Empathy

[Servus]

Ideally, that's what Christians are "supposed to do." But critically speaking, the elephant in the room is that we live in the 21st century, not the 1st century and none of us who are educated and intelligent can simply just "take the Bible at its word that Jesus even said thus and thus."

So, empathy is required on an existential, human level BEFORE any of us starts pushing for the ideal position of inhabiting a fully rounded Christian Ethos. We have to deal with paradigm differences that inhibit people's ability to see any underlying (or metaphysical) truth in what Jesus or His Apostles are reported to have said and left for us to ponder over.

And I say the above not as a Progressive, but as a Critical Philosopher who pours the same critical sauce on the goose that I do on the gander.

That sounds like a lot of humanistic secular hogwash. Oh that was for the 1st century, it doesn't apply now. Or a 21st century spin needs to be applied. How convenient for rewriting what Jesus Christ - who is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) - has said. Oh yes, we're just so smart sophisticated now. Almost right up there with the intelligence of God.

 

[partinobodycular]

That sounds like a lot of humanistic secular hogwash. Oh that was for the 1st century, it doesn't apply now. Or a 21st century spin needs to be applied. How convenient for rewriting what Jesus Christ - who is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) - has said. Oh yes, we're just so smart sophisticated now. Almost right up there with the intelligence of God.

Except that it was Christ Himself who pointed out that the laws of Moses were neither divinely inspired nor immutable, rather they were created simply in acquiescence to the prevailing Jewish culture. As cultures change, laws change.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Except that it was Christ Himself who pointed out that the laws of Moses were neither divinely inspired nor immutable, rather they were created simply in acquiescence to the prevailing Jewish culture. As cultures change, laws change.

What was that bit about 'jots and tittles' then?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That sounds like a lot of humanistic secular hogwash. Oh that was for the 1st century, it doesn't apply now. Or a 21st century spin needs to be applied. How convenient for rewriting what Jesus Christ - who is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) - has said. Oh yes, we're just so smart sophisticated now. Almost right up there with the intelligence of God.

I didn't actually say or imply any of that. You might want to realize that while I am a critical philosopher, I'm not 'Progressive.'

Ok? I'm trying to dig down to the core, and so far, all I've done is essentially agree with you but also offer the additional caveat that some of us don't come to the faith by assuming Bible and Church as prior axioms through which to fit everything else in life.

I'm not rewriting anything. I'm simply informing the conversation that there is more epistemological complexity and complication involved than what more politically conservative Christians realize or accept. And these are hurdles to be jumped over before assuming that the Gospel will just 'take hold' by magic or that every person out there who seems to refuse the Gospel is just down and out evil. No, you need to keep in mind that people are human and subject to an entire array of pressures, both social and psychological. These pressures need compassion.................. like the Woman at the Well needed. Today is no different.

People shouldn't have to jump through doctrinal hoops or parrot back to Christians what Christians prefer to hear in order to receive care and compassion. No, they should receive compassion regardless, even though there is a need to 'repent' sown into the invitation of faith.

 

[partinobodycular]

What was that bit about 'jots and tittles' then?

That verse, Matthew 5:18 was immediately preceded by Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

So what's the difference between abolishing and fulfilling? Abolishing implies that the purpose for which a law was created still exists, but we're simply going to get rid of it, even though the purpose for which it was created is still there. Fulfilling on the other hand implies that the purpose for which the law was created has been fulfilled, so the law is no longer relevant to this time and this place. Many of the OT laws for example are no longer relavant to this time and this place, ostensibly because they were fulfilled in Christ Himself.

That then brings us to Jesus' admonition that all the laws and all the prophets hang on these two commandments, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And Love your neighbor as yourself.’

That's ALL of the laws and ALL of the prophets hanging on those two commandments. Fulfill those two, and you fulfill all of the others as well. You haven't abolished them per se, you've fulfilled the purpose for which they were created.

Now the question is, what's the purpose for which the Church, the Body of Christ was created? And that's a good place for this lecture to end, because I ain't no bible teacher. If you ask me a question I may or may not try to answer it. Which in itself is asking a lot of an agnostic.

 

[Servus]

Except that it was Christ Himself who pointed out that the laws of Moses were neither divinely inspired nor immutable, rather they were created simply in acquiescence to the prevailing Jewish culture. As cultures change, laws change.

Oh really? I'd love to see you quote Jesus saying that.

 

[Servus]

That verse, Matthew 5:18 was immediately preceded by Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

So what's the difference between abolishing and fulfilling? Abolishing implies that the purpose for which a law was created still exists, but we're simply going to get rid of it, even though the purpose for which it was created is still there. Fulfilling on the other hand implies that the purpose for which the law was created has been fulfilled, so the law is no longer relevant to this time and this place. Many of the OT laws for example are no longer relavant to this time and this place, ostensibly because they were fulfilled in Christ Himself.

That then brings us to Jesus' admonition that all the laws and all the prophets hang on these two commandments, ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And Love your neighbor as yourself.’

