[mark12_30]

I think we need to re-examine Lush's statement. To me, her key phrases are "look down on" and "better than". These phrases are used when comparing people-- NOT actions. Reading her statement, she is not deniying the existance of right and wrong; she is saying that we all struggle with it, and when someone fails in their struggle, we have no right to say that we would have done better in their situation, or that we are better than they are. (This is one of the foundations for true humility, by the way.)

There is a vast difference between judging an action vice judging a person. Any person with a reasonable sense of morality (okay, I am going in circles here, but bear with me) can judge an action. But only an omniscient and perfectly just creature (i.e. God) can truly and justly judge a person, including that person's motives and choices.

Men judge actions and by them infer motives and attitudes. God (especially Tolkien's Catholic view of God) judges attitudes and motives, and THEN judges actions.

Taking this view to Middle Earth:

It was wrong of Frodo to claim the Ring (Yes, we all know that and we all wish that somehow he had been able to resist.) But is Frodo therefore a useless damnable traitor because he claimed the Ring? We may not judge that since we can't read his mind. We can only judge his actions and ***what we know*** of his intentions and desires, and if we do that we should come out in his favor.

Re the Nazi Germany example:

It was wrong to commit genocide (yes, we all know that and yes we all wish that more Germans had resisted the process.) But the average German citizen was not performing executions; he was trying to raise his kids, earn a living, etc, and the fact that people were disappearing at midnight may or may not have been under his control, although it probably did not escape his notice. Should he have done something? Did he know enough and was he able and brave enough to do anything? We all agree that it would have been much better if he had done something to prevent the genocide. But can we judge the fact that he didn't and call him a damnable traitor and a worthless, useless human being?

Maybe, but I think not. How omniscient are you, and how much do you know about his motives, his understanding of the situation, and his involvement in it?

I think this is Lush's point. The Lush I know is most certainly not in favor of genocide, nor implying that the act of genocide is un-judgeable. But I think she does mean, "Judge not that ye be not judged" and "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." If we had been the average German on the street, would we have behaved differently? We may hope so, but without being there and going through it how can we make that claim?

So-- if you were Frodo, standing on Mount Doom, after having owned the Ring for seventeen years and carried it for thousands of miles, would you have claimed it? Or not? How do you know? And do you dare say you're better than he is because of your claims?

Lush, if I diverged from your intent there, please clarify (I'm not omnicient, after all...) [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[ October 28, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]