Black Magick, what is it?

[dark_angel_32189]

Phoenixfire Lune Soleil

Technically harm doesn't violate the Rede... o.O

"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."

Please explain how harm doesn't the Rede, especially when that's basically what the Rede is about.  

[WitchyBoy]

if some thought form or other latched onto you and used your energy without your knowledge to cause harm does that mean that you will pay the price?  

[Miss Lune Soleil]

dark_angel_32189

Phoenixfire Lune Soleil

Technically harm doesn't violate the Rede... o.O

"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."

Please explain how harm doesn't not violate the Rede, especially when that's basically what the Rede is about.

People take it out of context and say it means "harm none", when that isn't what it says, there's more to it:

Quote:

"An it harm none, do what ye will." Despite popular belief, this does not mean "as long as you don't hurt anyone, do what you like". In actual fact, if you look at Crowley's meaning of "do what ye will", it means to act upon your true Will's desire (what is needed spiritually, not what is wanted on a materialistic level), and in the Wiccan Rede this means that so long as no-one is harmed (including yourself) by your actions, one can achieve what you truely need.
The rule of harm none technically isn't a rule to harm none. The first indication is the title "Rede" - rede means advice, and advice isn't known for it's infalability.
Apart from that, it says "an it harm none, do what ye will". That would mean "if it doesn't harm, it's permitted", it doesn't say "if it harms, it is forbidden".

There is a difference between those two statements:

"If it doesn't harm, it's permitted"
This indicates that an action which doesn't harm is ok to do, but it doesn't say that actions which do cause harm are not allowed.

"If it harms, it is forbidden"
This is directly saying that certain actions are forbidden to do, but this is not what the Rede says.

A basic interpretation of the Rede would be encouragment of harmless acts, but it washes its hands of anything harmful and leaves it up to the Wiccan to decide if they should do it or not. So basically, if it causes harm, it's your choice: you aren't bound by any rules that say you shouldn't do it.

This is the general conclusion from analysing the Rede and its phrasing. Over-analysis, maybe, but it makes sense nonetheless smile  

[[Helmorana]]

That is a very interesting point you have there!

I rather like the (over-)analysing... I am being taught how to do it in my philosophy class. Nietzsche and Kant and the likes require it.

I'll have to make a note of what you said.  

[Miss Lune Soleil]

[Helmorana]

That is a very interesting point you have there!

I rather like the (over-)analysing... I am being taught how to do it in my philosophy class. Nietzsche and Kant and the likes require it.

I'll have to make a note of what you said.

3nodding I got the idea to write that little note when someone in M&R (Morality & Religion in ED) mentioned it. I then looked into the origin of the phrase and found that in its original form, it meant something else entirely ^^  

[FORTRAN77]

I have also done some stupid things in my life, and feel I have something to contribute to this discussion.
I felt that the situation with one of my former friends was bad enough that the wirlwind of the Threefold law wouldn't be as bad as if I allowed this girl, and her negative energies, to continue to harm me. So, I wrote a banishing spell. I wrote it with the intent to have it simply keep us away from each other, but not to harm her. It was almost a protection spell laced into the banishing one. But what some people don't realize is that a spell is only as directed as the emotions and energies behind it. I suppose I hadn't realized how much malice I was capable of until then. I ended up pouring it all into the spell. The words and the emotions conflicted, but still, the victim of my spell wasn't at school the following day. She was in the hospital for three days.

The words of a spell could be more docile than a rabbit, but if what propells the spell is not of the same intent, the effects could end up causing more damage than an enraged grizzly bear.

I suspect that there are witches who could kill someone with a spell, if the act commited against them was bad enough. Be certain of your motivations if not following the rede. That is what I beleve the rede is warning against: if you break it, you may cause more harm than you intended.  

[Miss Lune Soleil]

Freya_Crescent

... She was in the hospital for three days.

Nice eek wish mine were that effective... not in the way that I'd wish that kind of harm on someone, I just mean the effectivness of spells in general, having such stark results. All mine are subtle.  

[dark_angel_32189]

Phoenixfire Lune Soleil

Quote:

"An it harm none, do what ye will." Despite popular belief, this does not mean "as long as you don't hurt anyone, do what you like". In actual fact, if you look at Crowley's meaning of "do what ye will", it means to act upon your true Will's desire (what is needed spiritually, not what is wanted on a materialistic level), and in the Wiccan Rede this means that so long as no-one is harmed (including yourself) by your actions, one can achieve what you truely need.
The rule of harm none technically isn't a rule to harm none. The first indication is the title "Rede" - rede means advice, and advice isn't known for it's infalability.
Apart from that, it says "an it harm none, do what ye will". That would mean "if it doesn't harm, it's permitted", it doesn't say "if it harms, it is forbidden".

There is a difference between those two statements:

"If it doesn't harm, it's permitted"
This indicates that an action which doesn't harm is ok to do, but it doesn't say that actions which do cause harm are not allowed.

