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

[2PhiloVoid]

I got your views at:



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.

Read again what I just said in post #38.

 

[jacks]

Mean while back at the OP...
I think you bring up an interesting question and to be truthful I have no answer for myself and certainly not others. If we look even casually we would find moral atrocities happening almost continually around the globe. Usually we are only aware of them when they are thrust upon us by the media or they affect us personally. So when is it appropriate to respond to them? Well certainly not based on the most aggrieves (Otherwise we would often be rallying against something that happened in a small village 4000 mile away.) We usually address the moral indignity du jour. i.e in essence we are told what we should be "righteously indignant" (is there such a thing?) about. I find these motivations suspect; are we just jumping on the moral indignation bandwagon?
For myself I would like only to respond when I felt it could do some good and had first removed the beam from my own eye. In reality? I get mad at something and lash out and hope that I can justify it by saying I was "righteously" motivated.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Read again what I just said in post #38.

I don't need to re-read anything.

Your espousing theology not found in the Bible, that's been tried before by Christians and been nothing short of an abysmal failure and an atrocity against all that God is on top of it..

Not only has that particular atrocity been tried by Christians, it's been tried by other religious groups as well, further illustrating that ruling via your favored religious thought processes doesn't work at all.

God has never been threatened by freedom, only worldly rulers/those who want to rule are thus threatened.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't need to re-read anything.

Your espousing theology not found in the Bible, that's been tried before by Christians and been nothing short of an abysmal failure and an atrocity against all that God is on top of it..

I'm not sure that I'm espousing theology not found in the Bible if I can take you from Genesis to Revelation and dig into the underlying motifs that are actually there but very often ignored by Christians like yourself. So, don't play that game with me, sister. I'm sorry to hear that you lived in a totalitarian Islamic environment, but what I'm attempting to expound upon here is exactly the opposite of what you're implying that I'm expounding upon. In fact, I'm sure you're not even understanding what I've thus far said or what my theology actually is. And how do I know this? I know this because you've simply jumped to conclusions without actually doing the work of full investigation into what I believe.

Not only has that particular atrocity been tried by Christians, it's been tried by other religious groups as well, further illustrating that ruling via your favored religious thought processes doesn't work at all.

What atrocity? Again, if you don't precisely understand what I'm even referring to, then you can't make the claim that I'm supporting some kind of atrocity? What atrocity? The atrocity of helping and caring for the orphan, the widow, the immigrant or alien, the poor, the oppressed?

God has never been threatened by freedom, only worldly rulers/those who want to rule are thus threatened.

Sure, God isn't threatened by our freedom, even if it is a Laodicean freedom.

 

[quatona]

...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.

I guess that´s your way of saying "You and I agree on something."

Anyway, I´m the wrong person to have the TrueChristianity debate with...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess that´s your way of saying "You and I agree on something."

Anyway, I´m the wrong person to have the TrueChristianity debate with...

No problem. It's not my aim to get directly into that with anyone in this thread. I just want to hear what people have to say about when, where, why, (and IF), they think 'moral outrage/righteous indignation' is or can be appropriate, and you've already answer this from your perspective. And I appreciate that.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm not sure that I'm espousing theology not found in the Bible if I can take you from Genesis to Revelation and dig into the underlying motifs that are actually there but very often ignored by Christians like yourself. So, don't play that game with me, sister. I'm sorry to hear that you lived in a totalitarian Islamic environment, but what I'm attempting to expound upon here is exactly the opposite of what you're implying that I'm expounding upon. In fact, I'm sure you're not even understanding what I've thus far said or what my theology actually is. And how do I know this? I know this because you've simply jumped to conclusions without actually doing the work of full investigation into what I believe.

What atrocity? Again, if you don't precisely understand what I'm even referring to, then you can't make the claim that I'm supporting some kind of atrocity? What atrocity? The atrocity of helping and caring for the orphan, the widow, the immigrant or alien, the poor, the oppressed?

Sure, God isn't threatened by our freedom, even if it is a Laodicean freedom.

Here, in our conversation, is where you see my definition of ethical or moral outrage and where it is appropriate - i.e. within the confines of church matters..

This conversation however, has caused me to be guilty of the one thing i castigated you for, i.e. becoming embroiled in worldly affairs.. of this I am now officially guilty and therefore..

On that note I am finished with this conversation. The affairs of the world are not mine as I am a child of God whose citizenship is in the Kingdom of the Living God, which is not of this world.

You can do whatever you like.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mean while back at the OP...
I think you bring up an interesting question and to be truthful I have no answer for myself and certainly not others. If we look even casually we would find moral atrocities happening almost continually around the globe. Usually we are only aware of them when they are thrust upon us by the media or they affect us personally. So when is it appropriate to respond to them? Well certainly not based on the most aggrieves (Otherwise we would often be rallying against something that happened in a small village 4000 mile away.) We usually address the moral indignity du jour. i.e in essence we are told what we should be "righteously indignant" (is there such a thing?) about. I find these motivations suspect; are we just jumping on the moral indignation bandwagon?
For myself I would like only to respond when I felt it could do some good and had first removed the beam from my own eye. In reality? I get mad at something and lash out and hope that I can justify it by saying I was "righteously" motivated.

