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

partinobodycular · Thursday at 9:35 AM

Servus said:
It's all about manipulation and gaslighting.

Awwwww...I feel so sad for you. But isn't that exactly what Christians have been doing for two thousand years... manipulating people into believing that they're wicked, evil people bound for eternal damnation.

The only difference that I can see is that one side is attempting to get us to love our neighbors, while the other side is attempting to get us to condemn them.

Guess which side you're on.

BPPLEE · Thursday at 10:16 AM

partinobodycular said:
I'm going to take this as a 'yes', the church of which you're a member condones overt, ongoing, and unrepentant adultery.

So your whole claim of it being God's position that matters to you was just a delusion.

The Church doesn't celebrate and encourage it. Divorced people don't have their own flag, they're not a protected class of people.
Your "gotcha" doesn't work

Servus · Thursday at 12:01 PM

partinobodycular said:
Awwwww...I feel so sad for you. But isn't that exactly what Christians have been doing for two thousand years... manipulating people into believing that they're wicked, evil people bound for eternal damnation.

The only difference that I can see is that one side is attempting to get us to love our neighbors, while the other side is attempting to get us to condemn them.

Guess which side you're on.

Jesus is the one who tells us that all mankind is wicked. Secularists make the claim that isn't true. Guess which side you're on.

Akita Suggagaki · Friday at 7:25 AM

Servus said:
Jesus is the one who tells us that all mankind is wicked.

Really? Where does he say that?

notyourenemy · Friday at 10:04 AM

Servus said:
The word empathy is being misused. It's being misused to guilt Christians into going along with what the secular world wants.

Are Christians being "guilted" into "going along" with the way others want to live, or are Christians just being asked to *let* others live as they want to live?

Akita Suggagaki · Friday at 10:38 AM

notyourenemy said:
Are Christians being "guilted" into "going along" with the way others want to live, or are Christians just being asked to *let* others live as they want to live?

I think “let live”. I saw POV on PBS about librarians accused of “grooming” because of books dealing with gender identity in their libraries.

I get it that people are concerned about what young people have access to and what it can seem to normalize. But I also get it that some young people do struggle with gender identity and need loving support rather than condemnation and harassment.

Is there any “Christian”. Youth literature dealing with gender questioning that does not condemn?

Servus · Friday at 7:02 PM

Akita Suggagaki said:
Really? Where does he say that?

Jesus didn't use those exact words but he made it clear that he had to be put to death in order to save everyone, because everyone is a sinner.

Servus · Friday at 8:20 PM

notyourenemy said:
Are Christians being "guilted" into "going along" with the way others want to live,

Yes.

notyourenemy said:
or are Christians just being asked to *let* others live as they want to live?

Since Christians aren't keeping the world from doing that, that would be a silly request. What's really wanted is for Christians to not say anything against sin.

Servus · Friday at 8:24 PM

Akita Suggagaki said:
I think “let live”. I saw POV on PBS about librarians accused of “grooming” because of books dealing with gender identity in their libraries.

I get it that people are concerned about what young people have access to and what it can seem to normalize. But I also get it that some young people do struggle with gender identity and need loving support rather than condemnation and harassment.

Is there any “Christian”. Youth literature dealing with gender questioning that does not condemn?

How much have you heard about young children "gender questioning" in your lifetime? Now you hear about it all the time. And so do they. Which is why it's happening so much now.

dlamberth · Friday at 10:17 PM

Servus said:
Jesus didn't use those exact words but he made it clear that he had to be put to death in order to save everyone, because everyone is a sinner.

Wasn't all of that not from Jesus but from Paul?

Servus · 2026-02-14T00:20:22-0600

dlamberth said:
Wasn't all of that not from Jesus but from Paul?

I'm talking about what Jesus said in the gospels. Such as Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28, Luke 24:46–47 etc. In John 1:29 John the Baptist says “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”

BPPLEE · 2026-02-14T00:47:09-0600

dlamberth said:
Wasn't all of that not from Jesus but from Paul?

Jesus said no one is good but God, Mat 19:17

Servus · 2026-02-14T01:22:09-0600

“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!” Luke 11:13

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-14T05:12:22-0600

Servus said:
This is real simple. The word empathy is being misused. It's being misused to guilt Christians into going along with what the secular world wants. It's very sly, very clever, very deceptive. And that should be very obvious. And it probably is to most everyone. But there are Christians who welcome secularism. They want to have it both ways. They want secularized Christianity.

All of this I already know. But I'm not seeing how this alleviates the Christian mandate to apply the long list of charitable traits that I've already referred to.

Somehow, I get the sense that fellow Christians on the Right think that if things go against them politically, then they have the right to revoke all charitable overtures that might be made to those not on the political left. However, when I read the New Testament in full, I'm not seeing a 'right to revoke' and instead play hardball.

