Ethics: Black magic

[RavenMoonshadow]

Do you practice it?
do you think it is wrong?
why?

Do you think there is a time and place to practice the Black art?

Do you have any experiences you can share with us, either as testiments of the power of black magick, or as a warning why not to do it?

[David19]

I haven't practiced it so i'm not sure how much help i can be, but i think don't think 'black magic' is 'evil', if you define 'black magic' as curses, destruction rituals, or other things like that, then i think there is a time for 'black magic' such as, say, someone's kid is abused by a pediphile, you could let the police handle it but most parents (although i'm not a parent but this is what i'd imagine they'd be like) would want revenge on them, and i think mothers especially would be 'dangerous' here (they do say 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned', and, IMO, some mum's are very protective of their kids).

Or if you wanted to protect someone else (since i'm gay, let's say someone tried to hurt a boyfriend or even just a friend, then i'd turn to 'black magic').

I think it really depends on the situation, though.

Although, i'd really like to hear some people's experiences of it.

Hope i helped in some way :).

[Xirian]

At this point in my life, I personally don't necessarily believe in black magic. Yes, I believe there are forms of magic that may produce negative effects on all parties, but I'm not sure I believe that the manipulation of energy is necessarily a good or bad thing, but just is. I am of the thinking that whatever type of magic you do is negative as well as positive at the same time, even if you are only using your own energy and manipulating or taking and replacing it with some other kind of energy.

Now if you had have asked me this a year ago, I would have had a completely different answer.

I too, am interested in hearing other's experiences in this area.

I didn't vote, you don't have the option, "Don't believe in it".

[semi]

What's black magic?

[Seshata]

I don't see magick as necessarily black or white - if anything I could be looked at as mucky grey..

As has been said it does depend on the situation and if you wish to take the responsibility for your actions. If I've done on the mundane all that I can and I need, after weighing out things to bind someone, then I will...

If I'm being attacked magically and I need to act quickly - I would act appropriately, that could be on various levels and to various degrees, it just depends.

Probably not very clear but I hope some help.

btw I didn't vote 'cos well, the options didn't cover what I do.

BB

Seshata

[mtpathy]

Do you practice it?
do you think it is wrong?
why?

Do you think there is a time and place to practice the Black art?

Do you have any experiences you can share with us, either as testiments of the power of black magick, or as a warning why not to do it?


I do practice left-hand,and why do i practice it,because it's more right
then what many define or understand white magick to be,not all but many...
I choose not to vote because its a biased poll,i however choose to answer
because its a common question.

[Jolixte]

I prefer pink magic.

[RoseKitten]

IMHO, magic isn't colored. Good and bad are all relative, and the same magic could be used different ways. I guess that doesn't really answer your question too much though. To some people, all magic is "black" but to me, magic just is.

[Unlogic]

Defining black magic as spells designed to cause harm of any sort, then yes, I have and would use it, as I would use any weapon, in self-defense and in protection of those I care about.

Admittedly, my very few attempts in the field of black magic have been mild and only half-hearted, in response to things which have not been genuine serious threats. But if driven to, I would do as bad or worse to others.

[Sage Rainsong]

I don't like the term black magic but if by that you mean magic that hurts people. I have on a person who was a serious threat to me and my family. I will use it again if the situation calls for it.

[Rick]

Please... this has been debated to death in probably two dozen threads here... can we just let this one die?

[fangedeshana]

Well.. I will start off by assuming you mean curses, hexes, bindings aimed at others, mesmers, etc.

I've never used that kind of magic before, but I don't think I would hesitate using it if my loved ones or myself were in danger. It wouldn't be the only defence/offence I'd take. Magic is a skill we use to enchance our lives, and others where able. And as such, I would use it to protect myself and people I loved, just like I would use any other skill I had to proctect them (such as martial arts, my cunning intelect!... anything).

[tara]

Do you practice it?
do you think it is wrong?
why?

Do you think there is a time and place to practice the Black art?

Do you have any experiences you can share with us, either as testiments of the power of black magick, or as a warning why not to do it?
No.
No.
Well, because, when I look at magic, I don't see the line between white and black. If you are able to truly tape into magic, then you have the ability to 'move montains'. No, it's up to you to use the power wisely and not neglect it.

I have personally never used black magic before, but I have compiled many spells which I have yet to use.

[MankyCat]

I do what I do. I don't really care what others would label it, since what one person calls good another might call evil and vice versa.

My beliefs sees all magic as a double edged blade. It harms and helps at the same time. Nothing is purely one or the other to me... not even healing.

[tara]

I do what I do. I don't really care what others would label it, since what one person calls good another might call evil and vice versa.

My beliefs sees all magic as a double edged blade. It harms and helps at the same time. Nothing is purely one or the other to me... not even healing.
I could not have said it better myself! If you have any info that could help me increase my knowledge of 'black magic' could you PM it to me? Thanks in advance Yuli!

