Topic: Agree with this quote? Empathy vs. Religion

[rexFi]

You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion.

Off course I disagree with this one. Empathy is mostly based on emotions, which is hardly a good basis for determining right and wrong.

E.g. Incest

'The Notebook' director Nick Cassavetes says of incest: 'Who gives a damn?'

The interesting quote here is(emphasis mine):

“I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want?” Cassavetes said. “If it’s your brother or sister it’s super weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody, except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”

"This whole movie is about judgment, and lack of it, and doing what you want," he added.

I think if The Bible for example does not say something against this, then Cassavetes may have a point.

There is a reply on the website which sights Psychological Illness on the parties involved in Incest but I think appealing on the medical will not cut it because of... *Insert Read about Philosophy of Science Appeal here*

Anybody here knows the highly acclaimed movie entitled Taboo?

[leomarley]

You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy, not religion.

Off course I disagree with this one. Empathy is mostly based on emotions, which is hardly a good basis for determining right and wrong.

E.g. Incest

'The Notebook' director Nick Cassavetes says of incest: 'Who gives a damn?'

The interesting quote here is(emphasis mine):

I think if The Bible for example does not say something against this, then Cassavetes may have a point.

There is a reply on the website which sights Psychological Illness on the parties involved in Incest but I think appealing on the medical will not cut it because of... *Insert Read about Philosophy of Science Appeal here*

Anybody here knows the highly acclaimed movie entitled Taboo?

i believe in that quote. no offense but the example you gave was quite weak. i'll give you another one. there was this incident that occurred not too long ago in New Delhi, India where a woman was raped by a group of men using a metal rod in a bus and eventually died while being treated in Singapore. now, there's this spiritual guru who publicly said that the woman is at fault here and not only the rapists. the guru certainly didn't lack religion. now what do you think he lacks?

you can read about the story here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/28/world/asia/india-rape-victim

and here is the article about the spiritual guru:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4733079/asaram-bapu-says-delhi-gang-rape-victim-as-guilty-as-her-rapists.html

[rexFi]

^ then that's Religion vs. Religion now not Empathy vs. Religion sir.

now what do you think he lacks?

The correct Religion. Which is my firm belief is Christianity:

The Rapists were at fault - in that circumstance, they are accountable. Here's the dig though ALL have sinned and fall short (rom 3:23). The rapists can get what they deserve someday but by one example:

Jim Elliot was killed but still forgave. See the movie End of Spear. She will have to do that too.

Now what if the woman just gives in, lets say something like what like Tracii Lords(napaghahalata ba ko? ) would do, everybody "Happy".

Would that scenario made it right? Just like Incest, orgies etc. I didn't think my example was weak. It is applicable to almost anywhere. Regardless of how we feel, we should do what is right.

Just in case the conjecture of this discussion goes this way:

What does the Bible say about rape?

Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?

[leomarley]

^ then that's Religion vs. Religion now not Empathy vs. Religion sir.

The correct Religion. Which is my firm belief is Christianity:

The Rapists were at fault - in that circumstance, they are accountable. Here's the dig though ALL have sinned and fall short (rom 3:23). The rapists can get what they deserve someday but by one example:

Jim Elliot was killed but still forgave. See the movie End of Spear. She will have to do that too.

Now what if the woman just gives in, lets say something like what like Tracii Lords(napaghahalata ba ko? ) would do, everybody "Happy".

Would that scenario made it right? Just like Incest, orgies etc. I didn't think my example was weak. It is applicable to almost anywhere. Regardless of how we feel, we should do what is right.

Just in case the conjecture of this discussion goes this way:

What does the Bible say about rape?

Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?

how can it be religion vs religion when Christianity isn't even mentioned in the article. you mentioned empathy vs religion (as a whole) and not empathy vs Christianity. i can post any religious incidents whether or not it's about Islam, Hindu, Christianity or whatnot. topics about empathy vs religion isn't limited to Christianity only, sir.

you can say they have the wrong religion. on the other hand, they can say that to you too. what makes you so sure that they have the right religion? you'll answer faith just as they would.

IMO, morals based on religion are pretty subjective. Muslim-extremist may think that what they are doing is morally right. same with Christians, Jews, Hindus. Morality in and of itself is really subjective depending on your culture/religion.

