Christian Radio and Psychobabble

That is a general statement and not always true.

 

I gave my studies--they are in the Bible.
You haven't stated FACT; you have stated your opinion. and that is all.
This isn't a grey area--God is not sexist. Your charge borders on blasphemy.
The fruit of the Spirit is not female related, but rather directly related to one's walke with God. Where is your evidence that women have a step up on men when it comes to their relationship with God? Again your statements are somewhat heretical. Are you by any chance implying that God is female because God is compassionate? It almost sounds like it.

 

Do you mean like what is found in Prov. 31?

She looks for wool and flax And works with her hands in delight. She is like merchant ships; She brings her food from afar. She rises also while it is still night And gives food to her household And portions to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong. She senses that her gain is good; Her lamp does not go out at night. She stretches out her hands to the distaff, And her hands grasp the spindle. She extends her hand to the poor, And she stretches out her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household, For all her household are clothed with scarlet. She makes coverings for herself; Her clothing is fine linen and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, When he sits among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, And supplies belts to the tradesmen. Strength and dignity are her clothing, And she smiles at the future. She opens her mouth in wisdom, And the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, And does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying: "Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all." Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, But a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands, And let her works praise her in the gates.

Approximately half of your married life will be with children and the other half without. What will you do when your kids are not around? Thank goodness on the farm my mom did not sit in the house and watch us work 8 hours each day milking the cows. She got out there and worked with the rest of us. There is a reason the soap operas come on in the middle of the day.

 

__________________

I never said any of what you are saying. Those are your words not mine.

Believe what you want I don't care...so now you are saying men should stay home and raise the children while women work.

Now who is changing God's word?

 

The study that showed men who walked by the little child on the sidewalk while woman after woman stopped to help and showed concern...proves women are more compationate towards others. More women will stop for a stray animal while a man will just go by, if not think nothing of running over it.

Love to hear a few womens side of this discussion instead of just men....who's feelings must be hurt.

I will leave it at that...people know what is real.

 

Women, in general, are more emotional then men. It is said that one of the greatest weapons that a woman has is her tears. If you want to go toe to toe on the psychological make-up on women I am more than willing. But emotion is not compassion. Athaliah was very emotional--so emotional she killed all of her children. What compassion is that? It is emotion, not compassion.
True compassion comes only from God. It is a fruit of the Spirit. Your tears, bawling, weeping, etc., is not compassion. You may be a big ball of emotions; that doesn't make you compassionate. Don't confuse the two.

Look at a couple of examples from the Bible:

Exodus 32:9-10 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

Exodus 32:30-32
And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

Moses was know as the meekest (not the weakest) man on the earth. God was at the point of wiping Israel off the face of the earth, and making a nation out of Moses instead. But Moses pleads with God. He has compassion on Israel. He pleads with God even to the very extent that God would blot his name out the Book of Life if God would not be willing to forgive Israel. This is perhaps the most selfless and sacrificial prayer of the Bible. Nothing else in the Bible compares to it. It reveals something of the compassion of Moses. Of course, Moses was a man.

Paul was similar in nature:
Romans 9:1-3 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Likewise Paul, expresses the thought that if it were possible he would gladly trade places with his Jewish brethren that are condemned to an eternity of Hell, if it would mean their eternal salvation. This thought is one of the most difficult to comprehend, but it does show the selfless heart, the compassion that Paul had for the lost, especially his own brethren, the Jews. No such comparisons can be made with women in the Bible.
However that doesn't mean it isn't possible.
What it does mean is that Paul and Moses led very Godly lives; walked close with God, led Spirit-filled lives. Compassion comes from God. Emotion, in general is carnal, something every person has--women perhaps more than others. That doesn't make them more compassionate.

 

That study proves nothing more than men are afraid of being branded a predator if they stop and talk to a little girl.

DHK is right on this one. Too many people confuse emotions with compassion.

I cry over 'chick fllicks', but it is not because I am compassionate. It is because my emotions are touched.

I have seen single fathers raise their children with more compassion than the mother that walked out and left them...

Just today I read in the newspaper where a mother put her newborn in a garbage bag and threw her in a dumpster.

