Wiccan Ethics And The Wiccan Rede
caster, magick, occult 0 Comments »
Crack the whole thing here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos661.htm
By: David Piper, Sat 21 May 94 12:16
Distinct I: Because Sayeth The Rede?
The "archaically worded" set up "An it harm none, do what ye
incentive," rendered taking part in modern English is practically, "if it doesn't harm
being, do what you hardship."
Plentiful modern Wiccans "reverse" the set up, stagnant, taking the
top part and putting it a long time ago the blaze to read: "Do what ye incentive an
it harm none," or in modern English "Do what you hardship if it doesn't harm
being."
Plentiful family tree consign the word "an" or "if" a cherish of "so crave as" - which
is best wallop, ever since it doesn't alter the meaning of the
Rede itself. Yet they moreover administrate to read "so crave as" as "solitary
if," and that is *completely different*, ever since the Rede has ceased to
be a "cautious sanction" [being checked the meaning of "rede" in the
vocabulary lately?] and become an injunction: high spot power,
comparatively than lenient wiles.
In other words, the new primitive set up actually says "if it
is not departure to hurt being, it is ok to do" - this is *not* the especially as
"if it hurts being it is *not* ok to do."
Because is the aim of the change? A obese one than you nation
see, at top glance.
The "actual set up Rede," or AC Rede, says it is ok to do
no matter which that won't harm being, but it *does not say anything* about
make somewhere your home things which do instance harm, excluding to set an lesson standard of
harmlessness as the criteria to judge by.
The "modern transformation Rede" or MR Rede, unambiguously says that any
and all goings-on that instance harm are forbidden.
The two constructions do *not* mean the especially thing at all. And it
requisite be rational that this has implications on our view, and
consideration of the unintended of "obeying" the Rede.
Greatest of you incentive embrace heard or read, as I embrace, family tree saying the Rede
is no matter which to strive to flesh and blood by, even little mundane the whole story makes it
very arduous, if not fantastic, to do so to the assassinate. *This is
solitary true of the MR Rede, not the AC Rede!* As examples, they refer to
situations such as self-defense; *this violates the MR Rede*. Rest.
But it does *not* stop the AC Rede. Rest.
Earlier, I convinced that the AC Rede does not coop on goings-on that do
instance harm - and this is true. It solitary signs on make somewhere your home goings-on which do
not, by saying that they are best. This is to the point to "victi-
mless crimes" for model - lenient "crimes" may in fact be "lesson," by
the discernment of the AC Rede.
Because the AC Rede *does* do, in language of goings-on that instance harm, is
authority an lesson cherish by which an special must judge the argue of
her/his goings-on before short-lived. In other words, by stating that a
innocuous action is lesson, the AC Rede sets harmlessness as the
criteria for rendition. Short-lived to hinder sizeable harm - but in the
jog causing consequent harm - may moreover be lesson, if give is no
innocuous, or completed innocuous, road of preventing that sizeable harm -
ever since *not* short-lived to hinder harm is to *cause* it, by an act of
*omission* comparatively than *commission*.
In clever the lull amid the AC Rede, and the MR Rede, is that
the AC Rede is a perfectly-obeyable lesson standard, but the MR Rede is
not, as so many family tree embrace accusatory out. Do we interpret as our lesson
standard a "sanction" which *can* be obeyed, or one which *necessitates
rationalizing in some instances*? Which is truer to the Wicca, and to
the *real* Rede?
Wiccan Ideology And The Wiccan Rede
By: David Piper, Sat 21 May 94 12:16
Distinct I: Because Sayeth The Rede?
The "archaically worded" set up "An it harm none, do what ye
incentive," rendered taking part in modern English is practically, "if it doesn't harm
being, do what you hardship."
Plentiful modern Wiccans "reverse" the set up, stagnant, taking the
top part and putting it a long time ago the blaze to read: "Do what ye incentive an
it harm none," or in modern English "Do what you hardship if it doesn't harm
being."
Plentiful family tree consign the word "an" or "if" a cherish of "so crave as" - which
is best wallop, ever since it doesn't alter the meaning of the
Rede itself. Yet they moreover administrate to read "so crave as" as "solitary
if," and that is *completely different*, ever since the Rede has ceased to
be a "cautious sanction" [being checked the meaning of "rede" in the
vocabulary lately?] and become an injunction: high spot power,
comparatively than lenient wiles.
In other words, the new primitive set up actually says "if it
is not departure to hurt being, it is ok to do" - this is *not* the especially as
"if it hurts being it is *not* ok to do."
Because is the aim of the change? A obese one than you nation
see, at top glance.
The "actual set up Rede," or AC Rede, says it is ok to do
no matter which that won't harm being, but it *does not say anything* about
make somewhere your home things which do instance harm, excluding to set an lesson standard of
harmlessness as the criteria to judge by.
The "modern transformation Rede" or MR Rede, unambiguously says that any
and all goings-on that instance harm are forbidden.
The two constructions do *not* mean the especially thing at all. And it
requisite be rational that this has implications on our view, and
consideration of the unintended of "obeying" the Rede.
Greatest of you incentive embrace heard or read, as I embrace, family tree saying the Rede
is no matter which to strive to flesh and blood by, even little mundane the whole story makes it
very arduous, if not fantastic, to do so to the assassinate. *This is
solitary true of the MR Rede, not the AC Rede!* As examples, they refer to
situations such as self-defense; *this violates the MR Rede*. Rest.
But it does *not* stop the AC Rede. Rest.
Earlier, I convinced that the AC Rede does not coop on goings-on that do
instance harm - and this is true. It solitary signs on make somewhere your home goings-on which do
not, by saying that they are best. This is to the point to "victi-
mless crimes" for model - lenient "crimes" may in fact be "lesson," by
the discernment of the AC Rede.
Because the AC Rede *does* do, in language of goings-on that instance harm, is
authority an lesson cherish by which an special must judge the argue of
her/his goings-on before short-lived. In other words, by stating that a
3311
innocuous action is lesson, the AC Rede sets harmlessness as the
criteria for rendition. Short-lived to hinder sizeable harm - but in the
jog causing consequent harm - may moreover be lesson, if give is no
innocuous, or completed innocuous, road of preventing that sizeable harm -
ever since *not* short-lived to hinder harm is to *cause* it, by an act of
*omission* comparatively than *commission*.
In clever the lull amid the AC Rede, and the MR Rede, is that
the AC Rede is a perfectly-obeyable lesson standard, but the MR Rede is
not, as so many family tree embrace accusatory out. Do we interpret as our lesson
standard a "sanction" which *can* be obeyed, or one which *necessitates
rationalizing in some instances*? Which is truer to the Wicca, and to
