Compassion is not a concept supported by religion in any way, because it demonstrates that right and wrong are subjective. This is a difficult concept to package, sell, and use to maintain control.
Control requires objective right and wrong, yet the believers prove that this is impossible. Take "thou shalt not kill" for example, we must kill for food, plus their own book commands killing in many places.
Some have reworded it to say "thou shalt not murder," but murder is a completely subjective law so it does not help their whole "objective truth" nonsense. But compassion goes one step beyond that.
What is beneficial to one person will not be beneficial to another, thus the notion of what's right changes based on the subject. This also challenges the adage of "treat others as you would want to be treated," ultimating making such a notion dangerous.
Let's take food for a perfect example, and very easy to empathize. A lot of people are allergic to peanuts, it's a very common allergy.
So people who are giving out sandwiches slathered in the stuff to homeless people will only effectively help about 80% of those they encounter. But peanuts are not the only allergy, some people are allergic to berries.
So then you toss on jelly and you reduce your number to about 75%, the more ingredients and the more objective you make the service the fewer the people you help. So compassion can only be subjective, to have compassion you must feel bad for those you cannot help instead of making excuses.
Religion requires that everything be objective, an impossibility on it's own, but compassion and, by proxy, right and wrong are not objective. This is the elephant in the room of religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment