Was asking about this context in the general mega as I’ve seen a lot of right wing weirdos froth at the mouth at the mention of empathy. Guess it makes some more sense now.
To me it makes about as much sense as the people who pretend that Jesus was just talking about extended family when he said love thy neighbour even though he goes on to explain that it includes disliked foreign people in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
I guess that one is probably one of the most creatively interpreted pieces of the Gospel, right? Couldn’t possibly just be about how all the radical stuff Jesus was asking followers to do was gonna lead to conflict, nah it’s about killing brown people.
It should be more interpreted in the way that Christianity will divide people and cause conflict due to religious divisions. Not that Jesus calls for eternal deus vult ave terra emporer protects the faithful.
Aye, in all my life I’ve always heard it taught that way too. Someone who actually behaves in a Christlike manner is bound to bring conflict because most men worship Mammon, very few actually worship God. Funny how different American Catholicism (and to a lesser extent other denominations, LatAm protestants are a land of contrasts) seems to be from what we get everywhere else.
The ironic cherry on top is that in that passage in particular, Jesus is saying thay following him will cause disruption between you and your family members. And if you have to choose between him and them, you must choose him.
I say “ironic” because American Christians base so much of their religion on “the family” and having kids, but Jesus was ambivalent at best about families.
I think this misconception comes from the commandments, which are basically only talking about members of your own tribe. “Thou shalt not kill” only applies to the ancient Hebrews it was talking to. So later on when God commands them to raze and plunder pagan cities, they aren’t committing sins.
Then Jesus comes along and creates a new covenant, but doesn’t reject the commandments outright. So there’s a discrepancy between Jesus telling his followers to obey God’s laws and telling them not to pillage pagan cities. Of course, this misinterpretation is deliberate among reactionaries, because it’s pretty obvious Jesus’s commands supercede the Old Testament, otherwise christians wouldn’t be able to eat pork or wear certain types of clothing.
The way I’ve seen it they’re arguing that people were only living in little villages with essentially their extended families around 0 CE so that is the context it should be seen in. Ignoring that the parable of the Good Samaritan follows as Jesus is directly asked. And that there were many bustling cities around 0 CE.
Here’s possibly related context about Baptist infighting on whether empathy is a sin:
https://baptistnews.com/article/have-you-heard-the-one-about-empathy-being-a-sin/
Was asking about this context in the general mega as I’ve seen a lot of right wing weirdos froth at the mouth at the mention of empathy. Guess it makes some more sense now.
To me it makes about as much sense as the people who pretend that Jesus was just talking about extended family when he said love thy neighbour even though he goes on to explain that it includes disliked foreign people in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
My favorite is when they quote “I came not to bring peace, but a sword” to justify violence and militarism.
Lol
I guess that one is probably one of the most creatively interpreted pieces of the Gospel, right? Couldn’t possibly just be about how all the radical stuff Jesus was asking followers to do was gonna lead to conflict, nah it’s about killing brown people.
It should be more interpreted in the way that Christianity will divide people and cause conflict due to religious divisions. Not that Jesus calls for eternal deus vult ave terra emporer protects the faithful.
Aye, in all my life I’ve always heard it taught that way too. Someone who actually behaves in a Christlike manner is bound to bring conflict because most men worship Mammon, very few actually worship God. Funny how different American Catholicism (and to a lesser extent other denominations, LatAm protestants are a land of contrasts) seems to be from what we get everywhere else.
The ironic cherry on top is that in that passage in particular, Jesus is saying thay following him will cause disruption between you and your family members. And if you have to choose between him and them, you must choose him.
I say “ironic” because American Christians base so much of their religion on “the family” and having kids, but Jesus was ambivalent at best about families.
Oh, so they’re not even hiding that fact that their doctrine is psycopathy
Yoooo they’re deranged
I think this misconception comes from the commandments, which are basically only talking about members of your own tribe. “Thou shalt not kill” only applies to the ancient Hebrews it was talking to. So later on when God commands them to raze and plunder pagan cities, they aren’t committing sins.
Then Jesus comes along and creates a new covenant, but doesn’t reject the commandments outright. So there’s a discrepancy between Jesus telling his followers to obey God’s laws and telling them not to pillage pagan cities. Of course, this misinterpretation is deliberate among reactionaries, because it’s pretty obvious Jesus’s commands supercede the Old Testament, otherwise christians wouldn’t be able to eat pork or wear certain types of clothing.
The way I’ve seen it they’re arguing that people were only living in little villages with essentially their extended families around 0 CE so that is the context it should be seen in. Ignoring that the parable of the Good Samaritan follows as Jesus is directly asked. And that there were many bustling cities around 0 CE.
Do they really think that empathy and compassion is the same as being an enabler? Although knowing them they DO actually think that.
They think that being empathetic with a sinner means being involved with the sin. They think that sympathy and compassion are correct. :::