[Aleannah]

magic is magic...every act should be contemplated fully for the positive and negative side effects, and then determined if the time is right, and if the act is actually necessary. Mundane resolutions should always be tried first. Never perform magic in the heat of the moment...I kinda found that out the hard way. :lol:

[MankyCat]

magic is magic...every act should be contemplated fully for the positive and negative side effects, and then determined if the time is right, and if the act is actually necessary. Mundane resolutions should always be tried first. Never perform magic in the heat of the moment...I kinda found that out the hard way. :lol:

I agree on so much (obviously the first line, but the rest as well). Except that sometimes it's the passion "in the heat of the moment" that brings success. Then again, my "heat of the moment" usually lasts a good amount of time (like a few days at times) and usually occurs after I've already tried mundane approaches. :hahugh:

[Shanti]

I do what I do. I don't really care what others would label it, since what one person calls good another might call evil and vice versa.

My beliefs sees all magic as a double edged blade. It harms and helps at the same time. Nothing is purely one or the other to me... not even healing.

Ditto!!!:)

[MankyCat]

I could not have said it better myself! If you have any info that could help me increase my knowledge of 'black magic' could you PM it to me? Thanks in advance Yuli!


Sent.

[David19]

Sent.

Do you think you could PM me too, as 'black magic' is something i'd like to learn a bit more on (a lot more actually, not sure about practicing, just to increase my knowledge).

Thanks.

[Aleannah]

I agree on so much (obviously the first line, but the rest as well). Except that sometimes it's the passion "in the heat of the moment" that brings success. Then again, my "heat of the moment" usually lasts a good amount of time (like a few days at times) and usually occurs after I've already tried mundane approaches. :hahugh:

I wasn't clear on the "heat of the moment" statement. What I was actually trying to say was don't go zap someone if you're mad at them for something until you've given yourself time to think rationally, and that maybe they really don't need anything negative sent their way because they already have a lot of it and it wouldn't do any good anyway. For instance, my landlord - his life is always in total chaos and it's because he's always doing something that has a negative impact and it comes back to bite him in the butt. Much as I want to, anything I would send his way really wouldn't do anything...so I just try to protect against him and avoid him as much as possible until we can get moved.

I was just trying to get the "think it through completely" point across. Sorry about the long post. :)

[Astara Seague]

I choose not too

[dragoncrone]

'Do as ye will an harm none' still works pretty well for me, but after decades of studying oriental thought and martial arts philosophy I have incorporated some of those into my wiccan practices.
Even before George Lucas came up with Star Wars, Bruce Lee instructed his followers to 'use your opponent's force to defeat them.' There is a lot of Jeet Kune Do in 'The Force' if one looks closely: one need not become one of the Dark Side to defeat it, but practice turning the dark energy back onto those wielding it.

[MankyCat]

I was just trying to get the "think it through completely" point across. Sorry about the long post. :)

That was great. Thank you. I think we are on the same page. :lol:

[Malcolm]

What's black magic?

Its the kind that is really hard to see in the dark.

[Windsmith]

Its the kind that is really hard to see in the dark.Yes, but it goes with anything. Haven't you heard - black magic is the new black.

[Malcolm]

Yes, but it goes with anything. Haven't you heard - black magic is the new black.

quoted for truth

[~Elise~]

Please... this has been debated to death in probably two dozen threads here... can we just let this one die?

Guess not, honey.

Ya know, folks, I have a whole topic just on this very thing in my Magical Self Defense class. And the end result is the same as this thread.

Magic is magic.... no black/no white. And you know what--until you learn the basics--you can't learn the other stuff. Everyone is SO quick to want to learn to hex someone, but heaven forbid learning how to do the basic stuff first.

Ya mess with the heavy artillery before you can shoot a pistol...well, let's just say it isn't pretty.

JMO and YMMV,

Elise

[mtpathy]

'Do as ye will an harm none' still works pretty well for me, but after decades of studying oriental thought and martial arts philosophy I have incorporated some of those into my wiccan practices.
Even before George Lucas came up with Star Wars, Bruce Lee instructed his followers to 'use your opponent's force to defeat them.' There is a lot of Jeet Kune Do in 'The Force' if one looks closely: one need not become one of the Dark Side to defeat it, but practice turning the dark energy back onto those wielding it.

and that is what left-hand magick is all about,not necessarily about turning
anothers negative against them "which that is a common practice as well",but
turning your own negative against yourself to create a positive.
when what you once considered your fears,and insecurites in life have
become your greatest strength,theres no obstacle to hold you back from
the experience of self.

[RavenMoonshadow]

Guess not, honey.

Ya know, folks, I have a whole topic just on this very thing in my Magical Self Defense class. And the end result is the same as this thread.

