Empathy

[zippy2006]

In sum, I think the 'Woman at the Well' example is more than enough for people to gauge a rough heuristic as to what Christian compassion should look like but so often fails to be.

But this just brings us back to more evaded questions, such as this:

Why do you think the Woman at the Well is a case of empathy? If you want to be the jockey you have to be willing to give some concrete rationale for your views.

Your response was to distinguish empathy from compassion, at which point I repeated for the umpteenth time that you have continually failed to tell us what you mean by those two terms. So you're engaged in circular reasoning, over and over.

Besides, if the Woman at the Well has to do with compassion rather than empathy, as you claim, then it's not clear how it functions as an example in a discussion of empathy in the first place.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But this just brings us back to more evaded questions, such as this:


Your response was to distinguish empathy from compassion, at which point I repeated for the umpteenth time that you have continually failed to tell us what you mean by those two terms. So you're engaged in circular reasoning, over and over.

Besides, if the Woman at the Well has to do with compassion rather than empathy, as you claim, then it's not clear how it functions as an example in a discussion of empathy in the first place.

You really know how to bring out the mutual feelings of Christian fellowship in a guy, Zippy.

My answers for this are what they are here in this thread and also in the parallel thread in this same forum.

Have a blessed evening!

 

[zippy2006]

Your response was to distinguish empathy from compassion, at which point I repeated for the umpteenth time that you have continually failed to tell us what you mean by those two terms. So you're engaged in circular reasoning, over and over.

This phenomenon can be found up and down this thread. In fact what is happening is that you have cultural norms or intuitions that are taken for granted, and which have become so much a part of the cultural taboo that they are no longer susceptible to rational scrutiny. " 'The Woman at the Well,' therefore empathy is the best," is a sort of shorthand for this form of cultural indoctrination.

Further, what happens in every culture is that the most strongly indoctrinated doctrines are automatically associated with the most revered figures, whether those figures are Jesus Christ, Gautama Buddha, or Alexander the Great. Those things that the common people deem to be the highest truths (e.g. "empathy is supreme") become automatically associated with those who are viewed as the most important truth-tellers and authorities (e.g. Jesus).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This phenomenon can be found up and down this thread. In fact what is happening is that you have cultural norms or intuitions that are taken for granted, and which have become so much a part of the cultural taboo that they are no longer susceptible to rational scrutiny. " 'The Woman at the Well,' therefore empathy is the best," is a sort of shorthand for this form of cultural indoctrination.

Further, what happens in every culture is that the most strongly indoctrinated doctrines are automatically associated with the most revered figures, whether those figures are Jesus Christ, Gautama Buddha, or Alexander the Great. Those things that the common people deem to be the highest truths (e.g. "empathy is supreme") become automatically associated with those who are viewed as the most important truth-tellers and authorities (e.g. Jesus).

Misrepresenting my position and trying to make it appear as if it can be conflated with that of the Left isn't going to win you any points here, brother Zippy.

Don't you have some universalists to go beat up on?

 

[zippy2006]

Misrepresenting my position and trying to make it appear as if it can be conflated with that of the Left isn't going to win you any points here, brother Zippy.

Your failure to represent your position and distinguish it from the Left is of your own making, Philo. And the fact that you think that post was somehow specifically anti-Left is rather significant in highlighting the reservations you have about your own holdings.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your failure to represent your position and distinguish it from the Left is of your own making, Philo.

You're the only one here who is saying this. I've already qualified it here and on another thread quite amply, and I'm not going to rewrite it all for you here, dear brother. I'm sorry you feel left out.

But I'm quite sure that no one on the Left here on CF has mistaken my position as being exactly their own.

 

[zippy2006]

I've already qualified it here and on another thread quite amply

You've said that over three times now, and never managed to even provide a link to the alleged thread. Think about that.

You're the only one here who is saying this.

I am the third that I know of. Others have also asked you to say what you mean by empathy vs. compassion, to no avail.

