Christian nationalist pastor McPherson: "Empathy is aligned with hell."

[Servus]

Who says so?

Me.

 

[Jerry N.]

I think the problem here is that the meaning of “empathy” has changed to some degree. The original meaning in English is “The ability to understand and share the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of others.” However, “Today, empathy is widely recognized as an essential skill for social interaction and emotional intelligence. It allows individuals to connect with others, build relationships, resolve conflicts, and provide support in times of need.” (My underlining) The difference is small but significant. empathy etymology online, origin and meaning

“Emotional intelligence” is an academic phrase to get your paper published, but “essential skill for social interaction” is key to the modern use of the word.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Me.

No wonder

 

[MehGuy]

I have read that at least some psychopaths can turn emotional empathy on and off at will, which frankly is a scary thought.

Here is a link to a report of one such study.

Brain research shows psychopathic criminals do not lack empathy, but fail to use it automatically

A brain imaging study in the Netherlands shows individuals with psychopathy have reduced empathy while witnessing the pains of others. When asked to empathize, however, they can activate their empathy.

www.sciencedaily.com

Kind of funny though, since being an atheist I've been trying to curb my emotional empathy. Feeling great shame when I slip up.

 

[linux.poet]

Empathy is not a trick or attack that others are imposing on you.

It is a trick that dumb moms and LGTBQ+ use to attack Christianity, by demanding that Christians subjugate their beliefs to their emotions before they will socially interact normally.

Where do you get that?

Again, my personal experience of talking with LGTBQ+ individuals. They demanded that I coddle their emotions and subjugate my thinking to their emotional pain.

Likewise, there were some moms who were mad when I was answering their kids' questions and they demanded that I subjugate my teaching to their emotions. They identified as empathetic and claimed I was cruel for not changing my teaching based on their concerns.

I think the tension between the simplistic definition of understanding emotional communication and the way these people use it is a hole to manipulate people into accepting their beliefs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a side note for amusement purposes, at one point I actually thought I was a psychopath due to how unfeeling I was. However, it seems that I actually alternate between having my emotions on "mute" and having a deep emotional reserve, which I then use. There's also the fact that I suffered from crippling emotional pain for years, and that's rather inconsistent with psychopathy.

What I actually found to be compelling was research that concluded that psychopathy was genetic, and the gene was located on the sex chromosomes. Therefore, female psychopaths are rare, the research concluded, because of the statistical unlikelihood of having two psychopathic X chromosomes. The researchers claimed that if there was an X with normal emotional functioning encoded and another with psychopathic emotional functioning encoded, they would cancel each other out. For awhile, that last sentence seemed a bit suspect to me - if I had half of my brain with psychopathic Xs and half my brain with normal Xs, that would explain my emotional experience rather well. But that's bunk.

It's morbidly inconsistent with the fact that I had to train my brain to recognize the output of mental illnesses and not feel things in the face of them, not take it personally, and not get out of control. If anger goes to mute and my intellect takes over, that's a trained response from years of trauma and abuse and dealing with annoying people.

Kind of funny though, since being an atheist I've been trying to curb my emotional empathy. Feeling great shame when I slip up.

From my perspective, atheism is more aligned with empathy than Christianity is. Christianity is brutally facing up to cold hard truth while atheism is telling yourself a bunch of soothing empathetic lies to soothe yourself and those around you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is a trick that dumb moms and LGTBQ+ use to attack Christianity, by demanding that Christians subjugate their beliefs to their emotions before they will socially interact normally.

Again, my personal experience of talking with LGTBQ+ individuals. They demanded that I coddle their emotions and subjugate my thinking to their emotional pain.

Likewise, there were some moms who were mad when I was answering their kids' questions and they demanded that I subjugate my teaching to their emotions. They identified as empathetic and claimed I was cruel for not changing my teaching based on their concerns.

I think the tension between the simplistic definition of understanding emotional communication and the way these people use it is a hole to manipulate people into accepting their beliefs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a side note for amusement purposes, at one point I actually thought I was a psychopath due to how unfeeling I was. However, it seems that I actually alternate between having my emotions on "mute" and having a deep emotional reserve, which I then use. There's also the fact that I suffered from crippling emotional pain for years, and that's rather inconsistent with psychopathy.