Magic is magic.... no black/no white. And you know what--until you learn the basics--you can't learn the other stuff. Everyone is SO quick to want to learn to hex someone, but heaven forbid learning how to do the basic stuff first.

Ya mess with the heavy artillery before you can shoot a pistol...well, let's just say it isn't pretty.

JMO and YMMV,

Elise

It's nice to see so many people have the same veiw I do, I threw the question out there, because a friend of mine said because I follow a druidic path, I follow a black path because druids hurt people. I told him he was just being arrogant. He is new to wicca, and thinks any one who messes with "black" magic is bad, I tried to tell him that its not the magic that is black but the intent that matters.

[Xirian]

He is new to wicca, and thinks any one who messes with "black" magic is bad, I tried to tell him that its not the magic that is black but the intent that matters.
I think that was a very good answer. If you don't mind telling us, what was his response to your comment or have I missed that somewhere? If I've missed it, please ignore me. LOL

[Amythyst]

This subject sounds familiar.

Once again, for me the practice of Witchcraft includes what some people might consider "Black Magic". I don't find it offensive or evil or negative. It just is.

A word of caution on bindings-- they can be surprisingly powerful and they can have effects that you weren't banking on. Be careful and don't go flinging this practice around on silly whims.

[Seshata]

because a friend of mine said because I follow a druidic path, I follow a black path because druids hurt people. I told him he was just being arrogant. He is new to wicca, and thinks any one who messes with "black" magic is bad, I tried to tell him that its not the magic that is black but the intent that matters.

Errrm - what books is he reading?! Druids, black path? Doesn't he know that doing so will get your nice white robes mucky? :devil:

Essentially, if he's doing anything similar to 'wicca' then magic is part of it - how does he define his magic and is it so clear cut as he thinks? Sometimes asking those types of questions can hopefully get someone thinking and learning. :)

BB

Seshata

[Semele]

Of course. Although it is the same proverbial lightswitch and source for all forms of magic. A lightbulb cares not the intent of the one who flips the switch...it works no matter the intent so long as you follow the directions.

[RavenMoonshadow]

I think that was a very good answer. If you don't mind telling us, what was his response to your comment or have I missed that somewhere? If I've missed it, please ignore me. LOL


He just shrugged and told me I was messing with things I dont understand. I found it funny considering I am now 24 and have been practicing since I was 14 and he is brand new. I think its the friends he has been hanging around with. They are all Neo Pagan, lightbulb type people.

[Lunar_Dragonfly]

I'm way too new to paganism to try any kind of magic, black white or gray. I actually did try a couple of spells time and again but they weren't very effective most likely because I was nervous and i didn't know what i was doing and my focus was all over the place. I've decided I have a lot more to learn before I try again, and I'm fine with that. I was totally ready to throw a curse out there a few weeks back over something that was honestly and truly total b*llsh*t, but I realized that I was mad at the situation, and not the people involved ... which sucks even more because I couldn't blame anyone 8O If I one day Gods allowing became proficient enough to dabble in the dark arts, I would only do so with a very good reason, and to be honest I'm not even sure what that reason would be. But one of the reasons I don't consider myself wiccan is that I do not consider myself to be a pacifist and I think that sometimes it is necessary to resort to more insidious means. But that doesn't necessarily mean I ever will.

[Seshata]

But one of the reasons I don't consider myself wiccan is that I do not consider myself to be a pacifist and I think that sometimes it is necessary to resort to more insidious means.

Errrmmm - I think that this stems from various misunderstandings of texts etc - I'm Wican and I would use all the skills I have to hand, magic included (whatever colour you want to give it - after all, remember electricity can kill or restart your heart) should I need to protect and defend friends and family (both blood and Craft). Thus in essence not quite a 'pacifist' as you put it...

BB

Seshata

[cydira]

I've been told that what I do can qualify as holly/left hand path/black magic.

Over the last several years, I have found that the use of magic in a defensive manner has been something of a necessity. I am reluctant to cast a curse upon anyone because i am not interested in having that come back to me.

I may be a bit ... odd in my perspective, but i think that what ever you do magically does reflect back to you. You also create a spiritual tie between yourself and the other person. This tie mirrors the effects of your spell casting back on to yourself, in most cases.

Thus if you perform a binding upon a child rapist, you are binding yourself from committing the rape of a child. That, however, is my personal philosophy and what I have observed.

That said, I think that we have a right and a necessity to defend ourselves from harm in any arena that it is threatening us. If the mode I use to defend myself means that I am going to use violence, blood magic, or something equally unplesant, then so be it. I will not refuse to defend myself so that my hands remain lily white. Many of the witches that I've come to know that refuse to practice "black" magic as I do are usually the ones that insist that I don't have a right to defend myself because the Rede states that we must not cause harm.