I most definitely agree that we should each look to see if we have a beam in our own eye first before trying to remove a mote of dust from our neighbor's eye. It's not really useful to anyone for a bunch of hypocrites to jump onto various bandwagons and decry what they think is a sad state of affairs.

However, let's assume that a person is emotionally sober and indeed looking at the world around him or her in a more or less equitable way while having some reasonable sense of justice about it all. In what ways might a person who is ethically mindful in this way know what ethical parameters should guide his or her moral feelings as they react against the social disequilibrium's that may actually exist in the surrounding society and culture?

 

[jacks]

However, let's assume that a person is emotionally sober and indeed looking at the world around him or her in a more or less equitable way while having some reasonable sense of justice about it all.

This probably describes nearly everyone from their own perspective.

In what ways might a person who is ethically mindful in this way know what ethical parameters should guide his or her moral feelings as they react against the social disequilibrium's that may actually exist in the surrounding society and culture?

I actually like THESE guidelines. (10 ways to fight like a Christian) paying particular attention to number one. Do I live this way...not quite but I'm trying.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

A military mentor told me once, "It's better to fix the problem than the blame."

The same guy also explained the "Horse Manure Rule" to me, however: "When you get involved in horse manure, you smell like horse manure, especially when you're the one who cleaned it up."

That didn't mean it wasn't still better to fix the problem, only that you shouldn't expect accolades afterward.

 

[RDKirk]

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

If it's not by persons professing to be Christians, then it's to be expected. Why be outraged when a cottonmouth bites? It's what they do. Cottonmouth snakes gonna bite, pagans gonna page.

Moral outrage is more in place when Christians act like pagans. Jesus was never outraged over sinners sinning, because He knows sinners gonna sin--they can't do anything but sin (see Romans 6).

Jesus was outraged over the sins of those proclaiming themselves to be righteous but were yet sinning. And so was Paul, outraged over Christians sinning in ways that even disgusted pagans.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This probably describes nearly everyone from their own perspective.

I actually like THESE guidelines. (10 ways to fight like a Christian) paying particular attention to number one. Do I live this way...not quite but I'm trying.

I definitely like a lot of the things Dr. Greear is saying in the link you've provided. That's good stuff! Thanks for adding that in!

 

[variant]

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

Moral indignation is for when you see people harming others.

 

[gaara4158]

The world is constantly being shaped by the choices we make. If the world begins to take a shape that threatens you, that is when you take action - either by adapting or resisting. I think the question you’re asking is, when is it more appropriate to resist than to adapt? I take a utilitarian stance here. If more people are helped than hurt by the change, it’s time to adapt. If more people are hurt than helped, it’s time to resist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The world is constantly being shaped by the choices we make. If the world begins to take a shape that threatens you, that is when you take action - either by adapting or resisting. I think the question you’re asking is, when is it more appropriate to resist than to adapt? I take a utilitarian stance here. If more people are helped than hurt by the change, it’s time to adapt. If more people are hurt than helped, it’s time to resist.

These are all good points, gaara. Our choices do shape the world, and we may find it difficult to know when to adapt rather than to resist when we feel threatened.

I see you take a utilitarian stance, which I guess is fine in many cases. But as a Christian, I'm tied to a golden cord, so to speak, so I have a limited latitude as to what I "can" do when choosing to either adapt or to resist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Moral indignation is for when you see people harming others.

Yeah, I'd say that's right.

 

[gaara4158]

These are all good points, gaara. Our choices do shape the world, and we may find it difficult to know when to adapt rather than to resist when we feel threatened.

I see you take a utilitarian stance, which I guess is fine in many cases. But as a Christian, I'm tied to a golden cord, so to speak, so I have a limited latitude as to what I "can" do when choosing to either adapt or to resist.

It’s interesting that you should feel limited by a golden cord’s length rather than empowered by its golden composition. I understand you accept Christianity’s moral guidelines above all others, but do you ever find yourself in personal disagreement with them?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It’s interesting that you should feel limited by a golden cord’s length rather than empowered by its golden composition. I understand you accept Christianity’s moral guidelines above all others, but do you ever find yourself in personal disagreement with them?

When I said I'm "tied" to a Golden Cord, I think you're missing the meaning implied by the overall metaphysical connotations embedded in what I'm actually saying, gaara....................................

It's not really quite the same kind of thing as saying, "My wife has me on a leash!"

 

[gaara4158]

When I said I'm "tied" to a Golden Cord, I think you're missing the meaning implied by the overall metaphysical connotations embedded in what I'm actually saying, gaara....................................

It's not really quite the same kind of thing as saying, "My wife has me on a leash!"

Ah, sounds like something’s gone over my head then. Care to explain?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ah, sounds like something’s gone over my head then. Care to explain?

Would it be too much for me to say that in some sense I've applied myself to being a "slave" of Christ? [Meaning, I don't just get to pick my own morality out whole cloth and wear it [or calculate it] any way I see fit. Nor do I just get to express my irritation (or anger) at the world around me any way I see fit, either .....]