Ah, bah!
Baird Stafford
Life (and it's all his fault!). I found several Wiccan groups. My only
problem is that the largest of them demands strict adherence to the
Rede.
This is all very well and good, highly idealistic and a number of other
favorable descriptions. In my experience, however, it does little but
lead to endless quarrels over the exact definition of the word "harm."
I won't even bother trying to join that one - I'd be out on me arse so
fast my head would spin!
Blessed be,
Baird
who still believes as he was taught - that the Rede is guidance (just
like it says it is) and *not* a Commandment!
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is. -Yogi Berra
storm
First of all, I don't need yet another bad habit like Second
Life. :-) Isn't reincarnation of one life at a time enough for
you? :-)
Secondly, I would probably have even greater difficulties with the
Rede interpretation. I don't see it as a restriction at all, rather a
release from restriction. My reasoning...
"An ye harm none, do as thou wilt." is equivalent to
If you aren't harming anyone, do what you decide to do." which is
equivalent to
"Nothing at all has been said about the case of when you harm
someone. Reference Threefold Law for further guidance." which is
equivalent to
"Do what you need to do but be ready to accept the consequences since
they will be big."
No restrictions in that chain of logic, just a warning about
consequences, which is an entirely different thing.
To the best of my understanding, the rede was never meant to be an
obstruction to behavior, but rather a reaction to those who would
arbitrarily restrict non-harmful behavior such as skyclad worship,
open sexual relations, wearing pentagrams, etc, etc. In other words,
a refusal to blindly accept others' moral systems. The whole
insistence on "harm none" is taken out of context and becomes a moral
imperative where one was not intended. You are still on your own for
setting up your moral system. Wicca will refuse to do it for you. Or
at least, this Wiccan will refuse to do it for you.
-storm
Yowie
news:baird-09D7E1....@news.giganews.com
> As I indicated a couple of posts ago, the SO and I have joined Second
> Life (and it's all his fault!). I found several Wiccan groups. My
> only problem is that the largest of them demands strict adherence to
> the Rede.
>
> This is all very well and good, highly idealistic and a number of
> other favorable descriptions. In my experience, however, it does
> little but lead to endless quarrels over the exact definition of the
> word "harm."
>
> I won't even bother trying to join that one - I'd be out on me arse so
> fast my head would spin!
>
> Blessed be,
> Baird
> who still believes as he was taught - that the Rede is guidance (just
> like it says it is) and *not* a Commandment!
Husband & I are still lost in World of Warcraft. I am not going to start any
more mmorpgs until WoW is absolutely dead. Its not called 'World of
War-crack" for nothing.
Since by the act of living I, by definition, do harm to countless other
living things, I cannot perceive how "An harm none" could ever be taken
literally. YMMV.
Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.
Baird Stafford
<d88b6b73-d323-427d...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
storm <st...@frii.com> wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:08�am, Baird Stafford <ba...@newstaff.com> wrote:
> > As I indicated a couple of posts ago, the SO and I have joined Second
> > Life (and it's all his fault!). �I found several Wiccan groups. �My only
> > problem is that the largest of them demands strict adherence to the
> > Rede. �
> >
> > This is all very well and good, highly idealistic and a number of other
> > favorable descriptions. �In my experience, however, it does little but
> > lead to endless quarrels over the exact definition of the word "harm."
> >
> > I won't even bother trying to join that one - I'd be out on me arse so
> > fast my head would spin!
> >
> > Blessed be,
> > Baird
> > who still believes as he was taught - that the Rede is guidance (just
> > like it says it is) and *not* a Commandment!
> >
> > --
> > In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. �In practice
> > there is. �-Yogi Berra
> First of all, I don't need yet another bad habit like Second
> Life. :-) Isn't reincarnation of one life at a time enough for
> you? :-)
Apparently not. But this time I get to look like what I *want* to look
like, which is a big difference from reincarnation - you still pays your
money and you takes your chances with the spin of the Great Wheel! When
it comes to looks, anyway. Or, at least, nobody has ever said that
something that trivial is taken into account during the selection
process - rather like the draft, when one thinks about it.
> Secondly, I would probably have even greater difficulties with the
> Rede interpretation. I don't see it as a restriction at all, rather a
> release from restriction. My reasoning...
> "An ye harm none, do as thou wilt." is equivalent to If you aren't
> harming anyone, do what you decide to do." which is equivalent to
> "Nothing at all has been said about the case of when you harm
> someone. Reference Threefold Law for further guidance." which is
> equivalent to "Do what you need to do but be ready to accept the
> consequences since they will be big."
> No restrictions in that chain of logic, just a warning about
> consequences, which is an entirely different thing.