[Seshata]

Many of the witches that I've come to know that refuse to practice "black" magic as I do are usually the ones that insist that I don't have a right to defend myself because the Rede states that we must not cause harm.

Sorry, this may not be the reply that many will find pc - but that's just rubbish. The Rede mentions the word 'harm' not Hurt which is how they seem to be interpreting it. It does not say that you cannot protect yourself and others if harm is being done to you. It also does not prohibit you from reacting in other ways if deemed necessary. It does seem that the Rede is just being used there as a substitute for a more Bhuddist reaction (apologies to Bhuddists if I have got this wrong - I'm always willing to learn and in all honesty, don't know enough of this path) - What is the greater harm? Letting someone continue raping someone or grabbing the *** and giving him a punch or whatever and doing a citizen's arrest? It will certainly hurt him giving him the punch but... think about it. There probably are more examples I could give - many actually read the Rede but don't actually think about what it may actually mean or discuss it with others, they seem more comfortable interpreting it in a Christian manner of it being a rule in the style of 'you must not' rather than using it as a tool to learn from - stop and think, but at the end of the day all your actions are your responsibility.

Hope the above made sense!

BB

Seshata

[Tahroh]

i do not believe in white, black, or any other color magick....Magick itself is neutral, the person who employs it is what determines the outcome, i feel that by naming it you are taking away some of the power as if you are trying to tame that which is primal and raw.

Some people take magick to a dark place but that does not neccesarily make it black magick or people who practice "white" magick, it is just how you see it based on the result you get, Magick no matter what you do still remains neutral.

but i guess you are looking at magick a different way....let's try this, do you believe that black magick is evil and harmful? i ask this because it is not true, white magick can also be harmful and "evil", one can use black magick to say... destroy infection in a loved one or to drive away harassing people, by employ it in this way you are bringing good out of what most consider bad, one can use white magick to bring lust to someone making them crave you, these are excellent examples (in my opinion) as to prove that magick is neutral, and that depending on how you employ it by using will, knowledge and desire you can use any color magick to bring about constructive or destructive change.

think about black magick as you would constructive criticism, you don't want to hear it, but in essence it is helpful,



BROADEN YOUR MIND

hope that made sense,
Tahroh

[amunakht]

I have heard that black magic inflicted upon a person comes back to the doer even worse. Will this happen if you call down a demon to take action?

[David19]

I have heard that black magic inflicted upon a person comes back to the doer even worse. Will this happen if you call down a demon to take action?

I think that would only happen if you were a Wiccan and believed in the 3 fold law or someone who believed in karma, i think it all depends on what your beliefs are, from the stuff i've read, some mages that have summoned demons (whether they were Christian mages, Jewish, Wiccan, Satanist, etc) have had great successes (and as one occultist put it, if you went to the sorcerors/mages, etc of the past, they'd laugh if someone said they couldn't use magic for revenge, sex, wealth, love, etc).

Anyway, IMO, i think it all depends, but there's lots of people who know more than me so i'm sure they can help more.

Anyway, hope this helps in some way :).

[Threase]

I've used what other people call 'black magick' before, and I will again. I do this because I've come to the conclusion that Karma just isn't good enough. I've had bad things happen to me my whole life, and though everyone says "Don't worry, they'll get theirs in time", I don't see it happening. And I may be a horrible person for saying this, but if you make me suffer, damn right I wanna see you suffer.

[amunakht]

They can be dangerous though, from what i've heard. If you're trying to evoke them against their will, they will lash out. If respected and invoked, like by a Satanist or Demonolator then they won't attack.

[amunakht]

And I may be a horrible person for saying this, but if you make me suffer, damn right I wanna see you suffer.

Lol, yeah thats what I think too. I only act kind to those that deserve it. I DON'T turn the other cheek.

[Magus]

The path of the witch-mage is not for everyone, pagan religions are for everyone, but not the secrets of our holy craft. Only people with the strongest ethics and love for humanity should perform magick. True magick come from the light and return to it in a neverending circle. In love the witch-mage grows his-her power and strength, is a slow process. Darkness is a faster process to achieve power. But once you start walking the path of darkness it will consume your will. You will be a slave of your own lust for kwnoledge and power, and nobody is going to save you from yourself.

[Magus]

He just shrugged and told me I was messing with things I dont understand. I found it funny considering I am now 24 and have been practicing since I was 14 and he is brand new. I think its the friends he has been hanging around with. They are all Neo Pagan, lightbulb type people.

Do not confuse experience with wisdom

[sonofthemummy]

I have heard that black magic inflicted upon a person comes back to the doer even worse. Will this happen if you call down a demon to take action?

