"As it harm none, do what you will"

[Beleth]

I also think that it comes down to basic logic.

"An it harm none, do what thou wilt" would be translated into modern English, I believe, as "If you have a choice of actions, perform an action that doesn't harm anyone."

It says nothing about what you should do if you don't have a choice of actions. So any harm done to anything by your breathing, eating, walking, ejaculating, etc. is beyond the scope of the Rede.

 

[Z]

For the Catholic Church, the present Pope. Always. That’s the whole idea.

Proving you haven't researched much about the implications of Vatican II or the schism between churches. There are, now, two popes. But you wouldn't know that, considering you didn't bother to research your topics.

Wrong. Jesus was there to complement the Old Testament. The OT is not invalidated by the appearance of Jesus.

You are equating a centralized belief with personal opinion. That’s where you go wrong.

I am hereby admitting potential error. It has been a while since I read through the gospels, and I may be wrong about this point.

However, the 'Ten Commandments' are not at all 'set in stone' anymore with 'All Christians.' Have a look-see here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c5.htm Seems not everyone buys your version of 10 commandment interpretation, either.

I'll keep looking around to see if I can find where I got the idea that Jesus bore the New Covenant.

You are completely missing the point of religion. I’m not one bit surprised, because it is very much in your interest – being a Wiccan – to sow doubt about religions.

If you choose to view religions like Catholicism as whatever Catholics think it is, then you have completely misunderstood what Catholicism is. I have a strong feeling that it is not an accident.

And you - being totally anti-religious - are an authority on what religion is? I have to laugh..

HA HA HA

Thanks.

I have done the exact opposite. You would know that, if you had made the effort of reading my posts.

Mmmm hmmm... right.

I really think you don’t see the hole you just buried yourself in. By pointing to an official “rede” – call it what you like – you are also accepting it as a law.

Where did I point to an official anything? I pointed to the definition of 'rede' - which is definitely not 'law'. If you point to a dictionary of the term 'pedophile', are you accepting that description for yourself as law?

C'mon, Larsen - this is waaaay beneath you.

I didn’t think for a moment that you would have any respect for someone who would question your beliefs. Thereby invalidating your own credo, but…hey…

No, I'm losing respect for someone who is attacking someone's point of view without first researching it for themselves; who is establishing a massive straw-man, then flailing for dear life when EVERYONE, atheist and believer together, is calling you to count for it.

I welcome those who question my beliefs. I question them myself, every day or so. But those who attack without using proper information, who refuse to listen when discussion is attempted - for them, I have no respect. You are rapidly falling into this status.

No evidence, then.

Nope. But I admitted that, didn't I? And you didn't ask for evidence - just names.

But here's a website of another married Catholic priest - though he appears to be in an inactive status. Not sure if this counts or not.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~bwelsh/

Here's a whole website devoted to married priests:

http://www.marriedpriests.org/Current.htm

And from Scotland:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5036147.html

Now, do web-pages count as evidence? Or do I need ordination certificates and marriage documents?

And that was in 5 minutes of Google.

I did not expect you to take it lightly, when someone – anyone – would question your beliefs. It only underlines the hypocrisy of your credo.

You could take the time to read about it - then you would understand that our credo isn't 'Bend over and take it up the tailpipe.'

It is your privilege to put me on ignore. It is my privilege to keep questioning your beliefs. It emphasizes who is the more open-minded here.

Not really.

And you're not on ignore yet - I keep hoping you'll realize that you are currently being guilty of the very thing you hate most in other people. I keep hoping you'll improve. I have high hopes for you, Claus.

 

[crimresearch]

C'mon, Larsen - this is waaaay beneath you

Sadly, no...it isn't.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't see why "organized" religion has any inherent superiority over "unorganized" religion. Especially since "organized" religion isn't nearly as organized as it thinks it is: it's just a thin shell of tradition overlying a large chocolate body of superstition.

And things can be organized to various degrees, from an official hierarchy like the Roman Catholics to something that runs by conventions like the Southern Baptists. Is Southern Baptism not an organized religion? What about the various denominations of Protestanism that frequently break away from each other? I live in the South; it's not uncommon for a single church congregation to have a disagreement, and half the faithful leave to start up a new church. Are they an organized religion, or not? Or are they two separate organized religions then?

Maybe organization is also a relative term.

Are you calling Wicca an organized religion? Just yes or no.

