12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Rand wrote: The scriptures encourage compassion, but not empathy. Why?
Christ is really good at Empathy, because he truly can understand another. Outside of the Spirit giving you that understanding, you are only judging. Almost always, we are wrong when we think we know what someone else is going through. But, with compassion, you can love them as they go through it, and not delude yourself that you can "feel what they are feeling".
"Judgment and Justice have to be impartial. It is an objective thing." I agree. But, when you think you can ""walking a mile" in someone elses shoes and having understanding (a product of "heart felt" feelings,) of what they are going through." I think we are deluded. We can imagine what they are going through. We can believe we know. But in reality, you will never truly know what another person is going through.
What was Abraham feeling and thinking as he walked up Mount Moriah with Isaac en tow? We really can never know. IF we think we know what he experienced, we are just deluding ourselves, unless God has decided to reveal it to us.
Empathy is a hard place to get to righteously. Compassion not so hard.
Hey BRG, sorry if it felt like I was speaking directly to you. It wasn't my intent. If I came across too strong, my apologies.BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑February 18th, 2018, 12:13 amRand wrote: The scriptures encourage compassion, but not empathy. Why?
Christ is really good at Empathy, because he truly can understand another. Outside of the Spirit giving you that understanding, you are only judging. Almost always, we are wrong when we think we know what someone else is going through. But, with compassion, you can love them as they go through it, and not delude yourself that you can "feel what they are feeling".
"Judgment and Justice have to be impartial. It is an objective thing." I agree. But, when you think you can ""walking a mile" in someone elses shoes and having understanding (a product of "heart felt" feelings,) of what they are going through." I think we are deluded. We can imagine what they are going through. We can believe we know. But in reality, you will never truly know what another person is going through.
What was Abraham feeling and thinking as he walked up Mount Moriah with Isaac en tow? We really can never know. IF we think we know what he experienced, we are just deluding ourselves, unless God has decided to reveal it to us.
Empathy is a hard place to get to righteously. Compassion not so hard.
Whew! Thank you for allowing a way out. There for a moment I thought that I was deluded.
Sympathy: Passivity - non-experiential - of the mind. (Comprehension)Lyster wrote: Empathy -
the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
Sympathy -
feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune:
Empathy requires understanding (in other words, you had to be there). This poster does not have it. He has sympathy. The person the poster is talking to probably also has sympathy. Both of them have a different understanding of how to avoid future sorrow.
Christ has empathy. He has "been there" in a way that only He could be.
"Take your prayers and shove them" removes the only one with actual empathy from the equation.
Sad irony in his words.
Love - viz a viz: Charity: Wisdom / Empathy - experiential - of the soul; heart, might, mind and strength. (Realization) It is as Thinker has mentioned - We need both thought/logical "thinking" . . . and . . . feeling/emotional "tethering." (Attraction / Repulsion)Thinker wrote: After reading comments & thinking about the original post, I’m reminded how many different valid ways to see things like this, there are. What I love about forums is getting multiple reasonable point of views I hadn’t previously considered.
Often feeling is mistaken for love. Transgender issues and homosexuality are based on emotional reasoning or “appeal to emotion” logical fallacy... which is “the general category of many fallacies that use emotion in place of reason in order to attempt to win the argument. It is a type of manipulation used in place of valid logic.”
Ie: “ I FEEL like the opposite gender so I must be.” or
“I FEEL offended by the fact you said, so it’s hate speech!” or
“If you support gun rights, you are mean and want kids to be killed.”
These argue based on trying to determine truth by feelings. Some ideologies (like Left) are based on this. Some have claimed that deciding religious truth based on feeling is also illogical. However, it could be considered counter-intuitive to decide religious truth based purely on logic. We need both thought/logical reasoning ... and... the spirit/intuition.
I realize love is defined many different ways, but how I define love is all-encompassing - just the quality of love varies. I see every living being as inherently loving - striving for what they think is best, through trial and error - active faith. The more that pondering/studing it out (including studying our & others’ psych-ology) is harmonized with the spirit, the higher quality the love.
Certainly you can, Rand - in the exchange of "keys."Rand wrote: Bruce, could I suggest that promptings of the Spirit are different than intuition. I believe that intuition is a physical gift/curse. Psychics use intuition, not the spirit. Intuition is a gift of our physical nature, not our spiritual nature.
Titus 1:
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
I was listening to JPeterson about how one thing that sets us human beings apart is how we care. Other species care too - but it’s limited. Through our ability to judge what is good and not (& various degrees in between) & in the big picture for all involved - we are able to love better than without such discernment.BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑February 17th, 2018, 11:19 pm Because language is a dynamic, living thing, its usage evolves over time. What was considered "hot" in yesteryear, is now considered "cool." Such is the case with this particular word "empathy." Empathy is not the feeling sorry "for" someone, so much as the feeling sorry "with" someone. It is in having passion "with" someone that affixes the "com" prefix in front of the word, "com passion." Taking "Pity" on someone is not even in the ballpark because that involves "on" and not "with." Empathy . . . empathizing . . . has more to do with "walking a mile" in someone elses shoes and having understanding (a product of "heart felt" feelings,) of what they are going through. There shouldn't be a "polarizing" attempt in a competitive comparison between empathy and love, because empathy is a component of the type of love that we should be developing for others. It is this very "passion" that enabled the Savior to "overcome" His hesitancy of the bitter cup. He has walked in our shoes and as the Son of Man, He has empathy "with" and not "on" or "for" people. Do you realize that it is considered a negative thing these days for someone to be considered "condescending?" Yet, the greatest of all condescended to walk "with" us to understand the journey in this cold, dark, dreary world.