"If it harms, it is forbidden"
This is directly saying that certain actions are forbidden to do, but this is not what the Rede says.

A basic interpretation of the Rede would be encouragment of harmless acts, but it washes its hands of anything harmful and leaves it up to the Wiccan to decide if they should do it or not. So basically, if it causes harm, it's your choice: you aren't bound by any rules that say you shouldn't do it.

This is the general conclusion from analysing the Rede and its phrasing. Over-analysis, maybe, but it makes sense nonetheless smile

3nodding That sounds just 'bout right.

The way I see it, intentional harm goes against the Rede, but unintentional harm doesn't really go against it. Because, it's pretty much impossible for us to go our entire lives without ever harming anything, whether it be intentional or not.  

[Miss Lune Soleil]

Fair enough ^^ I've known Wiccans who curse and such because they follow the interpretation of the Rede I gave. Me, I just live by "Do what is necessary", whether it's harm or not. Harm can be good in certain circumstances, but doing it willy-nilly is foolish.  

[Aurellion]

whee Thanks for having a debate that didn't end up in flaming. It's appreciated.  

[The_ff_lod_mule]

what kato said about black magick is true and all because of the threefold law and i dont want to anger the god and godess  

[The_ff_lod_mule]

dark_angel_32189

Phoenixfire Lune Soleil

Technically harm doesn't violate the Rede... o.O

"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."

Please explain how harm doesn't not violate the Rede, especially when that's basically what the Rede is about.

actually that is where your wrong because if it harms somebody then it violates the rede and thats not wicca then .see when you do eevil you become evil and anger the gods and thats not a good thing  

[[Helmorana]]

I think the gods have a very good way of coping with evil. Or so it would appear...

Either way, if you'd just read the explaination above you would see she actually does have a point. One with which you might not agree with, but dismissing it just because you don't like it is not a very constructive thing.

And I like the Barbossa quote: "Think of it as guidelines, not actual rules." In the end we all do what we think is right. Some, disregarding the rules completely... They do say rules are made to be broken.

Not that I'm encouraging anything, I'm just saying. It's against most moral standards to intentionally hurt another human being.  

[dark_angel_32189]

magnum_dream_stalker

dark_angel_32189

Phoenixfire Lune Soleil

Technically harm doesn't violate the Rede... o.O

"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."

Please explain how harm doesn't not violate the Rede, especially when that's basically what the Rede is about.

actually that is where your wrong because if it harms somebody then it violates the rede and thats not wicca then .see when you do eevil you become evil and anger the gods and thats not a good thing

I was saying that harm does violate the rede. I think I just accidently added the extra "not" in there and didn't realize it until now.

But, as I've said before, in my opinion harm only violates the rede if it's intentional. And I've said this in this thread before. Because it's inevitable to go through your entire life without harming anything... I mean, you kill bacteria when you wash your hands... that's harm. It may not be intentional, but it's still harm nonetheless.

Also, I believe that it's ok do harm if it's for the greater good. Like putting a cerial killer to death for example. Taking the life of one person is better than that person taking the life of hundreds of people.  

[[Helmorana]]

How can you value lives by numbers? There are 80 people on an airplane that's going to crash in a 2500 people town. But the people in the town are wicked and uneducated and live off of social support, the airplane however is full to the very last seat with valued authors, painters, there's 2 Pulitzer prize winners, 5 Nobels, a few oscars and maybe a politician who's crucial for a world peace treaty that's going to be signed any day now... Who do you save? How do you make that decision?

Who's to say the serial killer wasn't going to discover a cure for cancer by accident or on purpose further in his life? And who's to say he can't change? I think it doesn't matter who he is or what he did, it's not ok to kill. You never know what good the person might do. And even if you kill him, it's your karma. Just because you believe you saved hundreds by killing him doesn't mean you actually did, or that killing him is ok because you did. Killing is killing no matter how you turn it. But like I said, it's your karma and it's your choice. I don't think anyone should have the power to end somebody else's life. That choice belongs to each one of us.

I think the only reason why death sentence still exists is because prisons are useless. A prison is supposed to resocialise the prisoner, to unteach the bad patterns he had before and teach him ones that are accepted by the society, norms. But like Goffman said, prisons are repressive social institutions that serve as a dumping ground for unwanted people. That all roles the person had in normal life turn irrelevant and he/she changes only to a "prisoner"... He said that they're their own purpose, Prisons don't teach inmates how to act outside the prison, but instead they teach how to act inside the prison. If somebody figures out how to fix that, the "need" for death sentence would vanish.

The worst thing for me to know is that Goffman's right. I know a pair who went to prison, listening to them talk about what it's like in there... Goffman is completely right. And needless to say, they weren't taught how to act outside, they're still the same... Except for the fear from the police and going back. They just learnt to hide it better. And believe it or not, they're really good people.