Empathy on the other hand, is about you trying to recognize how the other person feels. it is also not limited to humans but also to other sentient beings. Now trying to help other people because of empathy is far better than helping others because of what your religion dictates. minsan kasi tutulong lang ang ibang tao dahil yun ang sabi ng religion nya pero hindi yun talaga ang gusto nyang gawin. tumulong ka dahil yun ang tama at hindi dahil meron reward ka na makukuha sa "kabilang buhay".

let's not beat around the bush and discuss rape in general, what the bible said about it, etc. i just posted the articles above as examples and not as a topic discussion. those things are a whole different topic. now, you created a thread about empathy vs religion and let's stick to the topic at hand.

[ALICE GO]

THIS Cassavetes you cited is the author of a book that was made into a movie by Martin Scorcese. Both book & film portrayed Jesus Christ as having copulated with Mary Magdalene. Kaya sa pagiisip pa lang ng Cassavetes na ito, his morals are as askewed & crooked. What he's arguing actually is nihilism - the demolition of all dichotomy between and evil. When the concept of good and evil is broken down, everything is - by all means - permissible. A poor word really to described it, but nihilism "allows" every act, no matter how monstrous. This means Hitler when he caused (directly & indirectly) the deaths of 80 million souls (6 million of the dead Jews) between 1933 and 1945 - was no criminal, he's not in hell right now, because his atrocities ultimately is neither evil nor good. When Romeo Jaloslos or Chavet Singson would raped your 16-year old daughter, they're just copulators who touched your daughter - not in any way beast, maniacs or violators. Kaya anong pinagsasabi nating empathy, you could empathize with your fellow souls, but the compassion would not save you from going to hell, and for every single act of empathy shared to one man, ten others you'll not be moved to empathized ever because people can be evil.....

[rexFi]

how can it be religion vs religion when Christianity isn't even mentioned in the article. you mentioned empathy vs religion (as a whole) and not empathy vs Christianity. i can post any religious incidents whether or not it's about Islam, Hindu, Christianity or whatnot. topics about empathy vs religion isn't limited to Christianity only, sir.

Off course the religion of the "Guru" should be fitted against every Religion. The thread is welcome to Muslims too if they want to answer.

If the "guru" could choose to only have emphaty rather than to change his Religion, then he have to also agree with Cassavetes.

you can say they have the wrong religion. on the other hand, they can say that to you too. what makes you so sure that they have the right religion? you'll answer faith just as they would.

No sir, read above, and yes Faith with substantiation.

IMO, morals based on religion are pretty subjective. Muslim-extremist may think that what they are doing is morally right. same with Christians, Jews, Hindus. Morality in and of itself is really subjective depending on your culture/religion.

Morals in every Religion off course is not subjective, people on the outside looking in I guess view it that way.

We(not us with other Religions I mean) debate with each other because we know (everyone should "imho") that both cannot be right at the same time. The way to know it is not in the scope of this thread though, which could include Historicity for example.

Empathy on the other hand, is about you trying to recognize how the other person feels. it is also not limited to humans but also to other sentient beings. Now trying to help other people because of empathy is far better than helping others because of what your religion dictates. minsan kasi tutulong lang ang ibang tao dahil yun ang sabi ng religion nya pero hindi yun talaga ang gusto nyang gawin. tumulong ka dahil yun ang tama at hindi dahil meron reward ka na makukuha sa "kabilang buhay".

First off I find nothing wrong with the bold faced. Think of it as "discipline", in "my" religion empathy can be trained through the rules and its not a "lower form" of empathy. Riding on high horses, not allowed.

I know what Empathy is that is why Incest(and now Orgies) are given as example and the general thought/principle on them can be applied to anything.

...you’re not hurting anybody, except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.

- Cassavetes

let's not beat around the bush and discuss rape in general, what the bible said about it, etc. i just posted the articles above as examples and not as a topic discussion. those things are a whole different topic. now, you created a thread about empathy vs religion and let's stick to the topic at hand.

I thought that is what we are already doing. I can't speak in behalf of other members of other religions, but I think we definitely would agree: Religion(which entails God is the source of Morals) is better than Empathy as guide in knowing right and wrong.

We already have discussed rape in a straightforward manner, if you want to add something then go on ahead sir. For now the things that have been gone through upon are Incest, Rape and Orgies.

[rexFi]

THIS Cassavetes you cited is the author of a book that was made into a movie by Martin Scorcese. Both book & film portrayed Jesus Christ as having copulated with Mary Magdalene.

Thank you ma'am, I didn't know this.

