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

[ViaCrucis]

You haven't heard/read it being said that we need illegal immigrants to do the menial jobs no one else will do for the same low pay?

Using Ctrl+F no word starting with "abduct" can be found in that article. This is why I called it a loaded question.

To take someone away, unlawfully, is by definition an abduction.

One time, when I was a student, I was detained (not abducted) by law enforcement, handcuffed, put into a police car and taken to a detention facility, over something I was innocent of. I understand why it happened, and I do not think the officers were acting in an ungodly manner.

And one time I got pulled over for having expired tabs. What do either have to do with people being illegally abducted by the State? Were you unlawfully detained and had your Constitutionally protected rights violated? No? Then it's not a valid comparison.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Servus]

To take someone away, unlawfully, is by definition an abduction.



And one time I got pulled over for having expired tabs. What do either have to do with people being illegally abducted by the State? Were you unlawfully detained and had your Constitutionally protected rights violated? No? Then it's not a valid comparison.

-CryptoLutheran

The article you posted as and example or evidence doesn't use the terms you're applying such as "unlawful abduction". So that seems to just be your take on the situation. Which was probably formed by the usual hyperbolic sensationalism being cranked out.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The article you posted as and example or evidence doesn't use the terms you're applying such as "unlawful abduction". So that seems to just be your take on the situation. Which was probably formed by the usual hyperbolic sensationalism being cranked out.

How would you describe the State making a person disappear and taken to a facility without due process?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Servus]

How would you describe the State making a person disappear and taken to a facility without due process?

-CryptoLutheran

When I described how I as a student was literally grabbed off the street and hauled off to a detention center, you just blew it off as insignificant. So it seems that you normally don't really care about that kind of thing. And the Tufts student is just another outrage poster child.

 

[partinobodycular]

The entirety of what they taught that is, not just cherry picked snippets taken out of context.

But to be honest doesn't everyone cherry pick? The thing is that they just believe that they do it better than everyone else. I mean I'm no biblical scholar, obviously, but it seems to me that if someone's claims don't pass the smell test of a loving and forgiving God, then I'm not gonna buy'em, no matter how many scriptures they quote, or how intricately they weave them together.

Christianity is full of people claiming that their interpretation of scripture is the correct one, so tell me, why should I believe yours and not mine?

The core tenet of Christianity is, it's not about self, or what self thinks, or wants. It's about God, and what God thinks, and what God wants.

But doesn't the bible tell me exactly what God wants in one simple verse.

"He hath shown thee, O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Or is worldly me simply cherry picking again?

No, it's about what the Bible says and what Christianity is supposed to teach according to Christ and His Apostles.

Doesn't this simply bring us back to carte blanche? Find what you don't like and then use scripture to validate it. It's a process that's as old as scripture itself. So with every Christian claiming to rightly divide God's word, why on earth should I believe you when my heart, that still small voice, and Micah 6:8 all tell me that you're wrong?

 

[Servus]

But to be honest doesn't everyone cherry pick? The thing is that they just believe that they do it better than everyone else. I mean I'm no biblical scholar, obviously, but it seems to me that if someone's claims don't pass the smell test of a loving and forgiving God, then I'm not gonna buy'em, no matter how many scriptures they quote, or how intricately they weave them together.

Christianity is full of people claiming that their interpretation of scripture is the correct one, so tell me, why should I believe yours and not mine?

Mine isn't personalized. It's standard orthodox theology that goes back 2000 years.

But doesn't the bible tell me exactly what God wants in one simple verse.

"He hath shown thee, O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"

Or is worldly me simply cherry picking again?

Doesn't this simply bring us back to carte blanche? Find what you don't like and then use scripture to validate it. It's a process that's as old as scripture itself. So with every Christian claiming to rightly divide God's word, why on earth should I believe you when my heart, that still small voice, and Micah 6:8 all tell me that you're wrong?

