Everything Under the Moon

Christians need rules. Witches are wise enough to remain forever free. "Do as ye will and ye harm none, that is the whole of the law". All else is simply common sense needing no rules......Unless ye be a Christian witch

Shekinah wrote:Christians need rules Witches are wise enough to remain forever free. "Do as ye will and ye harm none, that is the whole of the law". All else is simply common sense needing no rules......Unless ye be a Christian witch

Religion and extending to witchcraft can have nothing to do with morality. One can be moral and have their own code without it.

There is plenty of non-Abrahamic witchcraft trads that have moral codes in them. To say it's only Christian witches would be inaccurate. Also, not every pagan witch follows "harm none" either, which has roots with Crowley and a priest that Valiente expanded on in her book.

Besides, you're not a Christian witch so who cares?

Well put Lady Lilith! I've always admired your insight! By the way, my screen name is an illusion.

If that was meant to imply that I'm a Christian Witch, it's a three-part mix: saddening/comical/illogical. However, I did have a Christian—who knew I'm non-religious—accuse me of being more Christian than a Christian.

On each inhale, you ingest/kill however many micro organisms. Most are (well, were) harmless and beneficial. If you backtrack your daily steps, you crushed/killed something in your steps, some may have been mortally wounded, left to die a slow, agonizing death. Your existence, alone, harms something, nothing to debate.

So where do you draw the line? Use common sense? That's exactly what I'm doing. “Harm none” is a blank check with a number-one in the front line. The number of zeros you choose to add after the number-one is limited only by your moral compass. The bigger check you write for yourself, the more denial that you harm none.

And your moral compass determines your actions. My comment at another post was spawn from my moral compass. “Ah! What the hell! I think I'll slander someone!” Seriously? I see no harm done. Actually, I see goodness, the reason I did it. According to his moral compass, the OP of the post disagrees, and perceives me as very harmful, not a shred of goodness coming from me!

A classic example of moral compass makes rules: In one breath, kill 7 billion people, the next breath preach harm none.

See? If you add enough zeros after the one, you harm none.

Mr Crowley wrote:Well put Lady Lilith! I've always admired your insight! By the way, my screen name is an illusion.

If that was meant to imply that I'm a Christian Witch, it's a three-part mix: saddening/comical/illogical. However, I did have a Christian—who knew I'm non-religious—accuse me of being more Christian than a Christian.

On each inhale, you ingest/kill however many micro organisms. Most are (well, were) harmless and beneficial. If you backtrack your daily steps, you crushed/killed something in your steps, some may have been mortally wounded, left to die a slow, agonizing death. Your existence, alone, harms something, nothing to debate.

So where do you draw the line? Use common sense? That's exactly what I'm doing. “Harm none” is a blank check with a number-one in the front line. The number of zeros you choose to add after the number-one is limited only by your moral compass. The bigger check you write for yourself, the more denial that you harm none.

And your moral compass determines your actions. My comment at another post was spawn from my moral compass. “Ah! What the hell! I think I'll slander someone!” Seriously? I see no harm done. Actually, I see goodness, the reason I did it. According to his moral compass, the OP of the post disagrees, and perceives me as very harmful, not a shred of goodness coming from me!

A classic example of moral compass makes rules: In one breath, kill 7 billion people, the next breath preach harm none.

See? If you add enough zeros after the one, you harm none.

The harm was done when we thoughtlessly increased our numbers to 7.5 billion making it imperative that we will be forced to reduce our numbers or perish. What is the greater harm self destruction of the entire population of a planet or selective destruction of the non-essential fraction? A human reliability study revealed that 2% of the world population are of noble character even when severely stressed, the remaining 98% will kill for the last can of beans. There be our collective moral code.

Which percentage are you in, and was it a choice you made? And how does it direct your use of magical know-how?

Wow... to both Crowley and mr Shekinah,
just
wow.

I said every person causes harm. More people means more harm. So what's the point of your post?

Harm to whom, Mother Earth? Even if we wipe off every living organism, She will spin around a few times, and the new spring of life will blossom. Won't hurt her a bit!

If you want to go down that road, exterminate humans all together. We don't contribute a thing to Mother Earth's ecosystem, so why are we so important?

A human reliability study revealed that 2% of the world population are of noble character even when severely stressed, the remaining 98% will kill for the last can of beans

Cite that source please because I have some interesting information!

Can we please steer the conversation back to the topic? The mod team really doesn't enjoy moving things to Conflict Resolution. The forum is supposed to be a place to discuss ideas, not a "doom and gloom" soapbox.

Snow


NOTE: This thread was split from its original location here, as it veered off-topic from that of the OP. --Mod Team

Mr Crowley wrote:I said every person causes harm. More people means more harm. So what's the point of your post?

Harm to whom, Mother Earth? Even if we wipe off every living organism, She will spin around a few times, and the new spring of life will blossom. Won't hurt her a bit!

If you want to go down that road, exterminate humans all together. We don't contribute a thing to Mother Earth's ecosystem, so why are we so important?

A human reliability study revealed that 2% of the world population are of noble character even when severely stressed, the remaining 98% will kill for the last can of beans

Cite that source please because I have some interesting information!

Source was CIA human reliability study. Actually you are correct that humans have no real function. From Star Gate Black Book "Humans are a transitory vessel, a fleeting agglomeration of particles within an indivisible unified energy field which passes through us in which we are born, live and die and will in the course of evolution constantly be incorporated into new forms and in them will sooner or later become more conscious of itself then is possible in man in his present form with his still incomplete intellectual capacity". We are not independent entities, only a collective disturbance in the energy field.

OP... why is there a rule that only Christian witches have rules?

Shekinah wrote:Christians need rules. Witches are wise enough to remain forever free. "Do as ye will and ye harm none, that is the whole of the law". All else is simply common sense needing no rules......Unless ye be a Christian witch

Haha this sounds like a "rule" to me...

I disagree. I would expect a witch follows the Rules of Nature, otherwise magic doesn't work.

While the statistics bearing the number of those with 'noble character' may appear depressingly low vs those who would kill for the last can of beans, let us examine motive in all things. My children will starve if i do not steal that can of beans, yet I am a '2 percenter'. Do I let them starve? Let us not remove nature from the equation. Humans are an animal, just as primal as any other, we have learned and conditioned ourselves to exist within social conventions for individual benefit with the greater good benefitting as a by product. As morality is a social convention extending specifically to the greater good it MUST be fueled by intention. I propose that a concern for the greater good dictating actions of questionable morality and resulting in greater benefit can be seen as 'good' within the confines of this social construct, IF the intentions are thus. Therefore, to be a contributor to the greater good, extending of course to stewardship of the planet, can be allowed to eat another animal to let others survive, or kill a human to defend others. The search for monetary wealth for it's own sake is deadly, as it is a distraction from a realistic spiritual path, the same can be said for political or military power. Just my 2 cents.

Wonderful 2 cents worth.

Thank you. I guess it just depends on what you consider to be a rule instead of a common sense guideline.

Considering the title... Are Christian witches not "real" witches? What is a "real" witch?