That's ALL of the laws and ALL of the prophets hanging on those two commandments. Fulfill those two, and you fulfill all of the others as well. You haven't abolished them per se, you've fulfilled the purpose for which they were created.

Now the question is, what's the purpose for which the Church, the Body of Christ was created? And that's a good place for this lecture to end, because I ain't no bible teacher. If you ask me a question I may or may not try to answer it. Which in itself is asking a lot of an agnostic.

Your claim is that Jesus said the Law of Moses was not divinely inspired.

 

[Servus]

I didn't actually say or imply any of that. You might want to realize that while I am a critical philosopher, I'm not 'Progressive.'

Ok? I'm trying to dig down to the core, and so far, all I've done is essentially agree with you but also offer the additional caveat that some of us don't come to the faith by assuming Bible and Church as prior axioms by which to fit everything else in life into.

I'm not rewriting anything. I'm simply informing the conversation that there is more epistemological complexity and complication involved than what more politically conservative Christians realize or accept. And these are hurdles to be jumped over before assuming that the Gospel will just 'take hold' by magic or that every person out there who seems to refuse the Gospel is just down and out evil. No, you need to keep in mind that people are human and subject to an entire array of pressures, both social and psychological. These pressures need compassion.................. like the Woman at the Well needed. It's no different.

People shouldn't have to jump through doctrinal hoops or parrot back to Christians what Christians prefer to here in order to receive care and compassion. No, they should receive compassion regardless, even though there is an invitation to 'repent' sown into the invitation.

Many make the claim that what Jesus taught and commanded was applicable in his time ie primitive, and therefore must be viewed through a 21st century lens ie reworded. It sounded very much like that's what you were saying. Jesus showed compassion, and then he commanded those he showed compassion upon to sin no more, or something worse would happen to them ie hell. The trend is to mention the former and ignore the later.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many make the claim that what Jesus taught and commanded was applicable in his time ie primitive, and therefore must be viewed through a 21st century lens ie reworded. It sounded very much like that's what you were saying. Jesus showed compassion and commanded those he showed compassion upon to sin no more or something worse would happen to them. The trend is to repeat the former and ignore the later.

Well, I know they make that claim, but that's not the specific claim I'm making. And what's frustrating for me in speaking to other Christians is that this should be obvious by the overall context of all I've already said. .... it's almost like there are a large number of people out there identifying as Christian who spout the New Testament on one hand but on the other have a very narrow emotional and intellectual range by which to relate with other people. .... of course, I've seen this time to time coming from those on the Left as well.

 

[Servus]

Well, I know they make that claim, but that's not the specific claim I'm making. And what's frustrating for me in speaking to other Christians is that this should be obvious by the overall context of all I've already said. .... it's almost like there are a large number of people out there identifying as Christian who spout the New Testament on one hand but on the other have a very narrow emotional and intellectual range by which to relate with other people. .... of course, I've seen this time to time coming from those on the Left as well.

In my experience there are those on the left who make it pretty clear whom they despise and condemn. And they seem to consider that a virtue, because in their view morality demands that those people be despised and condemned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In my experience there are those on the left who make it pretty clear whom they despise and condemn. And they seem to consider that a virtue, because in their view morality demands that those people be despised and condemned.

And in my experience, I've received the ire of those who disagree with me from both the Right and the Left.

Usually, that ire comes from those who affirm a more militant application of their favored ideology, whether it's some sort of Theonomy from the Right, or some form of hard socialism (or communism) from the Left. Neither of these extremes are something I can stomach.

 

[zippy2006]

My point, however unfortunately "vague" it may be for some people, is that on a practical, even theological level, empathy is superfluous and lesser in function and quality to Christian Compassion.

And my point is that if you can't say what you mean by empathy vs. compassion then you haven't said anything at all.

.... I see. You want me to take a stand and jump through the hoop that you think is required for me to CLEARLY set myself in either the camp of the Left or of the Right.

I just want you to start using words in a precise way, and to be willing to tell us what you mean by the words you use.

If you want me to hammer down on Secularists, then fine: my example of doing so would be the one that William F. Buckley Jr. expressed when he sat down with Hugh Hefner for an hour long chat on the t.v. show, Firing Line, in 1966.

I haven't watched it and I'm not going to. I asked what you believe, not what Buckley believed. Pointing to 50 year-old interviews instead of just stating your positions is not helpful.

I know how those on the Left try to define and use 'empathy.' What should be obvious without spelling it out is that I, philosopher or not, have more than one reason for not relying on their definition of interpersonal, social conduct.

What is the Left's definition of "empathy" and why do you disagree with it? Say something concrete.

Is compassion also toxic?

The only person who claimed that there is such a thing as "toxic empathy" changed his mind a few posts later and claimed that he doesn't think "toxic empathy" exists. Maybe ask him?

 

[zippy2006]

I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be on this whole "empathy is a sin" kick.

Can you actually tell us who in this thread has claimed that empathy is a sin?

Recent authors who have been criticizing the empathy ethic include Gad Saad, Jonathan Pageau, and Rowan Williams. Pageau actually offers a very accessible discourse at 49:01 of this video.