What I actually found to be compelling was research that concluded that psychopathy was genetic, and the gene was located on the sex chromosomes. Therefore, female psychopaths are rare, the research concluded, because of the statistical unlikelihood of having two psychopathic X chromosomes. The researchers claimed that if there was an X with normal emotional functioning encoded and another with psychopathic emotional functioning encoded, they would cancel each other out. For awhile, that last sentence seemed a bit suspect to me - if I had half of my brain with psychopathic Xs and half my brain with normal Xs, that would explain my emotional experience rather well. But that's bunk.

It's morbidly inconsistent with the fact that I had to train my brain to recognize the output of mental illnesses and not feel things in the face of them, not take it personally, and not get out of control. If anger goes to mute and my intellect takes over, that's a trained response from years of trauma and abuse and dealing with annoying people.

From my perspective, atheism is more aligned with empathy than Christianity is. Christianity is brutally facing up to cold hard truth while atheism is telling yourself a bunch of soothing empathetic lies to soothe yourself and those around you.

What's interesting to me is that I've found in my own personal experiences, and in my own multiple observations, it's neither specifically Atheists nor Christians who have a penchant for empathy. From my perspective, it's simply a matter of people having the emotional ability and past experience to find that they actually "care" about the welfare of other people, and that ability to care, from what I've seen, comes on a spectrum of potency.

The most important thing for me is that it was the apparent ability of Jesus to empathize with other people's pain that partly drew me into the Christian Faith in the first place. I've spent the last nearly 40 years wondering why folks around me who claim to be Christian so often have the inability to follow suit with Jesus.

 

[linux.poet]

I've spent the last nearly 40 years wondering why folks around me who claim to be Christians so often have the inability to follow suite with Jesus.

Probably too much trauma from persecution.

But more seriously, when the cost of following Jesus truly sinks in, we tend to harden up and go into survival mode. Spiritual pride often is another problem, for we think that the other person has sinned, they deserve their pain, and we need to read the book of Job again. (And then we don't want to admit our pain for fear of being socially condemned.) Those are the basic obstacles to emotional understanding that I see a lot of the time.

 

[MehGuy]

From my perspective, atheism is more aligned with empathy than Christianity is. Christianity is brutally facing up to cold hard truth while atheism is telling yourself a bunch of soothing empathetic lies to soothe yourself and those around you.

I am not sure what you mean by soothing empathetic lies? Sadly though, there are plenty of highly emotionally empathetic atheists who wear their hearts on their sleeves. Atheism itself is neutral about empathy though.

Christianity on the other hand seems to be all about emotional empathy, especially having extreme empathy for those who are suffering. It's not inherently wrong to be emotionally empathetic with those who suffer, but it's a movement that strikes me as ripe for being abused by sadomasochists. Really, when you are constantly being highly empathetic with others you are often just thinking about torture. And .. what kind of people are more likely to thrive in such environments?

If you want to look up a vile example, look up Mother Teresa and what she had to say about suffering. A woman mind you, who ran many hospices that had complaints of inadequate care.

Saying this, I want to note I see similar things happening in secular environments too. I don't mean this post to be a personal attack against religion. Just that for me, losing my faith opened my eyes to very awry psychology. And I bring it up because while I am happy that critical thought of empathy is becoming more mainstream I do not want to see it's proponents socially being perceived as just conservative Christians. I consider myself a liberal leaning atheist and I find empathy often abhorrent myself.

 

[Bradskii]

No, I have personal experience of people demanding that I experience a certain emotional response when they had no right to demand that of me. They were all empaths or claimed some sort of empathic ability as their reason for their demand. They wanted my emotions and actions/reactions to change in response to their demand. That's what I meant in that context.