If you summon a demon (a spirit whose methods are in some general opposition to the consensus of the gods), you might do so and bid him to perform a "right action". Demons are like the mob. They are not all evil, they are outlaws. And, I think Egyptian magick teaches us to seek honest connections in the universe. If we do not care about fair respect, we will make too many toxic connections. It is a more economical use of energy to protect oneself from harm than to try to make up rules that will judge others as "wrong". I was just reading a letter to Thoth by a priest who had been treated unfairly. He does not ask the god to exact this or that punishment against the offender. He asks the god for protection and restoration.

http://pics.livejournal.com/bubbahotep111/pic/00012y84

[Tanya]

no its completely unethical. we never never hurt.

my worst is what i call "pea balls" (it causes temporary erectile disfunction .. totally psychosematic in nature) and I generally use it on rude frat boys..and construction workers... it harms none... as and really is self inflicted.

[Carla O'Harris]

I've used what other people call 'black magick' before, and I will again. I do this because I've come to the conclusion that Karma just isn't good enough. I've had bad things happen to me my whole life, and though everyone says "Don't worry, they'll get theirs in time", I don't see it happening. And I may be a horrible person for saying this, but if you make me suffer, damn right I wanna see you suffer.

I would like to respectfully ask what constitutes suffering for you, and the proportionality of the punishments you inflict. If someone cuts you off on the freeway or gives you a wrong look, do they deserve to die or have some horrendous injury? What are we talking here?

What are the ethical implications of a being who does NOT have access to omniscience or anything close to seeing all of the karmic connections of a web of actions declaring themselves Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

On a human level, sure, we all don't want to suffer, and we all have impulses of vengeance. But starting magical blood feuds seems foolish.

I think there are logical reasons to prohibit harmful magic, on the same principles that we prohibit harmful actions legally, with laws against assault, battery, malicious mischief, harassment, manslaughter, and murder. And even "self-defense" is subject in a court of law to examination to see whether the defense was proportional to warding off the injury.

There are logical reasons for assuming a web of actions to be nonlinear, which means the effects are not one-to-one and linear. This follows from a simple understanding of chaos science. Because of this, one cannot predict precisely where harm will end up directing itself. The "three fold law" might be a crude maxim for understanding this, but there is still some sense in it. One may harm another who one assumes deserves it, but the punishment may not teach them anything. It may drive them to hurt someone else, potentially even someone close to one. Unless one has the larger perspective of the gods, one might want to be careful about exercising their powers. If one is going to develop powers and abilities that traditionally have been the purview of gods, one might want to develop equally sophisticated ethical notions.

I don't mean to criticize you or your actions, as I do not know what they are. I am speaking more generally that we might want to match our ethical acuity to our power levels. The myths of cultures all around the world are filled with cautions against blood-feuds, even where they understand the desire for vengeance. On one hand, magic might be considered an apprenticeship in deity ; from this perspective, deities are definitely going to ethically evaluate the use of the powers extended out on credit.

[Malcolm]

What are the ethical implications of a being who does NOT have access to omniscience or anything close to seeing all of the karmic connections of a web of actions declaring themselves Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

This assumes you believe in karma to begin with. I don't. So if I declare myself "judge, Jury, and executioner"...if only for dramatic effect...its because I believe something needs to be done about it. I don't always have time for the gods or whoever to get around to sorting out the dirty laundry.

[Carla O'Harris]

I was using karma in its more literal sense of a chain of cause and effect. It is hardly credible that anyone does not believe in a chain of cause and effect.

Therefore my point is not dependent upon any esoteric kind of belief, but merely the unpredictability of cause and effect in nonlinear situations.

[Malcolm]

I was using karma in its more literal sense of a chain of cause and effect. It is hardly credible that anyone does not believe in a chain of cause and effect.

Therefore my point is not dependent upon any esoteric kind of belief, but merely the unpredictability of cause and effect in nonlinear situations..

Well why didn't you say that to begin with? Why use the word karma at all if its not what you meant?

[Carla O'Harris]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma

:


Karma (Sanskrit: कर्म from the root kṛ, "to do", [meaning deed] meaning action, effect, destiny) is a term that comprises the entire cycle of cause and effect.

[Malcolm]

is a term that comprises the entire cycle of cause and effect. Karma is a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain in others. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well.

I especially like this part of that article. If I'm already responsible for it, then why not be the "judge jury and executioner".

[Carla O'Harris]

I guess that's dependent on whether you want to add more healing or harm into the web of actions in the universe. What is your intent? To correct? To throw out more harm? What is it you truly desire to do?

[Fire's Shadow]

Please... this has been debated to death in probably two dozen threads here... can we just let this one die?

The dead horse needs a little more beating. http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/images/smilies/deadhorse2.gif

That'll learn 'em.

[Threase]

I would like to respectfully ask what constitutes suffering for you, and the proportionality of the punishments you inflict.