Compassion? I think not!

 

Good point Blessed and may very well be why men didn't stop.

But we all know as a rule men don't share their feelings as much or as well as women and they do not come close to reaching out to others as much as women do. If they did they wouldn't be know for forgetting birthdays and anniversaries. My husband never thinks to send anyone a card or to call to see how anyone is doing, help a stray animal, cry about homeless children etc. etc. And he is the nicest guy you will find.

I do not think they would be able to go to war and KILL if they had the kind of compassion and empathy I am talking about. I couldn't hurt anyone ever, no matter what.

I think the whole point of my post was missed by focusing on such a small part of what I said.

 

I think you mean, like Sue seemed to suggest, that most men would not cry at "chick flicks" because they are to keep their emotions in check. It is a good thing that Good Samaritan was able to keep his emotions in check when caring for the traveler.

Can you imagine:
Luke 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

He was stripped of his clothes--lying there naked.
he was beaten--bleeding, bloody open gashes, no doubt infected with the flies and other insects of that hot land crawling on his bloody wounds.
He left him half dead--he was barely conscious--perhaps close to the point of dying. That part of the country can be hot and dry. After a beating like that too much time without water has a devastating effect on the body. Maybe the vultures were already circling. Either way the state of that man was too horrible to look on--too horrible for a Levite, and too horrible for a priest. Perhaps they didn't have compassion because they couldn't "stomach" the sight of the man. Their emotions got in the way. (Not really an excuse). Many people don't want to help because they don't FEEL like it. They get sick at the sight of blood, etc. etc.
Compassion involves sacrifice and duty that arises above emotion. Compassion has emotions in check. Compassion says I will be loving and merciful in spite of the condition that I find a person in. Compassion transcends all barriers--racial, gender, language, etc.
Paul and Moses were compassionate not only because they were able to keep their emotions in check, but because they had a close walk with the Lord their God.

 

While I don't wish to enter this debate, I do wish to affirm the point made by I Am Blessed 16. It has often been a great source of sadness to me that I find myself in the role of a "potential predator" because I am male. When women, even groups of them, will not make eye contact or a return a greeting when passing on the sidewalk or in the park, when women pull their children away from me, when men or women keep an eye on me or stand protectively near a loved one as if I might try to hurt someone....it makes me sad that society has come to this and frustrated that I don't have a way to assure them "I'm not one of the bad guys." Showing compassion or being "overly friendly" is often met with suspicion for a man, and perhaps necessarily so by the average woman.

And I cry in movies pretty often, or when reading certain books, or remembering certain painful events from my past, though I don't feel I am allowed to reveal that to anyone that knows me personally. Society, aided by traditional, and, imo, slight-skewed Judeo-Christian concepts of gender roles, has branded me weak and effeminate if I cry, fearful and unassertive if I am humble, and indecisive and unambitious if I wait to seek God's will or pause to care more about others than myself.

 

Chessic now there is something I agree with!

I have noticed women don't take too kindly to a man opening her door either when entering a store or what not. I always say thank you when it is done for me. I taught my sons to open my door (and to all women and to give a seat to the elderly) at an early age and my husband does too.

yes sad to say Chiverly is dead....or at least on the decline :-(

 

You are attempting to prove a point (that women are more compassionate than men) by appealing to the fact that the Bible clearly outlines different gender roles for men and women. This is a non sequitur. Specifically, you have fallen into the formal fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion). According to Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen in their book, Introduction to Logic:

Because God designed women’s bodies to carry babies, give birth to babies, and even nurse (feed) babies in no way proves or implies that women are somehow more compassionate, toward others, than are men. Likewise, the biblical gender roles you mentioned do not speak to the issue either. God pronounced specific curses upon both men and women as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:13-19). Men were cursed to have to work by the sweat of their brow to provide food for themselves and their families. However, this says nothing with respect to whether or not men are more or less capable of showing compassion than women. You need to either further define your argument or find some other Scripture to support what you are saying in the above quote.