Or are you going to demand evidence what "organized" means? What "means" means?

 

[Z]

Organized religion, if you like.

If you call Wicca an organized religion, I will laugh in your face. And ask for evidence, of course.

So non-organized religion is to be held to higher standards than organized religions? A 'hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs' is only a religion if there's a singular body in charge?

A little confusing, Clausy.

And, everyone else, Wicca is definitely NOT an 'Organized Religion'. Some traditions are organized, but seeing as how the vast majority of practitioners are solitaries, organization and Wicca just don't go together well.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Are you calling Wicca an organized religion? Just yes or no.

Or are you going to demand evidence what "organized" means? What "means" means?

I don't know whether Wicca is "organized" or not. I am calling into question what an "organized" religion is. What constitutes an organized religion, as opposed to an unorganized religion? How could I answer the question without knowing what the heck you mean by "organized"? I am calling the question into question because it is vague.

It's not a "yes or no" question just because you say it is, Claus. Is asking you to define your terms so unreasonable? I guess it is, if you define "reasonable" to mean "agrees with what I have already decided"!

 

[CFLarsen]

Proving you haven't researched much about the implications of Vatican II or the schism between churches. There are, now, two popes. But you wouldn't know that, considering you didn't bother to research your topics.

Huh?? Who is this second Pope??

Yes, I would VERY much like a name. If you got one, that is.

However, the 'Ten Commandments' are not at all 'set in stone' anymore with 'All Christians.' Have a look-see here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c5.htm Seems not everyone buys your version of 10 commandment interpretation, either.

I cannot waste time discussing whether or not the 10 commandments are the 10 commandments, OK?

I'll keep looking around to see if I can find where I got the idea that Jesus bore the New Covenant.

Take your time. Find all the evidence you need.

And you - being totally anti-religious - are an authority on what religion is? I have to laugh..

WTF difference does it matter what belief I have? Can I not be knowledgable of religious matters, if I don't believe in them?

Mmmm hmmm... right.

Yes, right. You clearly did not read what I posted.

Where did I point to an official anything? I pointed to the definition of 'rede' - which is definitely not 'law'. If you point to a dictionary of the term 'pedophile', are you accepting that description for yourself as law?

C'mon, Larsen - this is waaaay beneath you.

Hey, you are the one pointing to the definition. Are you saying that a definition is not final?

No, I'm losing respect for someone who is attacking someone's point of view without first researching it for themselves; who is establishing a massive straw-man, then flailing for dear life when EVERYONE, atheist and believer together, is calling you to count for it.

I welcome those who question my beliefs. I question them myself, every day or so. But those who attack without using proper information, who refuse to listen when discussion is attempted - for them, I have no respect. You are rapidly falling into this status.

And I, again, invite you to provide evidence, instead of merely stating that I am wrong.

Nope. But I admitted that, didn't I? And you didn't ask for evidence - just names.

Are you deliberately obtuse? If I get the names, I can check your claims. If you don't have them, then I cannot check.

But here's a website of another married Catholic priest - though he appears to be in an inactive status. Not sure if this counts or not.

Get back when you know.

Now, do web-pages count as evidence? Or do I need ordination certificates and marriage documents?

And that was in 5 minutes of Google.

What I would like for you to show is Papal acceptance of married priests. Anyone can make a website.

You could take the time to read about it - then you would understand that our credo isn't 'Bend over and take it up the tailpipe.'

No, I didn't think it was. However, that does completely destroy your "do no harm" credo.

Not really.

Yes, really really. You are not prepared to question your own beliefs. You are not able to back up your claims with evidence.

And you're not on ignore yet - I keep hoping you'll realize that you are currently being guilty of the very thing you hate most in other people. I keep hoping you'll improve. I have high hopes for you, Claus.

How grandiose. Why don't you spend your energy providing evidence of your claims instead?

 

[LW]

That’s my whole point: That Wicca is not a religion at all, but a hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs, claimed to be a religion.

Claus, are there any non-imported religions in Africa?

 

[CFLarsen]

So non-organized religion is to be held to higher standards than organized religions? A 'hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs' is only a religion if there's a singular body in charge?

A little confusing, Clausy.

Namecalling? Tsk, tsk....

And, everyone else, Wicca is definitely NOT an 'Organized Religion'. Some traditions are organized, but seeing as how the vast majority of practitioners are solitaries, organization and Wicca just don't go together well.