Kaya sa pagiisip pa lang ng Cassavetes na ito, his morals are as askewed & crooked. What he's arguing actually is nihilism - the demolition of all dichotomy between and evil. When the concept of good and evil is broken down, everything is - by all means - permissible. A poor word really to described it, but nihilism "allows" every act, no matter how monstrous. This means Hitler when he caused (directly & indirectly) the deaths of 80 million souls (6 million of the dead Jews) between 1933 and 1945 - was no criminal, he's not in hell right now, because his atrocities ultimately is neither evil nor good. When Romeo Jaloslos or Chavet Singson would raped your 16-year old daughter, they're just copulators who touched your daughter - not in any way beast, maniacs or violators. Kaya anong pinagsasabi nating empathy, you could empathize with your fellow souls, but the compassion would not save you from going to hell, and for every single act of empathy shared to one man, ten others you'll not be moved to empathized ever because people can be evil.....

The 16 year old could just say "she just didn't like it" but what if she liked it? Saan nga pala galing yung Statutory Rape law? *googling*

[leomarley]

If the "guru" could choose to only have emphaty rather than to change his Religion, then he have to also agree with Cassavetes.

Again, the example you gave about what Cassavetes said was a weak, if not moot, example of empathy vs religion since no one is affected by incest other than the persons involved. in a scientific point of view, it's wrong because if they decide to have a child, chances are the child will be abnormal. But it's not an example of empathy vs religion.

it's also not necessarily nihilism as ALICE GO pointed out. nihilism entails that you believe morality does not exist therefore you can do whatever you want. Cassavetes did not point out that the incest couple have no moral standards. what they're are doing maybe wrong but certainly not evil. does it mean that just because they're an incest couple that  they're evil? 

I thought that is what we are already doing. I can't speak in behalf of other members of other religions, but I think we definitely would agree: Religion(which entails God is the source of Morals) is better than Empathy as guide in knowing right and wrong.

not exactly. i'll throw you a bone one more time. here is an article from Harper's Magazine's interview with Alex Gibney, a documentary producer, about his upcoming film, Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God. i'll just pull out an excerpt from that article wherein Mr Giney talks about Pope Benedict's involvement, or should i say lack of, in child sex abuse in the Catholic Church:

“As for Rome, starting in 2001, all cases of clerical sex abuse in the church were forwarded to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So he may be the most knowledgeable man in the world about clerical sex abuse. Yet even though he saw the parade of horrors of child abuse, did Ratzinger as cardinal, or later as Pope Benedict, mandate reporting to civil authorities? No. When he had a chance, as Pope, to defrock Marcial Maciel, one of the world’s most brutally abusive clerics, did he do it? No. He and the curia around him are unwilling to confront the issue in a serious way. In that sense, it’s a systematic global cover-up of crimes.”

now, i ask you again. Does the Pope lack empathy or religion? could you say he has the wrong religion? keep in mind that we're talking about the (current) Pope here. The Holy See. Saint Peter's successor. God's foremost representation here on Earth.

btw, you can read the full interview here:
http://harpers.org/blog/2013/02/mea-maxima-culpa-silence-in-the-house-of-god/

THIS Cassavetes you cited is the author of a book that was made into a movie by Martin Scorcese. Both book & film portrayed Jesus Christ as having copulated with Mary Magdalene. Kaya sa pagiisip pa lang ng Cassavetes na ito, his morals are as askewed & crooked. What he's arguing actually is nihilism - the demolition of all dichotomy between and evil.

no he is not arguing nihilism. he's also not certainly giving an example of empathy. what he's just trying to say is, why are you minding other people's lives when you are not affected by what they're doing and no one's getting hurt by it.

When the concept of good and evil is broken down, everything is - by all means - permissible. A poor word really to described it, but nihilism "allows" every act, no matter how monstrous. This means Hitler when he caused (directly & indirectly) the deaths of 80 million souls (6 million of the dead Jews) between 1933 and 1945 - was no criminal, he's not in hell right now, because his atrocities ultimately is neither evil nor good.

that's a good example. only one problem, though. Hitler is no nihilist. he subscribed to the  Deutsche Christen belief where his RELIGIOUS MORALS dictated that he should remove the world of Jews.

Morals in every religion off course is not subjective

with my statement above and with yours, are you saying that you share the same moral standards with Hitler?

When Romeo Jaloslos or Chavet Singson would raped your 16-year old daughter, they're just copulators who touched your daughter - not in any way beast, maniacs or violators.

again, that is if you subscribe to nihilism which i believe no decent human being subscribes to.