Another formal fallacy along the same lines already pointed out. In the wild animals act according to the way God’s intelligent design intends for them to behave. Basically they are incapable of behaving in any other manner. However, this principle does not apply to humans. God designed us to be different from the animals He gave us dominion over. Likewise, as DHK has already pointed out compassion falls under the fruit of the Spirit as outlined in Galatians 5:22-23. Compassion for others flows out of the fruit of the Spirit (i.e. love, patience, kindness, goodness, and gentleness) as defined in the Scripture (Gal. 5:22-23, NASB).

No one suggested such. However, the issues you raise here do not really support the original point that you are trying to establish. What does a woman’s ability to multitask better than a man have to do with whether or not the man is somehow more or less capable of showing compassion to others? Since you like to reference “studies” can you please provide references to some valid studies that show that the act of showing compassion toward others is a right brain activity?

 

You have not provided any documented facts. You have only provided your opinion and attempted to back up that opinion with fallacious arguments that have been soundly refuted.

Do you mean to say empathetic? Anyway, this as yet remains your unproven, undocumented, unreferenced, fallaciously argued opinion.

As a matter of fact tonight I shed a tear as I watched the USA Network’s presentation of Titanic during the scene when one of the lifeboats returned looking for survivors in the water and all the people were frozen to death.

If you are going to request that others provide you with citations of “studies” and if you are going to cite “studies” please provide the source reference so that we can verify the information for ourselves. Saying that you remember a “study” on TV provides us with no relevant information to either demonstrate that your assertion is valid, or any way to verify the claim you are making. For all we know this could easily be another formal fallacy in the form of an appeal to inappropriate authority, Argument Ad Verecundiam, which according to Copi and Cohen arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand (Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic, pg. 165).

Sorry but the material you quote here is entirely about men’s emotions and how we supposedly control them. The entire article (yes I read all three pages) says nothing about whether or not men are more or less capable of showing compassion to others than women. The material you quoted once again makes you appear to fall into the formal fallacy of an appeal to inappropriate authority, Argument Ad Verecundiam, which according to Copi and Cohen arises when the appeal is made to parties having no legitimate claim to authority in the matter at hand (Copi and Cohen, Introduction to Logic, pg. 165). The article by Dr. Ron Levant does not speak directly to the issue here or the point that you are trying to assert.

You have yet to demonstrate any such “FACT” backed up by citations of reference sources. All you have done is to assert your opinion as “FACT.”

 

He does not need to provide you with references to studies when he is simply using the Bible to defeat the unsubstantiated opinions that you are asserting to the true. All he has to do is provide the Scripture references, which he did. Likewise, you are speaking nonsense when you say the Bible does not answer the questions/points you are raising. DHK, gb, and I have all referenced solid biblical support that demonstrates your assertion to be both invalid and false.

In responding to DHK’s statements quoted above you replied:

He (DHK) is simply stating the implications of what you did say.

Likewise, in no way did DHK even hint at the idea that men should stay home and raise children while women work. You are making a false charge against him.

The “study” you reference proves nothing because you have not really cited a study; rather, you have simply appealed to your memory of something you saw on TV. There is no way anyone in this discussion can verify what you are saying. Likewise, assuming that this “study” exists there are several question that must be raised.

1. Since we maintain that compassion is the result of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) we must ask how many of the male subjects involved in the study were born again Christians capable of displaying said fruits of the Spirit? If the vast majority of the men in the study were not born again Christians then the conclusions reached by the study are significantly skewed to the negative.
2. Who conducted the “study.” Are they a legitimate authority in the matter at hand?
3. What was the scientific method used in the study? Was it a double-blind study? Can any of the researchers involved be demonstrated to possess a significant bias toward “proving” an outcome with a specific conclusion?
4. Are there other possible and valid reasons, other than a lack of compassion, why some men did not stop to assist the little girl?
These are just a few of the relevant questions regarding the “study” you are citing.

Again, you are falling into another formal fallacy this time it is the fallacy of Equivocation. According to Copi and Cohen,

You are confusing one’s emotional response with one’s ability to act in a compassionate manner. I assume you keep doing this because you believe the emotions to be the source of one’s ability to act in a compassionate manner. However, several of us have demonstrated that idea to be invalid and false because true compassion flows out of the fruit of the Siprit (Gal. 5:22-23).