I can see that I'm wasting my time here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You've said that over three times now, and never managed to even provide a link to the alleged thread. Think about that.

You're smart guy, and I know you can find the relevant posts. Go find them and cease your needling.

 

[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.

Ya sure `bout that? The text of "The Law" (aka Torah) indicates most of laws are given in the form:

And Yahweh said to Moses " law law law law law".​

Sure looks like they are not just claimed to be divinely inspired, but divinely dictated.

Then Jesus (at least according to "Matthew", but if you want to Matthew just be putting words in the mouth of Jesus to disagree with Paul who does want to absolve "gentiles" of the Torah laws, that's fine with me. No skin of my back.) says that the law should be followed fully, changing nothing until the end of the world. I get why Christians don't want to follow the law -- pulled pork sandwiches are awesome.

 

[Free2bHeretical4Him!]

”Jesus, therefore, when he saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her weeping, did groan in the spirit, and troubled himself, and he said, ‘Where have ye laid him?’ they say to him, ‘Sir, come and see;’ Jesus wept.“
‭‭John‬ ‭11‬:‭33‬-‭35‬ ‭YLT98‬‬

Does the above Scripture shed any light on the ability of Jesus to share in empathy? Personally, I think Jesus was both, feeling sympathy (“did groan in the spirit”) and entering in to empathy (“and troubled himself”) for those around him who were in pain. I look at his entering in to a world filled with pain and suffering, which is our just deserts for our disobedience, as an act of empathy.

He could have said, I told you this was going to happen if you disobeyed me. You made your bed, now lie in it. His humanity was on full display. Some witnessed it and responded with like compassion, others witnessed the same and left, feeling compelled to report this incident they witnessed.

I think Chuck is circumventing compassion under the guise of not espousing sin in people’s lives. I actually find it pretty disgusting, and disheartening, that someone would take another persons “choice”, to act upon an “opportunity” to share in someone’s pain, in to an act of sin.

So no, I do not agree with Chuck Kirk. In fact, I think his own words come across, “to me”, as pompous, arrogant and divisive. My reply to Chuck’s statement is:

”Hatred awaketh contentions, And over all transgressions love covereth.“
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭10‬:‭12‬ ‭YLT98‬‬

 

[partinobodycular]

Ya sure `bout that? The text of "The Law" (aka Torah) indicates most of laws are given in the form:

And Yahweh said to Moses " law law law law law".
Sure looks like they are not just claimed to be divinely inspired, but divinely dictated.

This is gonna get a little more involved than I would've liked, but you're a smart guy, so hopefully your ability to follow along is better than my ability to explain.

Scholars may argue about the exact number, but I'm actually willing to grant you that God personally dictated all 613 Mitzvot commandments... because it doesn't make any difference.

The question isn't about their source, it's about why they are what they are. Since I'm admittedly not a biblical scholar, I'm also not an expert on the Torah, so as always, take this with a grain of salt.

In agreement with Christianity the Talmud teaches that there were two sets of Ten commandments, but that the first set, which was carved by God himself, was later destroyed, and that the second set was carved by Moses in corroboration with God. Supposedly the first set was destroyed because men were incapable of keeping them. Thus the second set was created with a direct eye on the traditions of men. Because only then could men be expected to adhere to them.

Which is why Jesus says that it was only because of the hardness of men's hearts that Moses allowed them to put away their wives. It's also why Jesus says that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. But that commandment would've been too hard for men to keep, and so the 613 Mitzvot commandments were written not with God's divine inspiration in mind, but with men's flaws.

Christ then gives us just two commandments, without any clarification about how to keep them other than the story of the good Samaritan, and the admonition that whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me. We then mistakenly believe that if we keep the 613 Mitzvot commandments that we will by default keep Christ's commandments as well, but that's simply not true.