Of course, I know I might be stepping on a few toes theologically among those who think hardball is part and parcel of their Theonomic/Dominionist/Reconstructionist/Kingdom Now type theology. And if their little toes get a little verbally bruised............. oh well.

Servus · 2026-02-14T05:22:07-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
All of this I already know. But I'm not seeing how this alleviates the Christian mandate to apply the long list of charitable traits that I've already referred to.

It's not supposed to.

2PhiloVoid said:
Somehow, I get the sense that fellow Christians on the Right think that if things go against them politically, then they have the right to revoke all charitable overtures that might be made to those not on the political left. However, when I read the New Testament in full, I'm not seeing a 'right to revoke' and instead play hardball.

The only revocation I've heard of is to those who aren't really in need.

2PhiloVoid said:
Of course, I know I might be stepping on a few toes theologically among those who think hardball is part and parcel of their Theonomic/Dominionist/Reconstructionist/Kingdom Now type theology. And if their little toes get a little bruised............. oh well.

I think that's overcomplicating it.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-14T05:45:53-0600

Servus said:
It's not supposed to.

The only revocation I've heard of is to those who aren't really in need.

That's good to know.

Servus said:
I think that's overcomplicating it.

Nah. I've been at this a long time. I know what I've been seeing for the last four decades, and as far as I can tell, we all have a little bit to repent of, whether Left, Right or Center.

Servus · 2026-02-14T06:45:09-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
That's good to know.

Nah. I've been at this a long time. I know what I've been seeing for the last four decades, and as far as I can tell, we all have a little bit to repent of, whether Left, Right or Center.

Well actually I don't really know what you're talking about. Obviously something that you've formulated over time as a critical philosopher. If you've gone over it already I missed it. And to be honest I don't want to backtrack through posts to try and figure it out. Also I don't see how it really has anything to do with what I've been talking about.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-14T07:27:21-0600

Servus said:
Well actually I don't really know what you're talking about. Obviously something that you've formulated over time as a critical philosopher. If you've gone over it already I missed it. And to be honest I don't want to backtrack through posts to try and figure it out. Also I don't see how it really has anything to do with what I've been talking about.

All I'm talking about is that a misuse of the term 'empathy' by some folks on the Left isn't an excuse for Christians on the Right to be all up in arms and make it sound like all empathy is bad, bad, bad.

Servus · 2026-02-14T07:44:51-0600

2PhiloVoid said:
All I'm talking about is that a misuse of the term 'empathy' by some folks on the Left isn't an excuse for Christians on the Right to be all up in arms and make it sound like all empathy is bad, bad, bad.

I think compassion is more prudent than empathy. I think we need to be careful about getting drawn into someone else's world.

For example that's probably something a narcissist might try to manipulate and take advantage of, once someone has implanted themselves in the shoes of the narcissist.

There's the potential of the well intentioned person losing objectivity and seeing the situation through the subjective lense of whomever. As in the case with the manipulative narcissist, I'd say that's how empathy could become toxic.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-02-14T08:28:22-0600

Servus said:
I think compassion is more prudent than empathy. I think we need to be careful about getting drawn into someone else's world.

I can very well understand what you're saying, but I don't think being empathetic to the pain that other people have requires anyone to be 'drawn' into someone else's world, and I don't think naturally having empathy specifically implies that one will become so absorbed. At the same time, I will continue to advocate for Christian compassion as being over and above mere empathy.

Servus said:
For example that's probably something a narcissist might try to manipulate and take advantage of, once someone has implanted themselves in the shoes of the narcissist.

That could be the case, and I understand that some folks out there have had to deal with narcissist. However, my background in dealing with the mental and emotional problems of others comes from a different experience set than that of the one you're referring to here, and out of that past experience I've had to learn some things about neuroscience that I put up front and center.

Servus said:
There's the potential of the well intentioned person losing objectivity and seeing the situation through the subjective lense of whomever. As in the case with the manipulative narcissist, I'd say that's how empathy could become toxic.

Perhaps, but I only see empathy becoming 'toxic' when the usual denotation of that term is changed and there also exists an accompanying demand for conformity to that new usage of the term. As a philosopher, I will simply decline the new usage if I don't think it has any evidence to support it.

But going back to the OP, this thread isn't about toxic empathy per say, but about Christian Nationalists specifically who deem it to be toxic. ..... I'd challenge them to lay out more clearly as to what a 'non-toxic' empathy would be. I wonder if they can do so?

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

<><

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

<><

<><

<><

Senior Contributor

<><

Well-Known Member

<><

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

<><

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

<><

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

<><

It's Metropolis! Enjoy the stay!

Similar threads