Ah. That invalidates your point.

Thank you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, are there any non-imported religions in Africa?

What is your point?

 

[Z]

I have. You are now choosing to ignore them.

And they are your claims, not mine. I did not claim that the Rede meant absolutely causing no harm to anyone or anything - YOU DID.

So where's your evidence? Please, back up your claims.

Considering I pointed out that the definition of 'Rede' was 'Advice', you're already about 10 feet behind the power curve.

Considering I now have provided three links - which you are free to research as you feel the need to - to situations in which the Catholic restrictions against married priests have been lifted in individual cases, and you are now waffling and demanding more in-depth evidence, you've now dropped back another 10 feet.

Considering that, after going on about the absolute nature of the 10 commandments, I give you a very good link discussing the relativity of those commandments, and your answer is, that you can't be bothered to research it, there's about 20 feet.

You're well in the rear, Larsen. I've done my work. It's time for you to do yours. If I did all the research on your behalf, I would only be causing harm to myself - by taking away time I'd rather spend on other useless pursuits - and harming you, by not forcing you to think a little for yourself once in a while.

It's pretty clear you weren't interested in honest responses, only in attacking anyone's opinions. This reminds me of the nonsense you started a while back about pre-Gardnerian traditions. Since I wasn't in personal possession of documentation proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the trad I deal with is older than Crowley and Gardner, you started the attack. Well, believe what you want. You want evidence? Go get it. I didn't start making the claims - you did.

Your original post:

The Wiccan credo.

How is it possible to live by that? You can't walk anywhere, because you are bound to step on bugs. Each time you breathe, you destroy bacteria in the air (good for you, not good for the bacteria). You can't cook anything, because you will kill living creatures by doing so. You can't eat anything at all, for the same reason. You can't have sex, because if you ejaculate, you kill sperm.

Yet, I don't see Wiccans stop walking about, breathing, cooking, eating, or having sex. So, when is something harmful, and when is it not? Where is the line drawn?

I'm puzzled.

I've made my replies. The Rede is not Law. It is advice. We do the best we can in each situation. Ourself is included in 'harm none'. Each interprets it differently.

Then you stated, "Bull. It is the only Law there is. "

Evidence, please?

 

[Z]

Namecalling? Tsk, tsk....



Ah. That invalidates your point.

Thank you.

Which point was that? I've been saying that all along.

You are really being weird, Clausy.

 

[The GM]

You could take the time to read about it - then you would understand that our credo isn't 'Bend over and take it up the tailpipe.'

Heh. Sigged.

I find it interesting that Claus keeps at this when faithful and faithless alike keep disputing the point, rather eloquently, I might add. I think this might be one of the few times I've seen this occur on these forums.
See, we *can* all get along.

 

[LW]

WTF difference does it matter what belief I have? Can I not be knowledgable of religious matters, if I don't believe in them?

Yes, you can be knowledgable in religious matters even if you are an atheist. But I have yet to see evidence that you actually are knowledgable with this subject matter.

How grandiose. Why don't you spend your energy providing evidence of your claims instead?

Claus, you should know by now that the one who makes a claim provides the evidence.

So, how about providing evidence that your interpretation is what the Wiccans (or at least a significant portion of them) believe?

 

[LW]

What is your point?

You claimed that Wicca is not a religion because it is a "hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs".

I think that if you examine the traditional African religions (or, more exactly, what everybody else in the world calls traditional African religions), you may notice that they all are "a hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs".

What is the essential difference between, say the Voodoo-like religions of West Africa and Wicca? [And an aside for pedantic readers: I know that strictly-speaking those religions are not "Voodoo", but they are close enough for old artillerist.]

 

[CFLarsen]

I've made my replies. The Rede is not Law. It is advice. We do the best we can in each situation. Ourself is included in 'harm none'. Each interprets it differently.

Then you stated, "Bull. It is the only Law there is. "

Evidence, please?

If you point to a definition, then you are pointing to a final explanation. Which is a "law".

• Who is this second Pope? Name, please.
  
• Have you found evidence that Jesus bore the New Covenant?
  
• Can I not be knowledgable of religious matters, if I don't believe in them?
  
• Are you saying that a definition is not final?
  
• Do you agree that if you cannot provide the names, I cannot check your claims?
  