> To the best of my understanding, the rede was never meant to be an
> obstruction to behavior, but rather a reaction to those who would
> arbitrarily restrict non-harmful behavior such as skyclad worship,
> open sexual relations, wearing pentagrams, etc, etc. In other words,
> a refusal to blindly accept others' moral systems. The whole
> insistence on "harm none" is taken out of context and becomes a moral
> imperative where one was not intended. You are still on your own for
> setting up your moral system. Wicca will refuse to do it for you. Or
> at least, this Wiccan will refuse to do it for you.
Which is what I meant when I said that I was taught that the Rede is a
guideline, not a Commandment. There was also the aphorism I learnt
shortly after my second Initiation, that "Those who cannot curse, cannot
cure" - the reasoning being that the two are flip sides of the same
energies, as it were, and one has to know how to do one in order to be
able to do the other. (I suppose, thought, that if I tended towards the
left-hand past, I would have learnt the two in reverse order...and been
made just as confused and unhappy by the concept when it was first
introduced!)
In any case, that saying seems to turn the Rede on its head - big time!
Blessed be,
Baird
who has not given away any secrets, since the concept was discussed -
several times! - on ap, srp and arw by other people before he opened his
own big yap.
Baird Stafford
"Yowie" <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
<snip>
> Since by the act of living I, by definition, do harm to countless other
> living things, I cannot perceive how "An harm none" could ever be taken
> literally. YMMV.
Ah, well. Neither you nor I is Jain....
Blessed be,
Baird
Gale
<snip>
>
> Secondly, I would probably have even greater difficulties with the
> Rede interpretation. I don't see it as a restriction at all, rather a
> release from restriction. My reasoning...
>
> "An ye harm none, do as thou wilt." is equivalent to
> If you aren't harming anyone, do what you decide to do." which is
> equivalent to
> "Nothing at all has been said about the case of when you harm
> someone. Reference Threefold Law for further guidance." which is
> equivalent to
> "Do what you need to do but be ready to accept the consequences since
> they will be big."
>
> No restrictions in that chain of logic, just a warning about
> consequences, which is an entirely different thing.
>
> To the best of my understanding, the rede was never meant to be an
> obstruction to behavior, but rather a reaction to those who would
> arbitrarily restrict non-harmful behavior such as skyclad worship,
> open sexual relations, wearing pentagrams, etc, etc. In other words,
> a refusal to blindly accept others' moral systems. The whole
> insistence on "harm none" is taken out of context and becomes a moral
> imperative where one was not intended. You are still on your own for
> setting up your moral system. Wicca will refuse to do it for you. Or
> at least, this Wiccan will refuse to do it for you.
My take on the whole confection:
1) The gods ain't moral; they're the gods, fully encompassing our
understanding of possibilities and concepts;
2) People are animals: instinctive & driven by joyous appetites, as well
as survival needs;
3) As creatures with both gods & appetites, we are capable of excess in
a manner beyond that we have observed in our fellow creatures;
4) The one form of excess, found in hubris, hatred, and the
will-to-power, is potentially restrained by attention to the Rede; some
of us need to be reminded to not go about deliberately harming others;
5) As for the other form, self-indulgence, we are allowed to get
stomach-aches from too much birthday cake if we want, and I agree that
the Threefold law tells us exactly that - that we can enjoy both life
and the consequences of our choices. :-)
6) From there, regarding the response to the moral systems of others: my
own response is that they and we have the right to concern ourselves
with 'harm none' in our various interactions; otherwise, we've the right
to experience, muck up, and enjoy our individual incarnations in any
manner we choose. And the Rede, I would hope, says exactly that. :-)
--
Blessed Be,
Gale
poetry, fiction, essays at http://www.capjewels.com/
"Above all remember this: that magic belongs as much to the heart
as to the head and everything which is done, should be done from
love or joy or righteous anger." Susanna Clarke, The Ladies of Grace Adieu
Noon-Air
Do what feels right.... If there is something in the back of your mind that
is telling you that this is not a good idea, or that there are going to be
problems....doesn't matter if is a person, or a group, or a practice or
ideal, then its probably not going to be a good thing. There are always
going to be things/people that are a source of annoyance, but your
ultimately going to have to decide if its worth the trouble. I personally
have a problem with groups that have a lot of petty squabbles over
insignificant things. It leads me to believe that that group has issues that
I probably don't need or want to get into. Don't most all of us already have
enough drama in our lives?
Only you can tell if it feels right or not. Intuition is is a good thing.
Baird Stafford
"Noon-Air" <Noon...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Only you can tell if it feels right or not. Intuition is is a good thing.
So is two decades of experience - more than four if you count my
two-and-a-half as a sort of non-denominational Pagan before I was
initiated into Wicca.
Blessed be,
Baird