Pondering The Origin Of Compassion

Where did the ideal of compassion originate? I presume many will feel this an opportune moment to tell me, "the idea of compassion comes from God and GOD ALONE!" Apart from pointing out that this would relegate compassion in itself to complete meaninglessness, why is it so arbitrary?

Arbitrary you ask? Arbitrary in the sense that it is not always followed. As I've made clear on numerous occasions, ideals seem ideal in the strictest sense only when always followed! Otherwise, one could claim to be compassionate toward abused babies and abandoned puppies but show little other than contempt and judgment for child molesters and rapists! This does not seem to make compassion ideal, rather it seems to make it little more than convenient.

So what could reasonably explain each individual's arbitrariness regarding whom to demonstrate compassion to and whom to not? I have an interesting idea as to how we might consciously or probably more commonly unconsciously "calculate" this. We simply accord compassion to those in circumstances we could see ourselves in or have already been in. In this way, we project a sort of "hope" that if the roles were reversed, these same people would bestow compassion on us. A tit for tat so to speak or perhaps a more evolutionary term, reciprocal altruism.

Why, one might ask, does it seem so few have compassion for child molesters and rapists? Because very few (we will desperately hope at least) could ever see themselves committing these kinds of egregious acts! Hence why few seem compelled to sympathize with them.

On the other hand, take those that have committed extra-marital affairs. As I have pointed out previously, if all those that judged others for having affairs did not have it in them to go on and do just the same, there would be far fewer affairs. Perhaps many who have compassion and forgiveness for those who are found out to have had affairs either consciously or unconsciously acknowledge the fact that they would or at least could go on to do just the same (or perhaps already have) and in this sense they are, once again, simply projecting "hope" that if the roles were reversed, these same people would bestow compassion and forgiveness on them!

I think this relegates compassion to being nothing but evolutionary group selection. In this sense, we engage in a sort of reciprocal altruism because it benefits US as individuals! This is decidedly selfish! Not that there is anything particularly wrong with this but then what becomes of the ideal of compassion as having originated from a God that commands or at least desires us to be selfless?


Perhaps the pinnacle of compassion would be forgiving child molesters and rapists? Hmm.....not sure I could do this especially if MY child and wife were their victims!

You Might Want To Think Twice.....Or More.....Before Judging Others

How does one know if another is genuine? What does it even mean to be genuine? Following morality for the sake of behaving as you think others would want you to (including God) or following morality because it is perceived by you to be meaningful in itself?

Why do some naturally possess a forgiving nature whereas others can only muster up forgiveness out of a sense of duty? And still others can demonstrate forgiveness only by believing rewards will follow, be it here or in eternity?

Because I have no reasonable answer to this, I have absolutely no compulsion to judge others on this matter. What do you think? What might God think?

True Forgiveness

What is true forgiveness? To me it is accepting ill treatment from somebody by totally and completely putting it behind and not dwelling on it, realizing the action was committed because of unconsciousness to ego. Some people who might otherwise avenge wrongs done against them reluctantly leave the judgment to God and call this forgiveness. But I reject this claim! I think forgiveness with the belief that God will eventually “settle” matters is not forgiveness. It is merely retribution by proxy.

The ideal way to look at wrongs committed against us is well expressed by Jesus during his last breaths. Speaking of those responsible for his predicament, he asks the Father to forgive them, for they know not what they are doing. He obviously realizes these people are unconscious. This is the essence of forgiveness in my opinion.

I have to ask myself if I am capable of “truly” forgiving. What is required of me to demonstrate this kind of forgiveness? It is almost as if the only way to attain such peace from wrongs done against me is to not care. Not care about what? How about protecting my ego? When we are taken advantage of, the ego is under assault so it feels entitled to defend itself by exacting revenge in some way, be it through thought or action. If one cannot advance in life without getting over wrongs committed against him and has a compulsion to harbor ill thoughts toward wrongdoers, it is a strong sign the ego is in control. Think about it. If somebody is taken advantage of, is he still not the same person? Of course. He is and only ever will be exactly the person he has always been.

So not being able to forgive is a sign that the ego is in control, and therefore, the person has staked his identity in ego, not his true self. This, as I've said before, is the fundamental “problem” with humanity. As long as the ego is in control, things will never change. There will be no lasting peace, political compromise will be impossible, there will be lack of understanding amongst one another (and no desire to understand), fighting over ideology will be rampant, the list goes on and on. And I think where this leads to is the wisdom of accepting things as they are. As long as you reject what is, there will be much conflict and struggle for peace within.

I believe the essence of what Jesus is talking about in weakness being strength and strength being weakness is the following: "the world" defines strength by identification with the ego. Jesus' view on this axiom is diametrical. True strength comes from detachment from ego. Only then can the essence of your “I am” surface.

What Makes God's Ideals Ideal?

I believe one of the subtle messages Jesus taught about ideals is that it is not enough, nay it is nearly meaningless I tell you, to follow ideals with practicality in mind. Meaning, if one follows ideals only within the context of what is deemed practical, he will likely never follow them when they are at all meaningful. In other words, I think Jesus was teaching us that ideals are only truly ideal when they are not practical.