How does Micah 6:8 tell you I'm wrong? Wrong about what?

 

[Maori Aussie]

Several bible passages are misused to validate worldly Christianity.

In this case Romans 14:4 (as is the case with Matthew 7:1) is about that which takes place within the church between Christians. Neither passage applies to the ungodly or ungodliness or is against judging what is ungodly.

I believe that Jesus meant what he said.

 

[Servus]

I believe that Jesus meant what he said.

What did he mean?

 

[partinobodycular]

Mine isn't personalized. It's standard orthodox theology that goes back 2000 years.

I'm not exactly sure what you're hoping to argue here. Is it an appeal to authority? Is it an argumentum ad populum? Is it an appeal to dogma?

But whatever it is it doesn't clarify anything, it's just a claim that you have some special authority that renders your views correct and everyone else's wrong. That's a pretty handy trump card to have. But I'm an agnostic who isn't really impressed by claims of special authority. So having read the bible a time or two, and understanding that it's a very difficult text to interpret, what makes your interpretation of it correct and mine wrong, especially when your interpretation of it seems to fly in the face of Micah 6:8?

How does Micah 6:8 tell you I'm wrong? Wrong about what?

When asked what God requires of us Micah proffers three simple things, that we do justly, that we love mercy, and that we walk humbly with our God. Christ further clarifies the first two by admonishing us to love thy neighbor as thyself.

So the question is, are the members of LGBTQ+ your neighbors?

Is ostracizing them an act of love?

Are you afraid of the harm that the act of fulfilling Christ's commandment will have on His Church? That it'll make it more worldly? Have you that little faith? Do you truly believe that allowing them to kneel down and pray with you, will have a greater detrimental effect on you, than a redeeming effect on them?

"Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests."

 

[MehGuy]

The idea of empathy being a bad thing is actually a rational thought to have, but it shouldn't take an intelligent person very long before they realize that it leads to patently absurd conclusions and is therefore a poor line of reasoning.

Personally, while I am critical of empathy I do not hold the position that empathy is always bad. I suspect this is also the case for the vast majority of others who are also critical of empathy.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When I described how I as a student was literally grabbed off the street and hauled off to a detention center, you just blew it off as insignificant. So it seems that you normally don't really care about that kind of thing. And the Tufts student is just another outrage poster child.

If you were deprived of your Constitutional rights, then that was an illegal detainment. I'd call that an abduction. Your phrasing made it seem, however, that you were legally arrested and processed.

If you were treated this way, if you were deprived of your rights and illegally detained, then that only adds to the evidence of the problem of deep injustice and abuse in the American system of law-enforcement. Which is itself a topic of worthwhile conversation.

So where do you stand on this issue? Is it appropriate to call an illegal detainment, a depriving of Constitutionally protected rights, an abduction?

I'm calling it an abduction, because I think it should be taken seriously enough to call it an abduction.

If a group of thugs put cuffs on you and into a vehicle and hauled you off, we'd all recognize that as an abduction. If those same thugs are members of law enforcement, but are conducting the same illegal activity, it's still the same thing. It's still an abduction. It is only lawful for law enforcement to do things within the confines of the law, acting outside of the law is unlawful, there's no other way around that.

If a cop unlawfully kills someone, it's a murder. It doesn't matter that they have a badge, if they are acting outside of the confines of the law, it was murder.

If a federal agent breaks into your house and steals your TV, unlawfully, it's theft.

If someone detains you unlawfully, then it is an abduction.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm not exactly sure what you're hoping to argue here. Is it an appeal to authority? Is it an argumentum ad populum? Is it an appeal to dogma?

But whatever it is it doesn't clarify anything, it's just a claim that you have some special authority that renders your views correct and everyone else's wrong. That's a pretty handy trump card to have. But I'm an agnostic who isn't really impressed by claims of special authority. So having read the bible a time or two, and understanding that it's a very difficult text to interpret, what makes your interpretation of it correct and mine wrong, especially when your interpretation of it seems to fly in the face of Micah 6:8?