It is my opinion that the "real" discussion should be about: "Pity vs Love," with an expose about the digression of pitying, enduring and then embracing.
The "soap box" that I choose to extend is "ALL" for the following information: Newsflash!!! We all judge one another whether we admit it or not. It is not a problem if that judgment is "righteous;" however, it always ends up "rebounding" onto us . . . because it is our "mirror" and our "perceptive" reflection. One can only comprehend what one is or has been. So, with what measure we mete is measured unto us, again. Call it "Karma," call it "the Universe messing with you," call it what you will - but it is a fact. Too, all that we will know in this realm of existence is our own consciousness. Life's review in the afterlife gives us the opportunity to step into other's conscious bubble to realize via their thoughts and feelings, the effect that our actions had upon them. A reasonable and rational definition - one that works; therefore, is warranted so that we don't end up condemning ourselves and here it is, again - worth repeating: Judgment is meant for identification and not condemnation.
Judgment and Justice have to be impartial. It is an objective thing. Grace and Mercy, too, have to be impartial. They most often are "subjective" things in this realm, corrupted by the bias of partiality and conditional love.
This is an interesting idea. The flaw I would see in this is that psychics, again, operate and are motivated by fear. Intuition is a large part of being able to be psychic. If it operates out of fear, that is leading you away from rather than toward a faith filled motivation. Fear is the antithesis of faith, rather then the building blocks of it. Thoughts?BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑February 19th, 2018, 3:37 pm
In my paradigm - and of necessity I have to preface with that statement - instinct (Masculine) and intuition (Feminine) are the "microcode" used as the direction and discernment introduction to the more advanced "spiritual-guidance" gifts of inspiration, revelation, dreams, visions, O.B.E.s, etc.
Hi Rand,
"The flaw I would see in this is that psychics, again, operate and are motivated by fear." How do you "qualify" and "quantify" such a statement? In order to do so, Rand, you would have to be psychic - or at least be able to "mind read" to be able to make such a generalization. How can one know if psychics operate and are motivated by fear? What is your basis for making a statement of this nature? I concur that "if" psychic-ism operates out of fear, then it is the antithesis of faith. I am not sure that I am able to "qualify" a psychic by virtue of intuition, alone. I am unable to confidently state to one degree or another, what part of "spiritualism" can be characterized by intuition.Rand wrote:This is an interesting idea. The flaw I would see in this is that psychics, again, operate and are motivated by fear. Intuition is a large part of being able to be psychic. If it operates out of fear, that is leading you away from rather than toward a faith filled motivation. Fear is the antithesis of faith, rather then the building blocks of it. Thoughts?BruceRGilbert wrote: ↑February 19th, 2018, 3:37 pm
In my paradigm - and of necessity I have to preface with that statement - instinct (Masculine) and intuition (Feminine) are the "microcode" used as the direction and discernment introduction to the more advanced "spiritual-guidance" gifts of inspiration, revelation, dreams, visions, O.B.E.s, etc.
I have further questions with respect to this statement, as well, Rand. In order to speak of intuition, an "examination for discovery" is in order to determine if our usage of "constructs,"(in the form of language,) is jointly understood. For me, the initial statement that you make begs for a definition that allows you to characterize intuition as a physical sense. Does intuition have "neurological tissue and receptors" which have been identified in our physical realm that contribute to the "acuity" or lack thereof based on density? What is your paradigm that delineates "physical" things from "spiritual?" When you state that "feelings and energies" can be sensed, but the truthfulness of feelings cannot be discerned, of which truth do you speak? In my paradigm, there are two categories of truth: relative and absolute. Relative truth is what happens "inside of us" by virtue of our perceptions and this is the "spiritual" area of thoughts and feelings. Regardless of whether our perceptions are correct - (correct means being able to be verified in the "outside" or "REAL" world) - because they are "had" within, that makes them "REAL" relative to US because the thoughts and feelings have been experienced. Absolute truth - the second and foremost portion of TRUTH, is that which is "shared" outside of ourselves and experienced by others. This is the basis that I use to question an ability to know the "relative" truths of another's "motivations" for doing things. This is why "mind-reading" is a slippery slope, because, unless validated in the "physical, outside, real world," it ends up being "generalization" or "speculation" without validation - therefore, suspicious. Opinions are not facts. When I speak, I cannot speak for all people - I can only speak for myself based upon my own perceptions. Understanding one another, then, becomes a "meeting of the minds" and a "oneness" that occurs when we are in harmony and resonance.Rand wrote: Intuition is a physical gift and sense. It can sense feelings and energies, but it cannot discern truth in those feelings. Sometimes people are accurate in their intuitions. Many times they are not. The Spirit and its working requires a sensitivity built on faith to "hear" it on a regular basis. Intuition as I stated before is a reaching out with our physical "feelers". This is a fear driven "Reaching out". Brigham called in animal magnetism.
Anyway, this is the result of my experiences. Hope it is helpful. I could be wrong. So far, it has been accurate in my experience.