• Can you find the name of just one Catholic priest who is married with the official approval of the Pope?

 

[Beleth]

If you point to a definition, then you are pointing to a final explanation. Which is a "law".

Unfortunately, the Law of Transitivity doesn't apply to semantics.

A definition may be a type of final explanation.
A law may likewise be a type of final explanation.
But that doesn't mean that a definition is a law.

 

[Piscivore]

But my point is that the individual opinion of priests and cardinals matters none. The Pope gets to decree what the Catholic faith is.

I am not competing with the Pope, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. I am merely stating what the official Catholic stance is.

We can each have our own opinion of how things should be. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Pope tells the Catholics what Catholicism is.

And what, exactly, does that have to do with Wicca? did they grow a pope while I wasn't looking?

 

[The GM]

If you point to a definition, then you are pointing to a final explanation. Which is a "law".

4 entries found for definition.

def·i·ni·tion sh n)
n.
A statement conveying fundamental character.
A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.
The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning.
The act of making clear and distinct: a definition of one's intentions.
The state of being closely outlined or determined:
The clarity of detail in an optically produced image, such as a photograph, effected by a combination of resolution and contrast.
The degree of clarity with which a televised image or broadcast signal is received.

2 entries found for explanation.

ex·pla·na·tion spl n)
n.
The act or process of explaining: launched into a detailed explanation.
Something that explains: That was supposedly the explanation for their misdeeds.
A mutual clarification of misunderstandings; a reconciliation.


I guess I'm failing to see how defining a thing and then explaining it somehow makes it law.

 

[Z]

If you point to a definition, then you are pointing to a final explanation. Which is a "law".

A law for that word; not a law for the religion. You're deliberately mixing senses - I'd expect this of a woo.

• Who is this second Pope? Name, please.

• 
  
  "I announce to you a great joy. We have a Pope.
  The most Reverend Father Lucian Pulvermacher, OFM Cap.
  Priest of the Holy Catholic Church
  Born April 20, 1918 and ordained a priest on June 5, 1946
  Who takes to himself the name Pius XIII. "
  
  Taken from a Sedevacantists website. Apparently, there is a whole group of Catholics who feel the papal chair has been vacant for a long, long time. Interesting stuff - Kerry was a Sedevacantist, apparently. http://www.truecatholic.org/
  
  A bunch of nuts, IMHO - but not much different from the other Catholics.
  
  

  [*]Have you found evidence that Jesus bore the New Covenant?

  
  "Did Old Testament prophets predict that God would make a new covenant with his people? Jer. 31:31-34. Would this be an everlasting covenant? Jer. 32:38-40; Ezek. 16:60-62; 37:26; Isa. 55:3.
  
  Comment: The prophets predicted a new covenant between God and humans -- a new basis of relationship. The fact that a new covenant would be made implies two things about the covenant made at Sinai: 1) The Sinai covenant was temporary, serving a temporary purpose, and 2) it was not complete for God's ultimate plan and purpose. The new covenant, unlike the one made at Sinai, will last forever. It is designed for eternal life. "If there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another" (Heb. 8:7).
  
  What was wrong with the first covenant? "God found fault with the people" (verse 8). God foretold this to Moses: "These people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them" (Deut. 31:16-18). The people were unable to obey the laws -- and since the blessings were conditioned on the Israelites' obedience, the covenant was limited.
  
  Why did God make a temporary covenant when he knew the people would not obey the covenant? We will discuss that later. For now, we need to focus on the new covenant."
  
  From this website: http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/otl/otl04.htm
  
  Open to interpretation, of course.
  
  

  [*]Can I not be knowledgable of religious matters, if I don't believe in them?

  
  I would say, IMHO, that you can be MORE knowledgable of religious matters if they are not issues of your faith - including anti-faith. However, so far, no one has seen much evidence of this out of you.
  
  

  [*]Are you saying that a definition is not final?

  
  Of course I am. Language has evolved and continues to evolve every single day. Definitions are never final.
  
  I'd think you would know that much, by now.
  
  

  [*]Do you agree that if you cannot provide the names, I cannot check your claims?

  
  Yes, I do. I provided a name, but have no idea if the claim can be checked or not. I wasn't able to - but you asked for a name, and I gave you one.
  
  

  [*]Can you find the name of just one Catholic priest who is married with the official approval of the Pope?

  
  Yes, I can.
  

[/QUOTE]