The priest and the Levite may have been really good at keeping the commandments, but that doesn't mean that they loved their neighbor, conversely in loving his neighbor the Samaritan demonstrated that the laws were moot. He had accomplished by nature that which the law couldn't accomplish by obedience.

The problem may have been that the priest and the Levite mistakenly used the commandments about ritual impurity to unknowingly avoid Christ's commandment to love thy neighbor. Sadly, that seems to be what people such as @Servus are doing today, using the commandments against homosexuality in order to circumvent the commandment to love thy neighbor.

Okay, after rereading it I must admit that that's a muddled mess, but I haven't got the time nor the patience to rewrite it. So as before, if you have any questions, just ask, maybe I'll answer, and maybe I won't.

 

[Servus]

The problem may have been that the priest and the Levite mistakenly used the commandments about ritual impurity to unknowingly avoid Christ's commandment to love thy neighbor. Sadly, that seems to be what people such as @Servus are doing today, using the commandments against homosexuality in order to circumvent the commandment to love thy neighbor.

Hogwash. I've clearly stated that empathy, or as you're saying now, love your neighbor, is being misused to gaslight Christians into advocating, promoting and celebrating LGBTQQIP2SA+ PRIDE.

Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, bisexuality, transsexualism and transgenderism may not be promoted* on CF...
* Promotion is defined as encouragement of the progress, growth, or acceptance of something including advertising and publicity.

Terms and rules

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

www.christianforums.com

 

[o_mlly]

... in loving his neighbor the Samaritan demonstrated that the laws were moot. He had accomplished by nature that which the law couldn't accomplish by obedience.

Why would you think that acting naturally and being obedient to God's law are somehow at odds? Keeping God's laws make us happy in this life, not sad.

I think it also important to recall that when Jesus forgave sins, He also commanded the forgiven one to go and sin no more. Empathy does not moot the law.

 

[zippy2006]

Which is why Jesus says that it was only because of the hardness of men's hearts that Moses allowed them to put away their wives. It's also why Jesus says that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. But that commandment would've been too hard for men to keep, and so the 613 Mitzvot commandments were written not with God's divine inspiration in mind, but with men's flaws.

The logical problem with your argument is that you are confusing allowances with prohibitions, and you are confusing rigorism with bindingness.

You confuse allowances with prohibitions because you think that Moses' allowance was itself a law. Yet this is false, for neither God nor Moses commanded men to put away their wives. Beyond that, the primary text here (Deuteronomy 24) simply does not support your over-elaborate interpretation. Jesus is presumably referring more to an oral tradition than a written tradition. Second, you confuse rigorism with bindingness because you think that if Jesus makes a law more rigorous, then the original law was not divinely inspired. That's just a non sequitur.

in loving his neighbor the Samaritan demonstrated that the laws were moot.

This is another non sequitur. It is also based on ignorance of the fact that Samaritans followed the Torah.

He had accomplished by nature that which the law couldn't accomplish by obedience.

You are mixing Pauline theology into Gospel accounts, and doing so poorly given that Paul would never say that the Samaritan fulfilled the law by nature.

Sadly, that seems to be what people such as @Servus are doing today, using the commandments against homosexuality in order to circumvent the commandment to love thy neighbor.

And that's the point, isn't it? This whole issue is a smokescreen for things like the LGBT lobby. Christianity is at best tangential, and at worst an obstacle that needs to be removed.

Another huge problem with your interpretations is that the Torah literally includes the two commandments that Jesus singles out as the greatest. He isn't giving new commandments. This means that you think the Torah must have been self-contradictory if it commanded love and also condemned homosexuality, and that Jesus himself must have been self-contradictory if he agreed with the divinely inspired text.

This whole issue boils down to, 'I really like homosexuality; "empathy" seems like a nice way to sophistically achieve my promotion of homosexuality; therefore I promote "empathy". '

 

[zippy2006]

Sadly, that seems to be what people such as @Servus are doing today, using the commandments against homosexuality in order to circumvent the commandment to love thy neighbor.

