|
|
| Author |
Message |
jmm
|
|
An it harm none ...
| 
Sep 17 23:19 UTC 1998 |
Some of us have been planning a series on Wiccan ethics. One of the
difficulties is that we seem to have inherited the phrase -- I think it was
Gardner's revision of Crowley -- "An it harm none, do as thou willst." In
other words, harmlessness was our one and only ethical rule. But there were
problems. When Ann Arbor's serial rapist was active, it was fairly clear that
we ought to be stopping him, even if it harmed him. Some groups did curses
on him; others did not. More recently, 150 Peace Keepers tried to keep a
violent group from Detroit from harming visiting Ku Klux Klansmen. They
obviously thought harming was a bad thing, while the Detroiters thought it
was a good thing, in this case. Do we have a better approach than any of
these? In other words, do we believe that "A witch who cannot curse cannot
heal"?
|
| 25 responses total. |
mta
|
|
response 1 of 25:
|
Sep 17 23:44 UTC 1998 |
I see this as a "non-issue", John. I think it's possible to bring about
needed change without doing harm. (Then again, I don't consider working to
"hurry Karma" to be doing harm -- just "educating". ;)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 2 of 25:
|
Sep 18 00:21 UTC 1998 |
Maybe the goal should be to do as little harm as possible (meaning working
against someone who does a lot of harm is allowed), not doing _no_ harm, which
isn't really possible anyway.
|
jazz
|
|
response 3 of 25:
|
Sep 18 13:05 UTC 1998 |
Just consider yourself an "agent of the Law of Three" and hit people
back harder.
|
brighn
|
|
response 4 of 25:
|
Sep 18 19:08 UTC 1998 |
Inappropriate jokes aside...
I agree with Ori. It's impossible not to do harm, since every action (and
inaction, for that matter) does *some* form of harm.
|
jmm
|
|
response 5 of 25:
|
Sep 18 20:17 UTC 1998 |
Maybe another way of asking this would be: Does anyone think that a harmless
life is an ethically good life in itself? Someone who spends all his or her
time without harming anyone, but without helping anyone, either, doesn't seem
to be a very admirable person. And someone who claims to be a witch but who
never does any form of healing or protection for another person really doesn't
deserve to wear a pentacle.
|
brighn
|
|
response 6 of 25:
|
Sep 20 05:04 UTC 1998 |
A harmless life doesn't exist.
|
jazz
|
|
response 7 of 25:
|
Sep 20 23:39 UTC 1998 |
The Buddhist axiom is that one should try to live the most harm-free
life possible.
|
brighn
|
|
response 8 of 25:
|
Sep 21 23:32 UTC 1998 |
Agreed.
|
birdnoir
|
|
response 9 of 25:
|
Sep 24 23:39 UTC 1998 |
Be like a wooden wo/man gazing on a field of flowers.
|
void
|
|
response 10 of 25:
|
Oct 3 22:13 UTC 1998 |
it depends on how you define harm. personally, i see the rede as being
more ethically stringent than the ten commandments (which have recently
been edited to read, "thou shalt not murder," to make war vets feel
less guilty, i guess). the rede also serves to remind us that we
should carefully consider the possible outcomes of our actions,
magickal and mundane, and be willing to accept all the consequences.
|
mneme
|
|
response 11 of 25:
|
Oct 8 20:46 UTC 1998 |
Actually, "Thou shall not murder" is a more accurate translation from the
original greek\\\\\hebrew.
|
jazz
|
|
response 12 of 25:
|
Oct 9 15:26 UTC 1998 |
Aramaic, I believe.
|
birdnoir
|
|
response 13 of 25:
|
Oct 12 00:03 UTC 1998 |
Re: #10 ... actually, it has been restored to a more precise
translation of the original manuscript. Killing is premissivable, so long as
it is not a premeditated act. Even the laws of Hannarabi (spl?) where
explicit on that account. Seems that that's the keystone in the capitol
punishment arguements.
|
mneme
|
|
response 14 of 25:
|
Oct 14 13:46 UTC 1998 |
#12: No, Hebrew. While Aramaic is indeed a very old language, and was the
vernacular at the time much of the Talmud was being written down, the Torah
is written in Hebrew.
|
jazz
|
|
response 15 of 25:
|
Oct 14 15:15 UTC 1998 |
Modern versions are, but the original scrolls were not. Even the Dead
Sea scrolls were in Aramaic.
|
birdnoir
|
|
response 16 of 25:
|
Oct 19 03:14 UTC 1998 |
Consider the warrior's obligation to their enemies.
|
pope
|
|
response 17 of 25:
|
Jan 6 22:32 UTC 1999 |
Personally, I donUt see stopping a serial rapist as doing RharmS, but were
I going to I would use more physical means, not magickal ones. One must
remember (if we are going by the Law of Three-fold Returns) that what you
affect will come back eventually. Stopping a serial rapist affects the
criminal in one way, and the potential victims and community in general in
a different way. One must look at a situation like that from every available
angle in order to do the right thing.
The part of the Rede that says, RAnU it harm none, do what ye willS is, in
my mind, impossible to live up to, but itUs sure nice to try.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Our friend Jesu spoke Aramaic.
Sorry for sounding so preachy...
|
brighn
|
|
response 18 of 25:
|
Jan 7 02:47 UTC 1999 |
Not only did Jesus speak Aramaic, so did at least MAtthew and Mark. Not all
of the bible was written in Hebrew and Greek.
Stopping a rapist is doing harm to the rapist. That's usually justified
because the benefit far outweighs the harm.
|
mneme
|
|
response 19 of 25:
|
Jan 7 06:47 UTC 1999 |
What, the bible has more than the 5 books, plush the mishna?
-- Josh, Jewish by tribe, Pagan by religon.
|
brighn
|
|
response 20 of 25:
|
Jan 8 01:21 UTC 1999 |
the Christian bible contains more than the pentateuch and the mishna, yes.
|
font
|
|
response 21 of 25:
|
Jan 11 05:45 UTC 1999 |
In fact, nobody really knew actual hebrew when Jesu was around...
I thought that fact was kind of interesting.
|
otaking
|
|
response 22 of 25:
|
Jan 11 18:54 UTC 1999 |
People knew Hebrew at the time. They were just more likely to know Aramaic
or Koine Greek when Jesus was around.
|
pope
|
|
response 23 of 25:
|
Jan 11 20:33 UTC 1999 |
I was mistaken, in the Oxford Annotated Bible it says that parts of the Ole
Testament were written in Aramaic, though the New Testament was written in
Koine Greek. Do you happen to know which parts were written in Aramaic (I may
be going off topic here, but it's INTERESTING...)?
|
orinoco
|
|
response 24 of 25:
|
Jan 11 22:03 UTC 1999 |
The New Columbia Encyclopedia sez "After the Jews were defeated by the
Babylonians in 586 B.C., they began to speak Aramaic instead of Hebrew."
It also, though, in another entry, says "the traditional order and the extant
Hebrew texts all derive from one Hebrew sourse of the first centuries of the
Christian era, the Masora".
Hmmm....
|