My compassion and empathy drive me to apply the principles of Christian Just War Theory when determining whether or not I should go to war and kill an aggressor in defense of the helpless people (or nations) being attacked by said aggressor.

I don’t think anyone missed the other points you were making. However, since this is a Christian board and we picked up on something you said that does not line up the clear teaching of the Bible we focused our discussion there. If we can reach an agreement on this issue then as Christians we can move on to discuss and hopefully agree on the other points you raised.

 

the only ones really disagreeing with me on that one small minor point are men.

How do you do a poll survey. I would love to see the bias opinion when people don't feel so threatened.Cause the people I asked both male and female that I know totally agreed with me and thought I was dealing with liberal opinions. Something like those who teach there are NO differences between boys and girls it is all how you raise them. Nonsense males hopefully are born wanting to play with cars and guns and girls hopefully are born wanting to play with dolls and dressup. Boys make lots of noises and girls love to talk.

I just can't wait to hear how I am now wrong on these FACTS!

 

First, note the time that we are posting. There are/were very few BB members on-line at that hour. The men who responded constitute about 50-60% of the registered BB users that were on-line at the time. I believe that according to the list of users (located at the bottom of the screen when you are on the main BB page where all the various fora are listed) that were on the site at that time there may have been one other woman besides yourself on-line and she may not necessiarily have even been in this forum.

How about addressing the points already raised in the above posts rather than raising more issues (which is the red herring fallacy in debate). According to Anthony Weston in his book entitled A Rulebook for Arguments The Red Herring fallacy is:

Likewise, your opening statement quoted above is also false. The poster named I Am Blessed 16, who disagreed with your assertions, is a woman.

 

I believe there is a fine line between using scripture and psychotheropy. As we all can see on this board alone, not everyone has the same interpetation when it comes to scripture and simple truths at that.

I have seen how ineffective constantly quoting scripture at someone without really listening to what they are saying and who may not be ready to be acountable to God's word yet. Sometimes all someone needs is to be heard and and know that others care about them....this alone can help them see that God also cares and therefore makes it easier for them to WANT to obey his word.
It helps to know you are not the only one going through the problems you may have.

Even Paul said for those who are mature in Christ to desire MEAT not milk anymore...some people need milk and some need meat. If you read how Jesus and Paul and others handled people, it was with compasion and empathy. A trait not openly often found in men, but more so in women.

Teaching truths without scripture is wrong and so is teaching truths without empathy, understanding and compasion. They should go together. IMHO

 

This was your first post in this thread (which led to the current discussion about the male ability to show compassion to others). You reposted it a second time by quoting it in another post. Now you have posted it a third time.

As I stated previously, as Christians we find your assertions regarding men and compassion to not be in line with the clear teachings of Scripture. Hopefully, when/if we can come to agreement on this issue as Christians then we can move on to discussion/agreement on the other issues you raised.

 

You will always find exceptions to the rule. I didn't say men are NEVER compassionate or empathetic. I said as a rule. No scripture was used to discount anything I said. Studies on human brains and actual events prove i am right...what else do you need.

Why are you being so dogmatic over a minor issue?

As a whole my original post was correct was it not?

Please do a poll or are you afraid many will agree with me?

I am offended, you are now saying I am NOT a Christian...now that was compassionate and empathetic...you just proved my point thanks!

 

Plenty of Scripture has been used to refute every point that you attempted to make regarding the male ability (or inability) to show compassion. Perhaps you did not read the posts from DHK, gb, or me.

As a conservative evangelical Christian I do not find asserting anything to be valid and true that sharply disagrees with the clear teaching of Scripture to be a "minor issue."

As I said twice previously I am reserving comment until we can hopefully, as Christians, come to agreement over the current issue where we so far have disagreed.

In a debate it is not my place to do your research for you or assist you in making your case (since we disagree). As a registered member of the BB you are fully able to post a poll. Likewise, I am not afraid that "many will agree with you." However, your appealing to such a poll would be considered as a formal fallacy in a debate. It would be the fallacy of ad populum. According to Anthony Weston: