Welcome, Guest
August 25, 2019, 04:34:52 AM
News: Visit our Store for Pagan Books, Wiccan Jewelry and Magical Supplies! http://wicca.com/stores/entrance.html
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: The Rede  (Read 16439 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

C_A

  • FIDEI DEFENSOR
  • Council Elder
  • Magnolia
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6159
  • JERSEY TRUE
Re: The Rede
« Reply #15 on: January 25, 2011, 03:08:07 PM »

If I, for example, am actively trying to bring about the death of another

Why?  To end suffering?  To prevent further harm?
Logged
How soon IS now and who IS John Galt?

C_A

  • FIDEI DEFENSOR
  • Council Elder
  • Magnolia
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6159
  • JERSEY TRUE
Re: The Rede
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2011, 03:10:59 PM »


OK HUH?  Viewing what?  What may or may not happen?  Who determines what is and what is not proper??

My children, my sisters, their spouses and their children.  Anything that means them harm


I thought it was about including the "and it harm none" within the wording of a spell.  However, for me, and I have no doubts on this.  It is whatever I need to do to protect my family.  With or without witchcraft.

The individual. 

Next, THIS is why doing uninvited spells isn't a good idea....what if your perception of the affect TO THAT individual is less-than-complete, or skewed in some way?

Next....agreed.  Whole heartedly.
Logged
How soon IS now and who IS John Galt?

Hjolmaer

  • Guest
Re: The Rede
« Reply #17 on: January 25, 2011, 04:47:26 PM »

Why?  To end suffering?  To prevent further harm?

Oh, sorry about that.  Let me clarify:

In the example to which you refer, the part I left out was "for my own malicious intent".

Nothing more than wanting the person to die.
I just don't see the point in this argument. If you look at the wording of The Rede, it never commands you to "do no harm". It's a statement, not a command. The Rede simply condones any willful activity that causes no harm. It does not mention what to do, or not to do, when harm is unavoidable. I see that as having my own free will, and being responsible for my own actions.

I dislike it very much when The Rede is shortened to Harm None. We are not doctors.

I've come across this before, too, and I whole-heartedly agree with the assessment.  The Rede itself does not tell you what NOT to do, but simply what TO do.

Do freely that which causes no harm.

Anything else is up to you to accept the consequences for.  Wiccan or not.
Logged

C_A

  • FIDEI DEFENSOR
  • Council Elder
  • Magnolia
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6159
  • JERSEY TRUE
Re: The Rede
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2011, 06:39:44 PM »

...the part I left out was "for my own malicious intent".

THIS.
Logged
How soon IS now and who IS John Galt?

Hjolmaer

  • Guest
Re: The Rede
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2011, 03:32:00 AM »

Precisely.

In that example, would not including "harm none" then be counter-productive to the intent behind the spell?
Logged

edens garden

  • Member
  • Walnut
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4092
Re: The Rede
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2011, 07:43:53 AM »

But couldn't you also add "harm none I love" as a modifier in such a situation?
Logged
In the magic of the northern woods I learn
Lift your song up to the winds and watch it turn
I own nothing I own not even my soul
In the silence of the heart all things unfold
-Trevor Hall

C_A

  • FIDEI DEFENSOR
  • Council Elder
  • Magnolia
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6159
  • JERSEY TRUE
Re: The Rede
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2011, 08:16:09 AM »

But couldn't you also add "harm none I love" as a modifier in such a situation?

Yes, it would....UNLESS the recipient was one you love.  Spellcraft is a RIFLE, not a SHOTGUN.
Logged
How soon IS now and who IS John Galt?

edens garden

  • Member
  • Walnut
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4092
Re: The Rede
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2011, 08:18:21 AM »

True, you make a good point. I assumed the antagonist in the example wasn't a loved one, since we were discussing cursing them.
Logged
In the magic of the northern woods I learn
Lift your song up to the winds and watch it turn
I own nothing I own not even my soul
In the silence of the heart all things unfold
-Trevor Hall

C_A

  • FIDEI DEFENSOR
  • Council Elder
  • Magnolia
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6159
  • JERSEY TRUE
Re: The Rede
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2011, 08:28:25 AM »

True, you make a good point. I assumed the antagonist in the example wasn't a loved one, since we were discussing cursing them.

We MIGHT be cursing...but we MIGHT be CURING. 
Logged
How soon IS now and who IS John Galt?

Hjolmaer

  • Guest
Re: The Rede
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2011, 09:26:23 AM »

Actually, in the example to which you both refer, I made mention of using a spell, not to curse or cure, but to kill.

To end the life of someone else, and we'll further clarify by saying a specific someone, simply because I want their life to end.

Would this, or would this not nullify/be nullified by adding "harm none"?

Would it not make more sense to omit the "harm none" if this were the goal?
Logged

Monica

  • Member
  • Willow
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 59
Re: The Rede
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2011, 09:34:22 AM »

To end the life of someone else, and we'll further clarify by saying a specific someone, simply because I want their life to end.

Would this, or would this not nullify/be nullified by adding "harm none"?

Would it not make more sense to omit the "harm none" if this were the goal?

If the intent was specifically to DO harm to them (end their life) then I think the "harm none" would definitely be counterproductive to the intent so IMO it would make sense to omit it.
Logged

dark magus

  • Member
  • Apple
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3147
Re: The Rede
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2011, 09:41:34 AM »

Actually, in the example to which you both refer, I made mention of using a spell, not to curse or cure, but to kill.
To end the life of someone else, and we'll further clarify by saying a specific someone, simply because I want their life to end.
Would this, or would this not nullify/be nullified by adding "harm none"?
Would it not make more sense to omit the "harm none" if this were the goal?

I believe it would nullify your spell. Here you are, reciting a spell, supposed to be filled with intent, yet finishing with words that go against that very intent.
To me, the Rede is of no value. I don't follow it and will not be limited by it. If anyone else does, that their choice, but I think they have limited themselves greatly.
Logged

Hjolmaer

  • Guest
Re: The Rede
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2011, 09:47:51 AM »

That largely determines how one views the rede itself.

Taken literally, yes, it's limiting.  Taken literally, it's also an impossibility, as well as useless as a theological concept.

I'll find and repost the point I made about the Rede previously.
Logged

Joseph-Urbain

  • Member
  • Pine
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
Re: The Rede
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2011, 11:15:34 AM »

I read something in a book about the Rede that I liked.

We all know the Rede to be. "An ye harm none, do as ye will." I was reading in Wicca-the complete craft. By. D. J. Conway that the well known witch Sybil Leek advised taht a codicil should be added to the Rede. "Evil allowed to exist harms everyone," with which I very strongly agree. I believe (from my readings) that it is also our job to banish evil.

Thoughts???
Logged
live and let learn.

aloe

  • Member
  • Cypress
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 286
Re: The Rede
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2011, 12:00:27 PM »

I read something in a book about the Rede that I liked.

We all know the Rede to be. "An ye harm none, do as ye will." I was reading in Wicca-the complete craft. By. D. J. Conway that the well known witch Sybil Leek advised taht a codicil should be added to the Rede. "Evil allowed to exist harms everyone," with which I very strongly agree. I believe (from my readings) that it is also our job to banish evil.

Thoughts???

Depends on how you define evil. 
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10   Go Up