Kaya anong pinagsasabi nating empathy, you could empathize with your fellow souls, but the compassion would not save you from going to hell, and for every single act of empathy shared to one man, ten others you'll not be moved to empathized ever because people can be evil.....

are you saying that you have given up hope on yourself and to humankind? that nothing else matters? sounds like nihilism to me.

[rexFi]

Again, the example you gave about what Cassavetes said was a weak, if not moot, example of empathy vs religion since no one is affected by incest other than the persons involved. in a scientific point of view, it's wrong because if they decide to have a child, chances are the child will be abnormal. But it's not an example of empathy vs religion.

You missed the part where Cassavetes said there will be no child involved.

“I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn?"

Its only moot to you because you did not see that?

Cassavetes got it all covered and it is an example of Empathy vs. Religion if you take into account the whole quote and its logical end.

Regarding the bold-faced, I hope you are not saying that you are not affected by Incest? So its not wrong if you really take Cassavetes whole quote into account?

People who has the same as my belief/Religion is certainly should be affected that in turn should be made empathic to people who wants to have this kind of a relationship.

Not affected if there are children or no children, just the rule for this, in addition to that it freaks me out just like what Cassavetes said.

it's also not necessarily nihilism as ALICE GO pointed out. nihilism entails that you believe morality does not exist therefore you can do whatever you want. Cassavetes did not point out that the incest couple have no moral standards. what they're are doing maybe wrong but certainly not evil. does it mean that just because they're an incest couple that  they're evil?

Alice should answer that.

In my view all of us are Evil/Sinners anyway. See my first reply to you sir regarding Rape and Forgiveness.

not exactly. i'll throw you a bone one more time. here is an article from Harper's Magazine's interview with Alex Gibney, a documentary producer, about his upcoming film, Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God. i'll just pull out an excerpt from that article wherein Mr Giney talks about Pope Benedict's involvement, or should i say lack of, in child sex abuse in the Catholic Church:

“As for Rome, starting in 2001, all cases of clerical sex abuse in the church were forwarded to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. So he may be the most knowledgeable man in the world about clerical sex abuse. Yet even though he saw the parade of horrors of child abuse, did Ratzinger as cardinal, or later as Pope Benedict, mandate reporting to civil authorities? No. When he had a chance, as Pope, to defrock Marcial Maciel, one of the world’s most brutally abusive clerics, did he do it? No. He and the curia around him are unwilling to confront the issue in a serious way. In that sense, it’s a systematic global cover-up of crimes.”

now, i ask you again. Does the Pope lack empathy or religion? could you say he has the wrong religion? keep in mind that we're talking about the (current) Pope here. The Holy See. Saint Peter's successor. God's foremost representation here on Earth.

I'm Evangelical (Trinitarian Pentecostal) so by default I'll say he has the wrong religion and If he was Evangelical too then he's not following up on the Teachings. I bet you heard the Ghandi quote about liking Jesus but not the followers etc.

He sure looks like he is covering up the faults of Rome there.

btw, you can read the full interview here:
http://harpers.org/blog/2013/02/mea-maxima-culpa-silence-in-the-house-of-god/

Thanks.

no he is not arguing nihilism. he's also not certainly giving an example of empathy. what he's just trying to say is, why are you minding other people's lives when you are not affected by what they're doing and no one's getting hurt by it.

Cassavetes? The two people involved "loves" each other...

Empathy on the other hand, is about you trying to recognize how the other person feels. it is also not limited to humans but also to other sentient beings.

Can we not recognize how the two people feel about each other? (this is exactly what the whole quote from him is all about)
Why not let them be if they are not having children? (This certainly is an application of that definition of Empathy.)

I certainly do not believe marriage or relationships should have children since in reality such things exists.

that's a good example. only one problem, though. Hitler is no nihilist. he subscribed to the  Deutsche Christen belief where his RELIGIOUS MORALS dictated that he should remove the world of Jews.

Again if he does not change his religion and just opt for empathy then he has to agree with Cassavetes there, because its its logical end. ^

with my statement above and with yours, are you saying that you share the same moral standards with Hitler?

See Ghandi's quote brought up.

again, that is if you subscribe to nihilism which i believe no decent human being subscribes to.

are you saying that you have given up hope on yourself and to humankind? that nothing else matters? sounds like nihilism to me.

...