When asked what God requires of us Micah proffers three simple things, that we do justly, that we love mercy, and that we walk humbly with our God. Christ further clarifies the first two by admonishing us to love thy neighbor as thyself.

So the question is, are the members of LGBTQ+ your neighbors?

Is ostracizing them an act of love?

Are you afraid of the harm that the act of fulfilling Christ's commandment will have on His Church? That it'll make it more worldly? Have you that little faith? Do you truly believe that allowing them to kneel down and pray with you, will have a greater detrimental effect on you, than a redeeming effect on them?

"Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests."

1 Corinthians 2:14
14 ¶ The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[partinobodycular]

Personally, while I am critical of empathy I do not hold the position that empathy is always bad. I suspect this is also the case for the vast majority of others who are also critical of empathy.

Likewise I would agree that you can't use empathy as a catchall for any and all types of behavior. A church deserves the right to a certain level of social decorum. But I don't think that heterosexuality needs or deserves to be one of those benchmarks. People are people, if their longing for God compels them to be there, then who am I to judge their worthiness to assemble in His house? We're all guests there, perhaps we shouldn't forget that.

 

[partinobodycular]

14 ¶ The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

And yet they're just people. Some of them will stand at the door and knock and some of them won't. On that count you have no right to prejudge them.

 

[ViaCrucis]

What did he mean?

Romans 14 is about not judging our brothers or sisters in the context of matters of liberty and conscience--what foods we eat, for example.

As a general principle, however, Paul is quite clear that the act of judgment is ecclesiastical, it is within the Church, rather than those outside (1 Corinthians 5:12); the point here is that we should hold our fellow Christians to a standard, the standard of God's Law. The context of 1 Corinthians 5:12 is the report of sexual perversion among the Corinthian Christians, specifically a man had sex with his own mother-in-law, and the Church was doing nothing to discipline him, and there was no remorse or repentance from him. Paul explains that a member of the Church who impenitently lives in such a way that it is causing harm is to be cut off, this is the basis for excommunication. In the same breath Paul is clear that this doesn't apply to those outside of the community of faith.

Jesus in Matthew 7 is talking about hypocrisy, being the sorts of people who judge others while ignoring that we ourselves do the same, or even worse things. Hence speaking of pointing out the speck in another's eye while there's a whole log stuck in our own. That's why we will be judged with the same kind of judgment we judged others--if we live our lives looking down on others and thinking we're so great, at the end of our days we will have a rude awakening--our sanctimonious self-righteous arrogance will come back to bite us.

These are the contexts and meanings behind these statements about judging.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BPPLEE]

And yet they're just people. Some of them will stand at the door and knock and some of them won't. On that count you have no right to prejudge them.

I was speaking of you. And it looks like you've already judged me

 

[ViaCrucis]

1 Corinthians 2:14
14 ¶ The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Point of clarification. St. Paul does not use the word "unbeliever", rather he says ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (psuchikos anthropos), the "soulish man". While in St. Paul's view those without faith lack the Spirit, and thus one without the Spirit cannot be Spiritual (pneumatikos) since it is the Spirit who renders, through faith, the reception of the mysteries of God to a person. However, it does not mean that the Christian, by virtue of being a Christian and nothing else does receive these things; because the Christian is still psuchikos--soulish--through the presence of the old man. This is a deeper cut than believer/unbeliever; this is about the old man and new man. The Christian, being simul iustus et peccator has both the old and new; and this constitutes the ongoing Christian struggle and the daily call to repentance.