Simple. I only use negative magic against someone that has done something horrible to me. For instance, I have been sexually assaulted, more than once. Because of this, I have to go to PTSD therapy. The people responsible for making me suffer to the point of suicidal thoughts should NOT be allowed to live the kind of life they have denied me. Therefore, I will make them suffer.

[Carla O'Harris]

Hmmm ok, well, despite the fact that you and I disagree about the prohibition against curses, you definitely have my sympathy in this case, and if your usage is limited to such egregious crimes, it's certainly more understandable. I think myself I would be thinking about withdrawing all luck from the perpetrator's endeavors, which ultimately would have the effect virtually of a curse, because a "lien" on one's luck definitely hinders one's ability to do well in the world. That's my take on the professional ethics of it.

On the personal side, I am very, very sorry to hear about this, and I wish you whole and hale in your healing.

[David19]

I would like to respectfully ask what constitutes suffering for you, and the proportionality of the punishments you inflict. If someone cuts you off on the freeway or gives you a wrong look, do they deserve to die or have some horrendous injury? What are we talking here?

What are the ethical implications of a being who does NOT have access to omniscience or anything close to seeing all of the karmic connections of a web of actions declaring themselves Judge, Jury, and Executioner?

On a human level, sure, we all don't want to suffer, and we all have impulses of vengeance. But starting magical blood feuds seems foolish.

I think there are logical reasons to prohibit harmful magic, on the same principles that we prohibit harmful actions legally, with laws against assault, battery, malicious mischief, harassment, manslaughter, and murder. And even "self-defense" is subject in a court of law to examination to see whether the defense was proportional to warding off the injury.

I would think 'darker' magic would be useful sometime, e.g. like if you had a kid, and they were abused by a pediphile, wouldn't you want revenge, and not just rely on courts, which may or may not be effective, or if you had a chance to, using an example of the Holocaust, save some Jew's, Gypsies and gay people, by using magic to kill or make some Nazi's suffer, wouldn't you take it, 'cause i would, so i think people should always think things through but they should rely on their own ethics when it comes to some things (e.g. i'd curse or do something worse, magically speaking, against a pediphile if a kid i knew was abused or if a friend was raped or if there was some neo-nazi harrasing my Jewish relatives, etc).

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, David, you definitely invoke some compelling cases, but not every case is so cut-and-dry. One of the reasons why we have courts of law is to try to ensure that a suspect is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and sometimes it is more difficult to find the perpetrator than one might think. (Again, in some cases, the perpetrator is known, and therefore it's fairly cut and dry.) Then there is the issue of proportionate punishment.

You are invoking some cases where I think popular sympathy would certainly favor some sort of vengeance. But where do you place limitations upon that impulse? What constitutes an offense horrendous enough to warrant magical vengeance? How about an insult? Is an insult enough? Maybe not to you, but how about to someone whose sense of honor is so fragile that their ego can't take an insult? If we were living in a world full of people with a strong and healthy sense of self, fairly accurate perceptions, proportionate and reasonable senses of justice, perhaps such a principle, moderately applied, and only in extreme cases, might not be abused, but given rampant ego-fragility, as well as a sense of justice corrupted by un-worked-through resentment, the potentials for abuse of a principle of vengeance, magic or otherwise, are extreme.

And again, if we invoke the principle that magic is both nonlinear and iterative, then it still results that the energy or power one puts out into the world is going to have unpredictable effects. Say you decide to magically "take out" some Neo-Nazi in a prominent position in some racist organization ; it could end up that the person who replaces him is even more rabid and dangerous. All of the epics and tragedies of the world's mythology are filled with such ironic twists, demonstrating the perilous nature of interfering with the web of things. That doesn't mean we can't so interfere, but it means there is a great potential for being sorry for many of the unintended effects of one's actions even for an action that at first seemed unambiguously positive (with the equation that negating a negative is positive). What about the potential "collateral damage" of your curses?

[Carla O'Harris]

There is also something else to consider, and that is that any given individual has kin, and therefore actions affecting one person affect their entire kin network. Disputes between clans can effectively be considered a community affair, in which the community has an interest. In other words, what appears to be between only two individuals may in fact involve far more people. Both perpetrator and victim have families and friends. (And that is in cases where perpetrator and victim can be clearly differentiated ; in many cases of violence and harm, there are complex interactive chains going back and forth.)

It can be argued that the community has an interest in regulating if not prohibiting maleficia on the principle of reserving judgement and punishment to community organs. In other words, individual usurpment of "Judge, Jury, Executioner" is an usurpment of the community's rights to have a hearing and a say in matters that affect the community. Things that add benefits to individuals or communities are a matter of private profit that requires no communal regulation per se, so long as that profit does not come at the expense of others. (Witchcraft trials were also concerned with this, prohibiting "robbing peter to pay paul" kinds of magic.)