I've clearly stated that empathy, or as you're saying now, love your neighbor, is being misused to gaslight Christians into advocating, promoting and celebrating LGBTQQIP2SA+ PRIDE.

Yeah - partino's candor shows up what is really behind most of these appeals to empathy in our culture. This is the thinking:

1. We must support LGBT
2. If we have empathy, then we will support LGBT (or whatever other faddish morality has arisen)
3. Therefore, we must have empathy

Incidentally, this argument is completely invalid. Still, this is the motive and basis for why people are so zealous for "empathy." They think it undermines "rigid" religions like Christianity (and literally every major religion in the world on this question of homosexuality).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah - partino's candor shows up what is really behind most of these appeals to empathy in our culture. This is the thinking:

1. If we have empathy, then we will support LGBT (or whatever other faddish morality has arisen)
2. We must support LGBT
3. Therefore, we must have empathy

Incidentally, this argument is completely invalid. Still, this is the motive and basis for why people are so zealous for "empathy." They think it undermines "rigid" religions like Christianity (and literally every major religion in the world on this question of homosexuality).

For some that may be the case, but that's not my thinking. Additionally, I'd have some empathy for partino because the guy is in a tough spot in his life and I would recognize this first before attempting to verbally wrestle him down to the ground with an argument, even if I disagree with him.

That's what compassion would do. Be sensitive to where people are in their lives before offering them a knuckle sandwich with Gospel mayo.

 

[zippy2006]

For some that may be the case, but that's not my thinking.

Fair enough.

 

[partinobodycular]

Additionally, I'd have some empathy for partino because the guy is in a tough spot in his life

I do believe that you've me confused with @Landon Caeli, someone who I've tended to think well of, and for whom I wish only the best.

As for @zippy2006 being too hard on me I assume that he does so with the best of intentions, and I hope that he presumes the same of me as well. If I fail to make my case then the fault lies with my inability to express it clearly, and I shall attempt to do better in the future. Even those who frustrate me at times... can make me better if I let them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I do believe that you've me confused with @Landon Caeli, someone who I've tended to think well of, and for whom I wish only the best.

No, I didn't confuse you with him since you shared a few brief details about your living arrangements not so long ago. However, if you're doing well wherever you are at the moment, then that's great to hear.

As for @zippy2006 being too hard on me I assume that he does so with the best of intentions, and I hope that he presumes the same of me as well. If I fail to make my case then the fault lies with my inability express it clearly, and I shall attempt to do better in the future. Even those who frustrate me at times... can make me better if I let them.

Yes, I know @zippy has good intentions, but I think you express yourself pretty well and I say this whether I agree with you on all points or not.

 

[zippy2006]

As for @zippy2006 being too hard on me I assume that he does so with the best of intentions, and I hope that he presumes the same of me as well.

That's generous, and I suppose it is likely that I was being too hard on you. I responded because there are interesting themes in your post, but there are difficulties in things like this:

The problem may have been that the priest and the Levite mistakenly used the commandments about ritual impurity to unknowingly avoid Christ's commandment to love thy neighbor. Sadly, that seems to be what people such as @Servus are doing today, using the commandments against homosexuality in order to circumvent the commandment to love thy neighbor.

Those bolded words are part of the problem. If something is done "unknowingly" then "use" is not the correct verb. To get imprecise in this leads to equivocation with regard to the culpability of the priest and Levite (not to mention Servus).

Jesus was interested in a kind of "spirit vs. letter" distinction, and this is important if one wishes to understand the New Testament, but it is an illegitimate approach in dialogue to simply claim that your opponent has confused the letter for the spirit, or that they have "used" one commandment to "sadly" "avoid" or "circumvent" others. You can say that I am using lesser commandments to avoid and circumvent greater ones, and I can say that you are using Christianity as a prop for a modern agenda, but there's really no use making such claims if they are not accompanied by arguments and evidence that might be plausibly persuasive.