![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You've all seen this before, I just am enamored enough with my own writing that I like to keep record of some of the meatier stuff here.
---"Blaze" wrote:
> ++++++The Rede says "and it harm none, do as you will"
I actually learned it as 'An it harm none, do what you will', 'An' being an archaic form of 'If'. But that doesn't differ very much from your version. (personal pet peeve alert: at least you didn't say 'ye'! :)
> ++++++ I would like to know what this "other Wiccan Lore" is. In all
> of my training of over 17 years, I have never heard "do anything that
> causes no harm all you want" Nor have heard of lore that makes
> it "ok" to cause harm.
Well, first off is the Rule of Three- if we never did anything that caused harm, we wouldn't really need to talk about the cause-and-effect addressed with that rule. As for the other stuff, I can only speak for my own Trad. But I'm sure you've discussed possibilities in your studies where you've had to do workings which might cause harm to someone- a binding, for instance, and under which conditions they are allowed or even required; or explained why the Rede doesn't forbid you to do things like eat (which causes harm to something, as Jason pointed out). Whatever you've learned about how to deal with those situations, that's what I'm talking about. I can't cite anything, since we don't have a Bible. :) Our Trad has a Book of the Law with 88 more 'rules' that get more specific about what's okay in what sorts of situations, but not everyone else uses it, and for that matter there are a couple of things in it that I disagree with personally. But I think it's one of the strengths of Wicca that we don't have 'commandments' per se, and I disagree when someone tries to make the Rede into a commandment.
> > But the Rede isn't unattainable in the least.
>
> ++++++This is completley contradicts my training and that of my
> elders.
They teach that it's unattainable? That's one way of looking at it, but that would be frustrating to me personally.
> +++Where is this from? Are you saying that the eight words of the
> Rede boil down to this? And I am curious as to what is forbidden.
> Even in the extended/long version/poem of the Rede there is no
> mention of this. Perhaps this is something Trad specific to you?
It's in that link I posted earlier ( http://rw.faithweb.com/alpharede.html ) and another one ( http://wcc.on.ca/ ; you have to click on the FAQ link and go to question nine)- neither of which come from people in my Trad.
--- "Jason" wrote:
> Do anything that causes no harm all you want.
> Never do anything that causes harm.
>
> There is no overt logical contradiction in these two terms so I don't
> understand why you are placing them at opposites. Perhaps you
> mistyped.
No, those sayings look completely different to me. The first talks about a specific category of action (those that cause no harm) and says you can do those all you want- but doesn't say anything about forbidding stuff that *does* cause harm- that, presumably, is addressed elsewhere in your teachings. The second specifically
forbids everything that causes harm- which, as you point out, would be impossible. Here's a quote from one of the links above:
Certainly, there are some who interpret it as "You may only do as ye will if it harms none" ("an" being an archaic version of "if") and thereby do feel that it constrains Wiccans to be pacifists, and there have been a few Wiccan writers in the last decade who have left out the "do as ye will" entirely, giving their version of the Rede as simply "harm none".
Others consider this to be a distortion of the Rede, and point out that if Wiccans were really forbidden to harm anything, we'd all starve to death (vegetarian or not; plants are alive too!). They also note that "An it harm none, do as ye will" doesn't translate to "harm none" any more than "If you go to Wic-Can Fest [like Canadian CMA, I understand. -S], say hello to my friend Bob" means "Go to Wiccan Fest". Both statements tell you what to do if a particular condition happens to be true, they don't tell you what to do if it isn't.
> Also, I'm well aware of Soldier
> Wiccans. I think they are as spiritually contradictory as Soldier
> christians (that whole "thou shall not kill" thing).
Okay... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the Rede is not the totality of what Wicca has to say about ethics and such, and this is why the Army Chaplain's book refers to Wicca as having a 'high-choice ethic'. A lot of soldiers interpret Wiccan lore in a way that allows them to defend their country- an interpretation I would not tend to disagree with (particulars about any one specific war I may happen to disagree with notwithstanding). It's explained in more detail here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_usbk.htm .
