A Comparison of Three Religious Guidelines (Well, sorta)

[forsyth]

So, in my various studies, both offline and on, I've noticed a common thread running through many different religions, ethosii (ethoses? Ethoen? Whatever.), spiritual paths, and the like. The basic message is "Don't be a lamer," the main variation is the definition of lamer. I'm only slightly kidding.

But there's three key phrases in particular, that struck me as being almost identical. But only almost, they share the same basic thought, but they're worded differently, more actively or passively, and how specific they are. So I'm "reviewing" them, in the order from the weakest to the strongest. And along the way hopefully it'll provide some insight, humor, or just a way to waste ten minutes at work, any of which would be fine. But I picked these three because they're the "core rule" for each.

"An it harm none, do as ye will." We'll start with the Wiccan Rede, because it's the most passive, and the weakest, I think. Besides being worded in RenFaire English, it's extremely vague. It's not so much a rule, as a guideline. There's no definition at all of "harm", or what to do if any course of action harms somebody, and no real suggestion of what to do, other than whatever you want. But it gives a sort of ground floor for behavior, of not hurting anybody. Which is good and fine, but no terribly specific or much of a guide other than that.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The "Golden Rule", straight out of the New Testament. It's more active, telling you to do unto others, but only what you'd like them to do to you. Of course, it leaves out things like what about kinks that you're into that somebody else isn't, and so on, but it's more specific. But not terribly much more, and it's not that active, it's just saying if you do something, do something you'd want to have done to you.

"Be excellent to each other." Bill and Ted. It's much more active, telling you to actually go out and BE excellent to each other. Excellent's very vague, but it's more positive than just not hurting anybody, at least on a par with thing you'd like to have done to you. It's questionable if everything you'd like to have done to you is excellent, and vice versa, so that's probably a wash. But it's definitely more active, telling you to actively go out and be excellent. Which is why I like it. The world needs more excellent things and people.

So, there you go. I may get around to expanding this later, if I come across other sentences that're nice and short to paste and analyze, though this really is less than a book-cover-blurb of any of the religions of philosophies involved. Except maybe Bill and Ted's. So take them as you will.

Tags: Language, Religion, Mindscribbles

Comments

[colinmo.livejournal.com]

and in response, Party on, Dude.

[leticia.livejournal.com]

I think you're giving "Do unto others" too little credit.

If I am sick, I would wish people would, say, make me chicken soup or something.
Thus, when they are sick, I should make them chicken soup.
It's more than "Don't do anything you wouldn't want them to do to you."
It's also, "Do those things that would make you happy if they were done for you."

In other words, it's effectively "Be excellent."
Only with a guideline for excellence: what you would want people to do for you.

But whatever.

[forsythferret.livejournal.com]

Hmm, you probably do have a point, another reason I shouldn't post LJ entries at early in the morning, no matter how insightful it feels at the time. The activeness of each is subjective to an extent, too, but it doesn't feel as active to me, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's just the KJV older English style. And there's a lot of overlap between what people would like to have happen to them, but there's a lot of variation by tastes, too. Depends how you abstract it out.

And I really don't have anything else witty to say, I guess.