Some people might expect you to have a reaction to whatever their emotional situation is at any given point. If my wife is sobbing quietly in the bedroom and I ignore that she'll think I was heartless. I can see from her emotional state that she's depressed about something (I can empathise with her) and it would be automatic for me to try to help. If the person is close to you then it would be expected that you wouldn't ignore their distress and might try to to help. She can even say 'You know I'm unhappy, so I expect you to react accordingly'. But that's not empathy. That's simply an expectation that you would help someone in distress.

This ability is impossible and does not truly exist. Nobody is truly an empath. They fake it using intellectual calculations and intelligent guesswork.

Nonsense. If someone is laughing and obviously enjoying themselves then you now that at that moment they are happy. If they are shouting, waving their fist at you and obviously looking for a fight then you know they are angry. If they are downcast, morose, not talkative, then they are showing signs of being sad, which you can obviously detect.

Most people are easy to read in real life and simply think and feel along with the crowd and the nearest authority figure. They are conformists. Therefore, it creates the illusion that people's emotions and responses can be easily understood, which empaths believe. When you don't have the emotion they think you are feeling, they harass you with a demand to produce that emotion and claim that you are lying about your feelings.

So if you're quiet and introverted at some point then someone might think you're sad. But you might just be concentrating on a problem and you're quite content. It makes no sense to me for you to say that people might 'demand that you produce that emotion and claim that you are lying about your feelings.' Firstly, that's not empathy. Secondly, they would come across as having a psychological problem that needed to be addressed.

My emotions are controlled, complex, and muted, and I am the authority on what they are - it is simply too complex for an outsider to read.

Of course. Sometimes what we are feeling is not obvious. That simply means that it's difficult for someone to empathise with you. Some people are outgoing and what you see is what you get. Others are more introverted and harder to read. If your husband is in tears, then you know he's distressed. If he's simply unusually quiet then you might have to ask him if there's anything wrong.

But at the end of the day, there is no biological tunnel in which the biological chemicals of an emotional response can pass from one human to another.

If someone is crying their eyes out then you know they are distressed. It doesn't need a 'biological tunnel' to connect one person to another to understand what they are feeling. As just discussed, sometimes it's easy to empathise. Sometimes not.

And then, what will happen in response to that paragraph, I predict that someone will move the empathetic goalposts to claim that communication of emotion is empathy, or at least the ability to understand direct emotional communication.

The goalposts haven't moved. What you just said accurately describes empathy and aligns perfectly with the three definitions I gave you and the one from a site I brought up on your suggestion.

But just remember, I predicted your arrival and I understand your position, so you don't have a leg to stand on.

I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

Also I don't know what your emotions are on reading this, because I'm not you.

If we were talking face to face then it would be easier. And as regards reading what I'm writing, if used a lot of upper case , exclamation points and a lot of expletives, then you'd wonder why I was so irate.

At the end of the day, this whole debate largely comes down to personal experience, because empathy doesn't exist.

What you are saying is that you'd have no idea what emotional state your husband is in if you see him sobbing, or raging, or laughing. That unless he actually told you, you'd have no idea if he was frustrated or in a loving mood or angry. Because that's what empathy is. Being able to know what he's feeling from observing his emotional state.

 

[Bradskii]

I think this is the first time I fully agreed with you. However, I have two questions: What happened to the word “compassion?” Why do people tell me that they empathize with animals? They don’t know what the animal is feeling. I think it is a form of projection, as I wrote earlier. Why can’t they just say they feel sorry for the little thing?

My grandkids have got a dog. I know when he's sad. Or happy. Or rather, I think I'm judging his emotional state correctly from the way he is acting and the way he looks. Dogs have quite an expressive face. So I believe I can empathise with him. But a hamster or a goldfish? Beats me what they are feeling.

 

[Bradskii]

Atheism itself is neutral about empathy though.

It's an entirely neutral matter.

Christianity on the other hand seems to be all about emotional empathy, especially having extreme empathy for those who are suffering.

'Extreme empathy' is a term that makes no sense. If you can empathise with someone who is suffering then it simply means that you understand what they are feeling because you know how you'd feel in their position. What you do with that information is up to you. You can say 'Oh, no. I don't want them to be distressed so I need to help'. Or you can say 'Hey, I'm glad the guy is suffering. I'll make sure he continues suffering'. Complete with evil laugh and a twirling of one's moustache.

