[LMB] Honour [WAS:- Ekaterin]

Mitch Miller mitchmiller at entertainmenttax.com
Thu Nov 5 00:39:00 GMT 2009


 
From: Howard Brazee <howard at brazee.net>
Subject: Re: [LMB] Honour [WAS:- Ekaterin]
To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
	<lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Message-ID: <4AF1C0EE.9050209 at brazee.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

/////Elizabeth Holden wrote:
> Howard said:
>
> HB > I find that Righteous people cause quite a bit of the worst
> HB > evils in  this world.    It is interesting that Jesus chose
> HB > to be good over being  Righteous.    But it's so much easier to be
> HB > Right.
>
> I am completely baffled by that sentence which, even though it's written in English, doesn't use words I understand.  What differentiation are you making between good, Righteous, and Right?  Does that differ from righteous and right?  What do you think it's easy to be right?
>   
Righteous people believe that they know what should be, and often are 
not willing to look at consequences.     People who say the Muslim woman 
will be whipped for being part of a TV show that showed a man who 
bragged about his sexual consequences know they're Right.   But they're 
not good.   People who have told my daughter's friend that her Dad will 
be tortured in Hell forever because he committed suicide know they're 
*right*, but no way they are good.    Heck, having comfort in the idea 
of an omnipotent, good God who will allow people to be tortured beyond 
all understanding forever and ever without hope of parole - for being 
fooled, is evil.    But it doesn't threaten their feeling of being *Right*.

My country does things the *right* way, therefore the other country is 
wrong, and needs to be stopped.    My church does things the *right* 
way, therefore the other church is wrong - especially if it is a break 
away from my church.    My idea of marriage is the *right* way, 
therefore the other guy's idea of marriage is wrong.

Jesus broke the law of the time, to do such things as healing on the 
Sabbath, angering those who knew the Right way.

If you know you're Right (and thus others are wrong), you don't have to 
accept responsibility for your actions.    I suspect we're all somewhat 
guilty of this - but it's worth fighting the good fight to become better 
than this.
//////

I'm with Elizabeth -- I don't understand what you're saying, Howard.  Do you mean anybody who 
has an opinion about religion, or one's country, or marriage, is evil?  Do you mean 
anyone who believes in a God who created man with free will is evil?  Or that a God
who created man with free will is evil?

And, although I certainly am not an expert on either religion or philosophy, I've never
heard of a religion or philosophy that says if you're Right -- by which I assume you mean
you follow that particular religion or philosophy -- you don't have to take responsibility for
your actions.  Am I right in guessing that what you mean here is if one's religion tells
one to fill a car with explosives and blow up one's self and a hundred people in a market, one's
religion (or your interpretation of it) is evil and evildoers should be punished?  I would
agree with you on that and I certainly hope that the villain is being punished.

Mitch Miller (scratching head)

PS  I don't know anything about the New Testament, either, but if Jesus was healing people who
were suffering life-threatening or even possibly life-threatening medical conditions, he wasn't
violating any Jewish law.



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list