Existentialism As Christianity.

[Shrooms00087]

Is it moral to externalize our passion of responsibility rather than, internalization?

Example:
I woke this morning to pay the toll of parking and in the pay booth a small card that said "expose the darkness that is abortion". Ah, but what is this darkness of which they speak? Surely they don't mean people who have abortions are ignorant of all the facts. That they require graphic details of scrapped fetuses. Not only to that end either, in my home town of Oklahoma they go SO FAR as to show these pictures to high school students. So lets say that darkness just means "evil". As a Christian I completely sympathize with the notion of the INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE to NOT have an abortion. That, however, is an existentialist outlook which is inherently not Christian (most ask what would God do).

Surely God would not have adults littering the streets with vulgar images displayed in front of children. This makes God out to be some sort of monster. Instead what would be the answer to the question of Christian Existentialism?

When does a Christian become a monster spreading grief when conflicted with Christian Ideas of responsibility?

 

[Shrooms00087]

Is it moral to externalize our passion of responsibility rather than, internalization?

As a Christian it is fundamentally immoral to externalize our judgments based on our emotions. For that power is the power of God alone. Any religious political movement that threatens to take CHOICE (the basics of Christianity) is sheer blasphemy. Any religious movement that seeks to include people into their way of thinking (way of doing) is the ONLY Christian thing to do. Suffer for the sake and love of your neighbors.

Instead what would be the answer to the question of Christian Existentialism?

Instead of externalizing your institutions morals they should instead skip the institution altogether (flip the coin tables as it were) and start adopting. They spend more time making babies of their own nature rather than being a true Christian and caring for those who are without care. Here are some adoption statistics http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport20.pdf

When does a Christian become a monster spreading grief when conflicted with Christian Ideas of responsibility?

The second a Christian decides to tie their shoe laces and spread grief, strife, and hardship on their fellow neighbors. Someone who has had an abortion probably doesn't want to be reminded of what happened; nor do they wish to be condemned for having the strength to make such a hard decision. This is also the second they stop being Christians. Instead of putting a business card saying that abortion is a "dark act" and that it is something to "stand up against" use that time to look at adopting.

As a side note why has Christianity been taken back to the middle ages? What is with the TEA party? Why do they feel they need to have so much ammunition? It's like they're scared of the Second Coming and are ready to do battle with God. 'Better get the guns for when Christ comes with the flaming sword....We may not be so innocent'.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

When does tolerance become apathy, and freedom of choice become freedom from responsibility?

The attitude of the above seems to come from the Deism of the Enlightment Era, rather than Christianity proper. Of course, that leads us to the question of whether the laity or the theologians decide what is Christian. My inclinations are toward the latter, yet I have no definitive stance on the subject. I find it to be a difficult line of inquiry.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Yeah traditionally there isn't such a thing as Christian Existentialism, however the religion itself seems to quasi-support Existentialism.

Tolerance is basically apathy. This is bad when you need motion towards equal rights. Just a cool quote from Zizek, "I don't want to be tolerated I want equal rights." Being apathetic in helping others get equal rights is when it would get bad.

Could you help me understand the difference between freedom of choice from responsibility? You can choose to be apathetic as a part of your responsibility.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

We have a duty to use those powers we are afforded justly. In the example of the first post, I say that the power to create life has been recast by some cultures as a toy for personal gratification, it is then easy for persons with such ideas to conclude that they have a right to choose to terminate any unwanted consequences of this power, and I feel that this is an unjust rejection of those duties inherent in that power. Less controversially we might address those responsibilities created by the powers/efforts of large commercial interests towards the community and environment at large. Etc. etc.

Tolerance is basically apathy

No. Tolerance means to endure, apathy is to lack interest/concern.

Conflating the two leads to the frightening McCarthy-ish reaction towards perceived racists/sexists (the new heretics) by many of my young leftist friends, though the accused may be perfectly tolerant in practice (assuming that they are actually bigoted, and not in inadvertent possession of a few harmless prejudices).

I've traipsed into politics, sorry, that's just what my brain is full of. I know there are more innocuous examples out there. Just address the spirit of what I'd said instead of the particular issues (where some may feel I have grievously erred in my interpretation). If I may step back into a more productive area of discussion:

As a Christian it is fundamentally immoral to externalize our judgments based on our emotions

Judgments of persons are to be avoided, not judgments of actions. I will post some scriptural or doctrinal justifcation for this statement (but not htis evening). However, I must confess that I myself have trouble telling where righteous exhortation stops and hypocritical self-righteousness begins, in many cases.

'course I never say anything about other folks or what they do, since I am a wretched and reprehensible human being.

 

[Shrooms00087]

We have a duty to use those powers we are afforded justly. In the example of the first post, I say that the power to create life has been recast by some cultures as a toy for personal gratification, it is then easy for persons with such ideas to conclude that they have a right to choose to terminate any unwanted consequences of this power, and I feel that this is an unjust rejection of those duties inherent in that power. Less controversially we might address those responsibilities created by the powers/efforts of large commercial interests towards the community and environment at large. Etc. etc.

Ah yes I agree completely that we should be weary of pregnancy and that it is a big responsibility. However this thought is rather damning, should you find yourself in a pregnancy that you know you cannot afford the right conditions for the child, your city/state has horrible adoption rates and education rates; I would argue that to "address those responsibilities created by the powers/efforts of large commercial interest towards the community and environment at large" would be precisely to legalize abortion for the "environment at large". In the 80's NY thought they were going to have a huge crime wave and abortion became legal and during the coming years crime drastically reduced. This was in the book Freakonomics.

No. Tolerance means to endure, apathy is to lack interest/concern.

Are you not enduring lack of interest and concern? This is what that quote meant by "I do not want to be tolerated I want equal rights, etc, etc".

Conflating the two leads to the frightening McCarthy-ish reaction towards perceived racists/sexists (the new heretics) by many of my young leftist friends, though the accused may be perfectly tolerant in practice (assuming that they are actually bigoted, and not in inadvertent possession of a few harmless prejudices).

Tolerance would mean "I will tolerate the African-Americans getting voting rights". Apathy would be "I don't care to be involved in the matter". McCarthy reactionary movements come from intolerance to the natural Order of Things. Perhaps the real tension isn't tolerance or apathy --maybe the question is what is the nature of the reactionary movement? Is it for rights or vulgarity? Certainly making time out of your day to protest for unborn-nonthinking fetuses while what you could be doing is helping the current statistics of the living whom were fortunate enough to survive the rapture of being born.

Judgments of persons are to be avoided, not judgments of actions. I will post some scriptural or doctrinal justifcation for this statement (but not htis evening). However, I must confess that I myself have trouble telling where righteous exhortation stops and hypocritical self-righteousness begins, in many cases.

'course I never say anything about other folks or what they do, since I am a wretched and reprehensible human being.

I would be interested in seeing it. We can't judge actions either (except our own), we can participate in the system of justice (which ironically no longer belongs to the church) but I will wait for your doctrinal justification. As for your feelings on being wretched and reprehensible, what got us on that route?