I consider myself a liberal leaning atheist and I find empathy often abhorrent myself.

I think that someone, at some time has twisted the meaning of empathy (maybe while confusing it with sympathy?), has argued the point within some religious framework and lots of people have run with it. It's got me beat anyway...

 

[Bradskii]

I think the problem here is that the meaning of “empathy” has changed to some degree. The original meaning in English is “The ability to understand and share the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of others.” However, “Today, empathy is widely recognized as an essential skill for social interaction and emotional intelligence. It allows individuals to connect with others, build relationships, resolve conflicts, and provide support in times of need.”

I'd agree with all that, except that last highlighted phrase. If you know what someone is feeling you can use that information to continue a conflict if you think it's to your advantage and provide exactly the opposite of support if you are so inclined.

Where this idea came from or how it evolved to encompass only positive outcomes is a mystery to me.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It is a trick that dumb moms and LGTBQ+ use to attack Christianity, by demanding that Christians subjugate their beliefs to their emotions before they will socially interact normally.

Empathy is just not a trick. It is a feeling one feels (or doesn't).

At best/worst, you could say that people are trying to 'play on your sympathies'. But your sympathy or empathy itself is not some Satanic ploy.

 

[MehGuy]

'Extreme empathy' is a term that makes no sense. If you can empathise with someone who is suffering then it simply means that you understand what they are feeling because you know how you'd feel in their position. What you do with that information is up to you. You can say 'Oh, no. I don't want them to be distressed so I need to help'. Or you can say 'Hey, I'm glad the guy is suffering. I'll make sure he continues suffering'. Complete with evil laugh and a twirling of one's moustache.

By saying extreme empathy I mean those who constantly and repetitively emphasize with those who are suffering. Especially when it's a fruitless (and it often is) spiritual exercise. It also inspires masochistic thoughts. "Hey if I can convince others I am in great pain I will be highly valued in their eyes"

Christian persecution (real or imagined) has high social clout, just like in the secular world being high on the oppression scale (real or imagined) gets people high clout in certain social circles.

What's scary about people like that are they do not typically twirl their mustache and make an evil laugh. They just blend in as highly empathetic people, many probably genuinely believing they are highly moral people.

 

[Bradskii]

By saying extreme empathy I mean those who constantly and repetitively emphasize with those who are suffering.

I take it that you meant empathise. But I think that the word that describes what you are implying is 'sympathise'. Empathy gives you the information on how the other person is feeling. That's entirely neutral as regards how you react. Which can be with sympathy or callousness.

What's scary about people like that are they do not typically twirl their mustache and make an evil laugh. They just blend in as highly empathetic people, many probably genuinely believing they are highly moral people.

Empathy has nothing to do with morals. 'I understand that this person is happy/sad/distressed/angry etc' is entirely neutral. How you react to that information is a moral matter.

 

[MehGuy]

I take it that you meant empathise. But I think that the word that describes what you are implying is 'sympathise'. Empathy gives you the information on how the other person is feeling. That's entirely neutral as regards how you react. Which can be with sympathy or callousness.

I take empathy as the ability and / or exercise in imagining being in the shoes of another. The harder one tries to imagine being in the shoes of another the more vivid the emotional pain can feel. Attractive to both sadistic and masochistic types.

I don't think its responsible to constantly empathise with others suffering and working yourself into an emotionally charged state. How you deal with your emotions in your head can act out beyond the head.

Sympathy should be treated with caution too.

Empathy has nothing to do with morals. 'I understand that this person is happy/sad/distressed/angry etc' is entirely neutral. How you react to that information is a moral matter.

In the minds of many it sadly is perceived that way.

 

[Bradskii]

I take empathy as the ability and / or exercise in imagining being in the shoes of another.

Exactly.

The harder one tries to imagine being in the shoes of another the more vivid the emotional pain can feel. Attractive to both sadistic and masochistic types.

It can be, if you want to get some enjoyment out of it.

