What
if one is holy, should she endure mistreatment?
Better
yet, what if one is unholy, should she mistreat
others?
In the case of holiness, the answer is, no. In
the
latter case, the answer is, maybe. One that strives
for
holiness is offended by unholiness. In this
instance,
holiness is defined by a need to abide by a
set
understanding of right behavior. In the latter case,
unholiness
is defined as one that abides by whimsical
behavior,
where others are often harmed. What if a
holy
woman is made subject to harm, where response
is
followed by evasiveness? One might say, “Remove
self
from the situation.” What if this is not possible,
for
undisclosed reasons? In this case, to break apart
would
further complicate the matter; where the only
option
is to engage in a verbal labyrinth. In the case of
the
unholy woman, a verbal labyrinth leads to recrimination,
even
a need to lash out. This in turn compounds the problem.
One
is then titled by a group of adjectives. It is by chance
to
say which would fare better. The unholy woman
might
say, “To hell with consequences,” and get lost in
a
trail of madness, which prevents closure; while the
holy
woman might find a tolerable position, free of a netted
trail.
Temperament has yet to be discussed. For a holy
woman
to behave as unholy might compromise values;
but
in some cases one might suggest stepping out of
self.
Where acting as a holy woman would grieve a
whimsical
unholy woman. Both desire justice, where
one
gives it in return, while the other takes it for granted.
Nevertheless,
if one has not known peace, peace might
seem
intolerable; where, for one that knows peace, other
than peace, is quite
challenging. Whimsical is used here to refer to a thought process that
is not structured according to a consensus of what
constitutes as right vs. wrong behavior.