Cheers,
Selkhet
---"Blaze" wrote:
> ++++++The Rede says "and it harm none, do as you will"
I actually learned it as 'An it harm none, do what you will', 'An' being an archaic form of 'If'. But that doesn't differ very much from your version. (personal pet peeve alert: at least you didn't say 'ye'! :)
> ++++++ I would like to know what this "other Wiccan Lore" is. In all
> of my training of over 17 years, I have never heard "do anything that
> causes no harm all you want" Nor have heard of lore that makes
> it "ok" to cause harm.
Well, first off is the Rule of Three- if we never did anything that caused harm, we wouldn't really need to talk about the cause-and-effect addressed with that rule. As for the other stuff, I can only speak for my own Trad. But I'm sure you've discussed possibilities in your studies where you've had to do workings which might cause harm to someone- a binding, for instance, and under which conditions they are allowed or even required; or explained why the Rede doesn't forbid you to do things like eat (which causes harm to something, as Jason pointed out). Whatever you've learned about how to deal with those situations, that's what I'm talking about. I can't cite anything, since we don't have a Bible. :) Our Trad has a Book of the Law with 88 more 'rules' that get more specific about what's okay in what sorts of situations, but not everyone else uses it, and for that matter there are a couple of things in it that I disagree with personally. But I think it's one of the strengths of Wicca that we don't have 'commandments' per se, and I disagree when someone tries to make the Rede into a commandment.
> > But the Rede isn't unattainable in the least.
>
> ++++++This is completley contradicts my training and that of my
> elders.
They teach that it's unattainable? That's one way of looking at it, but that would be frustrating to me personally.
> +++Where is this from? Are you saying that the eight words of the
> Rede boil down to this? And I am curious as to what is forbidden.
> Even in the extended/long version/poem of the Rede there is no
> mention of this. Perhaps this is something Trad specific to you?
It's in that link I posted earlier ( http://rw.faithweb.com/alpharede.html ) and another one ( http://wcc.on.ca/ ; you have to click on the FAQ link and go to question nine)- neither of which come from people in my Trad.
--- "Jason" wrote:
> Do anything that causes no harm all you want.
> Never do anything that causes harm.
>
> There is no overt logical contradiction in these two terms so I don't
> understand why you are placing them at opposites. Perhaps you
> mistyped.
No, those sayings look completely different to me. The first talks about a specific category of action (those that cause no harm) and says you can do those all you want- but doesn't say anything about forbidding stuff that *does* cause harm- that, presumably, is addressed elsewhere in your teachings. The second specifically
forbids everything that causes harm- which, as you point out, would be impossible. Here's a quote from one of the links above:
Certainly, there are some who interpret it as "You may only do as ye will if it harms none" ("an" being an archaic version of "if") and thereby do feel that it constrains Wiccans to be pacifists, and there have been a few Wiccan writers in the last decade who have left out the "do as ye will" entirely, giving their version of the Rede as simply "harm none".
Others consider this to be a distortion of the Rede, and point out that if Wiccans were really forbidden to harm anything, we'd all starve to death (vegetarian or not; plants are alive too!). They also note that "An it harm none, do as ye will" doesn't translate to "harm none" any more than "If you go to Wic-Can Fest [like Canadian CMA, I understand. -S], say hello to my friend Bob" means "Go to Wiccan Fest". Both statements tell you what to do if a particular condition happens to be true, they don't tell you what to do if it isn't.
> Also, I'm well aware of Soldier
> Wiccans. I think they are as spiritually contradictory as Soldier
> christians (that whole "thou shall not kill" thing).
Okay... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the Rede is not the totality of what Wicca has to say about ethics and such, and this is why the Army Chaplain's book refers to Wicca as having a 'high-choice ethic'. A lot of soldiers interpret Wiccan lore in a way that allows them to defend their country- an interpretation I would not tend to disagree with (particulars about any one specific war I may happen to disagree with notwithstanding). It's explained in more detail here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_usbk.htm .
Cheers,
Selkhet
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Oct. 24th, 2003 03:43 pm (UTC)From:As for it's "go out, and never sin again" thing, yeah...it's impossible. I just keep myself aware, do my best, and leave it at that.