..

Should we be worldly people concerning ourselves with "social justice" or the "sins of unbelievers"?

Nope!

Show me where Paul railed against Roman homosexuality except where it affected those inside the church!

Show me where Jesus went around using miracles to feed the hungry outside of where it affected Him teaching!

Show me where Peter worked to overthrow the Roman idea of slavery!

Show me where any of these social justice fights occurred that didn't involve Israel, the church, or the spreading of the Gospel!

You can't do it because it never happened... if you want to change thre world then do what Jesus COMMANDED you to do.. preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost!

Otherwise your teaching a gospel other than the one taught to us.. Galatians 1:8 and as such are under the curse and to be ignored.

Thanks for your vote of confidence and for your citation that you think I'm not really a Christian. It's also been duly noted, and I hope the moderators here are fair enough to note it, too.

In the meantime, might I suggest the following books for you to read:

Global Neighbors: Christian faith and Moral obligation in Today's Economy - Douglas A. Hicks & Mark Valeri (Eds.)

The Economy of Desire: Christianity and Capitalism in a Postmodern World - Daniel M. Bell, Jr.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Thanks for your vote of confidence and for your citation that you think I'm not really a Christian. It's also been duly noted, and I hope the moderators here are fair enough to note it, too.

I'm good with what I wrote.

Sorry, separation of church and state is entirely Biblical because the church doesn't include non believers and it never will.

We can be good people and we should be, all those who follow Christ ... but to make our faith a law of a land which is full of atheists and non believers you've lost the plot and never understood Jesus at all..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm good with what I wrote.

Sorry, separation of church and state is entirely Biblical because the church doesn't include non believers and it never will.

We can be good people and we should be, all those who follow Christ ... but to make our faith a law of a land full of atheists and non believers you've lost the plot and never understood Jesus at all..

You're completely missing the meaning of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is almost exactly what YOU are saying. You're just not recognizing it because I come at it all from a different angle. I'm NOT saying that the U.S. should become a theocracy. I didn't say that, nor did I imply that. Kapeesh, Sis?!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm good with what I wrote.

Sorry, separation of church and state is entirely Biblical because the church doesn't include non believers and it never will.

We can be good people and we should be, all those who follow Christ ... but to make our faith a law of a land which is full of atheists and non believers you've lost the plot and never understood Jesus at all..

If you really want to understand my views, I suggest you read those books I've recommended above.

 

[Hazelelponi]

If you really want to understand my views, I suggest you read those books I've recommended above.

I got your views at:

the whole idea of the separation of Church and State is a new invention that has been foisted upon the world

Didn't need to read any books.. nothing at all separates that from religions like Islam that likewise want to rule the world with their religion..

I lived Islams version.. I'm not living the Christian version of it although there are tons of historical examples of how that went down when it existed..

My God has a Kingdom and it's not of this world..