For instance, consider Jesus' teachings on love as an ideal. If treated as such, love is most ideal or perhaps only ideal when it involves loving those that are most difficult to love. If you only love those that reciprocate, what credit is that to you? Even the devil of hell and mobsters are quite capable of this! Loving only those that love you certainly is practical but is far from ideal. Applying this principal to other things like forgiveness and mercy, it appears many might believe in ideals. However, their Achilles' heel prohibits them from actually exercising these ideals when it is impractical to do so. But when an ideal is exercised only when it is practical, it will not be followed when it is most needed. This is not ideal.

Isn't it touching that people have sympathy for an abused baby or an abandoned puppy? Of course people have sympathy for them! But this is a case of practical sympathy. It does not require anything close to that of a saint to be sympathetic to the plight of a suffering child or defenseless puppy. But what about having genuine sympathy for a convicted rapist, drug abuser or child molester facing dire consequences entirely brought on by his irresponsible and reckless behavior? At this point, most would adopt the ideal that he is reaping what he has sown. This certainly feels much more emotionally comforting for most because it is practical. Which means any and all sympathy for a “low-life” like this is conveniently abandoned in favor of the emotional satisfaction of feeling like he is getting what he deserves. But if the ideal of sympathy is taken seriously, what could possibly be a better demonstration of it than to have sympathy especially for a dreg like this?

Conversely, if we subscribe to the ideal that one should reap what he sows, there is no reason to have sympathy for a penniless widow if she is penniless because she did not prepare responsibly for this possibility. Are there many people that would not have sympathy for this woman? I would like to think not! My point is that no matter how much we try to act out and uphold ideals, if we do not do so absolutely, our ideals become merely relative. Which means they are not really ideal. They are simply arbitrary based on any given individual's preference.

With this realization then, I must admit I fail to see God as the author of many of our supposed "ideals" and moral convictions. Rather, I see ego as its principle author.

To Be Or To Believe?

Why does one need to believe anything? Why can't he just be? The “real” person seems ultimately to be what he or she does, not what he or she believes. So might it be irrelevant to get encumbered in beliefs?

I would much rather somebody forgive me than tell me he believes in forgiveness! It might be pointed out that one needs to believe something. But so much of the time we fail to act according to our beliefs anyway. Furthermore, I don't think failure to act in accordance with a belief necessarily means it is not believed. This is why belief is ultimately futile.

The essence of one's being, who he really is, is the true test of what he “believes”. In this sense, there is no need for him to believe anything. It is just to be. And this being will manifest itself as doing which is ultimately the only useful purpose of any belief.....to coax us into doing it.

On The Meaning Of Things

If you believe something like forgiveness is meaningful, why? Because God says it is or because it is meaningful in itself?

If forgiveness is meaningful in itself, a reflection of mine confounds the question of meaning for both the theist and atheist alike. For the theist, do you believe something like forgiveness is only meaningful if God exists and declares it so? In other words, if you abandon belief in God, would you continue to exercise forgiveness assuming, of course, you did before? If not, you are implying, however unconsciously, that forgiveness has no value apart from God (and of course His endorsement of it) meaning it is not meaningful in itself. This disturbs me greatly.

On the other hand, an atheist that believes forgiveness is meaningful in itself must address the question of how something like forgiveness can be intrinsically such? If the universe and life evolved, how could something like forgiveness be intrinsic to reality and hence have meaning in itself? This bewilders me.

I suggest an alternative to these 2 views. It seems the only way to be certain one can experience intrinsic meaning in things like forgiveness is to neither believe nor disbelieve in God. HUH? What does this mean? I have no earthly idea! Perhaps it just means to be unsure? Maybe God does not want us to know? I can think of at least one very pleasant corollary to this: not knowing should compel us to be humble and understanding of others we do not see eye to eye with.

Might not knowing simply advocate agnosticism? Whatever the case, bear with me. By being unsure, one is forgiving not because he believes God would want him to be, rather he is forgiving because he perceives it as meaningful in itself. Or perhaps it is simply in his nature to be forgiving? Could his nature originate with God? Perhaps. But then why is it everybody does not have this “Godly” nature? Does God overlook these “others”? If so, how would this reflect on Him?

In any case, by being unsure, one is forgiving not because he is acquiescing to God's “demands” but rather he sees meaning in forgiveness itself and/or is just naturally so. But he cannot rule out the possibility that God exists because if he does, how would intrinsic meaning in forgiveness (among many other things) exist without God or some such eternal force having attributed meaning to these things apart from all else? Keep in mind this admission that God might exist does not suggest anything beyond this. In other words, it does not attempt to define in any specific way Who or What God might be if He actually exists. Therefore, this type of view acknowledges the possibility that God exists but remains very skeptical and open-minded.

On the other hand, could forgiveness simply be a respected adaptation of human beings for the purpose of cooperating and harmonizing more effectively with our fellow brethren? In this case, it would not seem to have meaning in itself. It would simply be arbitrary to how we evolved and adapted as a means to optimize social interaction.