So for those who cast curses, what ethics apply? Does one notify the one so punished? Does one notify their friends or family?

And, as a follow-up question, what effect would it have on you if your victim tried to reconcile? Let's say they tallied up their actions and who they may have harmed, upon discovering their luck lost, either through their own contemplations, those of their kin and friends, or through consulting a cunning-person, and come to you seeking reconciliation. Would you accept some form of wergild in exchange for releasing the curse? What are your ethics in this regard?

Do perpetrators of crimes have any rights? (Remember that many of our laws actually do exist to protect the rights of perpetrators. While a popular sense of justice would prohibit such rights infringing on the rights of victims, unless a floor is put upon the nullification of perpetrator rights, human rights violations in general may occur.)

[Malcolm]

I guess that's dependent on whether you want to add more healing or harm into the web of actions in the universe. What is your intent? To correct? To throw out more harm? What is it you truly desire to do?

As far as adding or subtracting healing or harm, I don't really make a distinction. Yes I know some things would be considered harmful and some helpful. Thats not what I'm getting at. For me to be able to put either into the web would mean its not balanced. If I can harm then there is a need for it. If I can heal there is a need for it.

As for what is it I truely desire to do...thats situational.


So for those who cast curses, what ethics apply? Does one notify the one so punished? Does one notify their friends or family?

None, if it gets to that level. Why would you enter a conflict with one hand tied behind your back so to speak?


And, as a follow-up question, what effect would it have on you if your victim tried to reconcile? Let's say they tallied up their actions and who they may have harmed, upon discovering their luck lost, either through their own contemplations, those of their kin and friends, or through consulting a cunning-person, and come to you seeking reconciliation. Would you accept some form of wergild in exchange for releasing the curse? What are your ethics in this regard?

Depends on the nature of the crime or what lead to the curse in the first place. Obviously a simple "Sorry" isn't going to cut it from a rapist or murderer.


Do perpetrators of crimes have any rights?

By perpetrator I assume you mean someone who is guilty. In this case I would say, no. If you did it you deserve to be punished.

[Carla O'Harris]

If I can harm then there is a need for it. If I can heal there is a need for it.

Well, this may be ok for you, but imagine putting these words into the mouth of Adolf Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, or Charles Manson, or any sociopathic criminal, or anyone who is upset and having a sociopathic moment.

If harm can only occur when it is needed, I shudder to think about the connections of Necessity with the levels of harm that exist in this world. Any sense of justice or vision certainly aims at lessening the amount of harm in the world. It's not a very magical vision to imagine all the injuries and injustices of the world as necessary, and psi-perpetuation of that world seems rather banal and unmagical.

[Malcolm]

Well, this may be ok for you, but imagine putting these words into the mouth of Adolf Hitler, or Saddam Hussein, or Charles Manson, or any sociopathic criminal, or anyone who is upset and having a sociopathic moment.

We've disagreed on this very same point before Carla. I think we both know where we stand on it so lets not get into all that again.:)

I just think we approach the world in very different ways. Its always nice to hear your side of it though.












Even if I think your nutty...:nyah:

[Carla O'Harris]

By perpetrator I assume you mean someone who is guilty. In this case I would say, no. If you did it you deserve to be punished.

Did what? Whatever pissed off the curser? Or are there categories of crimes? At least in communal law there are standards about what actually constitute offenses.

If one committed a crime (not a pissing-off, but an actual crime), one may deserve to be punished, but there is still the issue of proportional justice, that the punishment fit the crime. Note the principle is that the punishment fits the crime, not that the punishment fits the resentment of the punisher or the victim. That delimits the punishment appropriately. There is, of course, the whole question of crime and punishment itself, and whether forms of reconciliation are more effective for communities. Wergild can be a synthesis of these two principles as it is on the one hand a hefty fine, and on the other hand, ample compensation.

And "deserving to be punished" doesn't mean that the person is completely disenfranchised of all rights. My question was whether the perpetrator still has rights. Committing a crime -- any crime -- strips one of one's basic human inalienable rights? That is a scary principle.

[Malcolm]

And "deserving to be punished" doesn't mean that the person is completely disenfranchised of all rights. My question was whether the perpetrator still has rights. Committing a crime -- any crime -- strips one of one's basic human inalienable rights? That is a scary principle.

Itn't it though. I get what your saying though and I agree. You don't kill someone that kicks your favorite cat. But that doesn't mean they don't get more than a stern talking too and a wag of the finger eiter...no, you summon that demon and have it eat his foot!

[Carla O'Harris]

We've disagreed on this very same point before Carla. I think we both know where we stand on it so lets not get into all that again.:)

I just think we approach the world in very different ways. Its always nice to hear your side of it though.