Both the Christian and the non-Christian are as likely to operate according to the passions of the flesh; since we all bear Adam's likeness and are fallen sinners. The Christian is not inoculated against this, the Christian rather, by faith which is granted to us as a gift by the Spirit, means we have a new man being renewed and growing in Christ and by faith receive the things of God which are ours by the Spirit. This is the only reason why we believe in Jesus, the Gospel is nonsense apart from the precious gift of faith which the Holy Spirit brings and bears to our hearts. That's the whole point Paul is making by speaking of the foolishness of the Cross, and Jesus being God's Wisdom and Power. A crucified carpenter from a backwater town in Galilee doesn't look like much compared to the famed philosophers from Athens, or the bulwark of imperial strength emanating outward from Rome across the entire Mediterranean world. And yet, in faith, we confess Jesus, the Wisdom and Power of God, and this could only be on account of the Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MehGuy]

Likewise I would agree that you can't use empathy as a catchall for any and all types of behavior. A church deserves the right to a certain level of social decorum. But I don't think that heterosexuality needs or deserves to be one of those benchmarks. People are people, if their longing for God compels them to be there, then who am I to judge their worthiness to assemble in His house? We're all guests there, perhaps we shouldn't forget that.

As a liberal leaning atheist I do not probably share the same exact concerns people like McPherson and others who claim "empathy is a sin" crowd have.

My concerns about empathy are not about people becoming more open minded about things like LGBT. I worry about emotional empathy because empathy can be plugged with sadomasochistic motives. Not just the motives, but the scary idea that sadomasochists might have a significant edge when it comes to being empathetic. That those who like the feelings empathy brings probably thrive compared to those who do not.

Really.. if I were to speak to men like McPherson, we might quickly realize our concerns about empathy are quite different.. and may even become quite heated with each other. Especially considering my fears stem from psychoanalyzing my former Christian faith.

I am not critical of empathy because I have some fear about being open to new experiences.

 

[BPPLEE]

Point of clarification. St. Paul does not use the word "unbeliever", rather he says ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (psuchikos anthropos), the "soulish man". While in St. Paul's view those without faith lack the Spirit, and thus one without the Spirit cannot be Spiritual (pneumatikos) since it is the Spirit who renders, through faith, the reception of the mysteries of God to a person. However, it does not mean that the Christian, by virtue of being a Christian and nothing else does receive these things; because the Christian is still psuchikos--soulish--through the presence of the old man. This is a deeper cut than believer/unbeliever; this is about the old man and new man. The Christian, being simul iustus et peccator has both the old and new; and this constitutes the ongoing Christian struggle and the daily call to repentance.

Both the Christian and the non-Christian are as likely to operate according to the passions of the flesh; since we all bear Adam's likeness and are fallen sinners. The Christian is not inoculated against this, the Christian rather, by faith which is granted to us as a gift by the Spirit, means we have a new man being renewed and growing in Christ and by faith receive the things of God which are ours by the Spirit. This is the only reason why we believe in Jesus, the Gospel is nonsense apart from the precious gift of faith which the Holy Spirit brings and bears to our hearts. That's the whole point Paul is making by speaking of the foolishness of the Cross, and Jesus being God's Wisdom and Power. A crucified carpenter from a backwater town in Galilee doesn't look like much compared to the famed philosophers from Athens, or the bulwark of imperial strength emanating outward from Rome across the entire Mediterranean world. And yet, in faith, we confess Jesus, the Wisdom and Power of God, and this could only be on account of the Holy Spirit.

-CryptoLutheran

"This is the only reason why we believe in Jesus, the Gospel is nonsense apart from the precious gift of faith which the Holy Spirit brings and bears to our hearts."

Which means the unbeliever can't understand those things that are spiritually discerned.
(Though what you say about the natural or soulish man is true I'll trust the scholars behind the NET Bible when it says unbeliever)

 

[partinobodycular]

I was speaking of you.

Then perhaps you were right.

And it looks like you've already judged me

It would be hypocritical of me to judge you harshly while admonishing you to judge others less so. As much as I care for them, I care for you as well. Never let anything that I say, as thoughtlessly as I may say it, convince you otherwise. You matter.