I don't think its responsible to constantly empathise with others suffering and working yourself into an emotionally charged state. How you deal with your emotions in your head can act out beyond the head.

You don't turn it on and off. It's automatic. See a child crying in the street and you don't think 'Hey, better turn on the ol' empathy here so I'll have a better understanding of what's going on'.

 

[MehGuy]

It can be, if you want to get some enjoyment out of it.

Sadly, those who do get some sense of enjoyment out of it probably have more endurance and often social influence than those who get a negative feeling from it.

You don't turn it on and off. It's automatic. See a child crying in the street and you don't think 'Hey, better turn on the ol' empathy here so I'll have a better understanding of what's going on'.

Empathy is often (probably mostly) automatic but you can also choose to engage in it. Empathy can be an exercise.

 

[Robban]

How empathy came to be seen as a weakness in conservative circles

There's a growing movement, among some conservatives, pushing back against traditional notions of empathy. What's behind it, and what might it mean, especially for Christian conservatives?

www.kdnk.org

And what I believe is the "real" Christian response in alignment with the teachings of Jesus.

https://judithvalente.medium.com/a-priest-holds-a-mirror-to-the-u-s-6dc18ef8ec7b

Whoever would have thought that we would have to defend empathy to supposedly Christian pastors?

Was not sure what empathy meant so took a quick look at a site called "six seconds".

it was the first one that came up,

In short, empathy means, experiencing someone else´s feelings.

Sympathy, understanding someone else´s suffering, keeping a certain distance.


As the Rebbe wrote, "When a child is teething the mother feels the pain too."


There is a clip from from a war documentry showing a woman running during an air raid,

and she trips and falls.

Every time I see it I feel as if it was me falling and I feel the pain.

 

[Fantine]

It is a trick that dumb moms and LGTBQ+ use to attack Christianity, by demanding that Christians subjugate their beliefs to their emotions before they will socially interact normally.

Again, my personal experience of talking with LGTBQ+ individuals. They demanded that I coddle their emotions and subjugate my thinking to their emotional pain.

Likewise, there were some moms who were mad when I was answering their kids' questions and they demanded that I subjugate my teaching to their emotions. They identified as empathetic and claimed I was cruel for not changing my teaching based on their concerns.

I think the tension between the simplistic definition of understanding emotional communication and the way these people use it is a hole to manipulate people into accepting their beliefs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a side note for amusement purposes, at one point I actually thought I was a psychopath due to how unfeeling I was. However, it seems that I actually alternate between having my emotions on "mute" and having a deep emotional reserve, which I then use. There's also the fact that I suffered from crippling emotional pain for years, and that's rather inconsistent with psychopathy.

What I actually found to be compelling was research that concluded that psychopathy was genetic, and the gene was located on the sex chromosomes. Therefore, female psychopaths are rare, the research concluded, because of the statistical unlikelihood of having two psychopathic X chromosomes. The researchers claimed that if there was an X with normal emotional functioning encoded and another with psychopathic emotional functioning encoded, they would cancel each other out. For awhile, that last sentence seemed a bit suspect to me - if I had half of my brain with psychopathic Xs and half my brain with normal Xs, that would explain my emotional experience rather well. But that's bunk.

It's morbidly inconsistent with the fact that I had to train my brain to recognize the output of mental illnesses and not feel things in the face of them, not take it personally, and not get out of control. If anger goes to mute and my intellect takes over, that's a trained response from years of trauma and abuse and dealing with annoying people.

From my perspective, atheism is more aligned with empathy than Christianity is. Christianity is brutally facing up to cold hard truth while atheism is telling yourself a bunch of soothing empathetic lies to soothe yourself and those around you.

I can't be sure, not having heard your conversation, but it sounds like you cross the line of criticizing the sinner instead of the sin.
People aren't empathetic about sins. They are empathetic about people.
In our common situation as sinners--it is easy to empathize with other sinners. You might not be tempted by their temptations, but you are tempted.
Sexual sins are different from sins against the other commandments, but they aren't necessarily worse.
People who would never tell Mr. Jones he underpays and overworks his employees feel free to declare open season on gays. Why?