Even if I think your nutty...:nyah:

Fair enough, and you are of course entitled to your views. I appreciate your sharing them. They raise important issues and questions.


Some of these questions I raise not just in interpersonal dialogue with you (which, after all, we could engage in via email), but on the forum to see what kinds of discussions they might foster.

After all, if one is going to even consider engaging in any kind of cursing, it behooves one to be fully responsible for it. Responsibility means the ability to respond or answer fully for one's actions, and that means being able to respond to a full investigation. Often irresponsible acts are those which are ill thought out, where a person acts on an impulse without considering all of the ramifications of the action and everyone it can effect. If one is taking into account all of those things and acting fairly, then even if we disagree about the action, it may still be a responsible action ; but if it lacks these, not only is there a case for disagreement, but an indictment of irresponsibility. Irresponsibility and magic to me sounds like mayhem. Who wants to perpetuate more mayhem in the world?

[Malcolm]

After all, if one is going to even consider engaging in any kind of cursing, it behooves one to be fully responsible for it. Responsibility means the ability to respond or answer fully for one's actions, and that means being able to respond to a full investigation. Often irresponsible acts are those which are ill thought out, where a person acts on an impulse without considering all of the ramifications of the action and everyone it can effect. If one is taking into account all of those things and acting fairly, then even if we disagree about the action, it may still be a responsible action ; but if it lacks these, not only is there a case for disagreement, but an indictment of irresponsibility. Irresponsibility and magic to me sounds like mayhem. Who wants to perpetuate more mayhem in the world?

Definately. A curse isn't something you just pop off whilly nilly at anyone that gets under your skin. Thats what sugar in a gas tank is for...or a nail in a soda can behind a tire...

Irresponsibility and magic do equate to mayhem, but theres another side to that. It can be loads of fun.

[Carla O'Harris]

Itn't it though. I get what your saying though and I agree. You don't kill someone that kicks your favorite cat. But that doesn't mean they don't get more than a stern talking too and a wag of the finger eiter...no, you summon that demon and have it eat his foot!

lol!

Again --- and I appreciate your humorous response --- there is still here a reasonable order of events to expect, that obviously hinge on individual circumstances.

How reasonable is the perpetrator? How open are they to communication itself? How open are they to reconciliation or compensation? Are they willing to admit the severity of their injury?

Are there legal ways of pursuing justice that are available? Are there quasi-legal ways of pursuing justice that are available, for example, critical dialogue with friends and family of the perpetrator?

It seems to me that if one has exhausted one's options for communication, community-justice, and legal justice, then there is certainly a question of "other options".

Couldn't one cast a spell making them intensely want to reconcile and compensate? To have an "overwhelming urge" to make peace and set things right? I mean --- if one is going to cast a spell to influence events, requiring energy and magic, why not project the best of all possible worlds? One's magic may make a statement about the kind of world one wants to live in.

[amunakht]

I was wondering something, would black magic be against the law in some circumstances?

Like if someone put a curse on an enemy and the enemy was murdered (by another person other that the spellcaster) and the police had some info that such a curse had been laid, they wouldn't be charged with anything right?

[Malcolm]

Couldn't one cast a spell making them intensely want to reconcile and compensate? To have an "overwhelming urge" to make peace and set things right? I mean --- if one is going to cast a spell to influence events, requiring energy and magic, why not project the best of all possible worlds? One's magic may make a statement about the kind of world one wants to live in.

Sure you could and you're right. The "flavor" of a spell is a personal thing. Your resonance. It all boils down to style and what you are more comfortable with.

But besides that, I just wanted to mention that I was the first to get Carla to say "LOL"...If I wasn't...I should've been.

[Carla O'Harris]

Depends on what century you're living in, and what place you're living in.

I'd be curious to see how a court of law would decide a case where one person injures another -- say, disables their foot, and because of the caused disability, the other is unable to escape from harm, be it a flood or the attack of an enemy army, and therefore perishes.

I suppose we are in the realm of what we might call "magical jurisprudence".

[Carla O'Harris]

Sure you could and you're right. The "flavor" of a spell is a personal thing. Your resonance. It all boils down to style and what you are more comfortable with.

But besides that, I just wanted to mention that I was the first to get Carla to say "LOL"...If I wasn't...I should've been.

You can claim that place!

[MankyCat]

Regardless of what you do, you are going to help someone... and harm another. Things aren't as black and white, cut and dry as some like to think. Everything that is done will ALWAYS have that dual nature.

If you start saying that there are cases where "black magic" is okay, then who are you to define what those cases are? Where is the line drawn? Just saying.

[Malcolm]

I'd be curious to see how a court of law would decide a case where one person injures another -- say, disables their foot, and because of the caused disability, the other is unable to escape from harm, be it a flood or the attack of an enemy army, and therefore perishes.

I suppose we are in the realm of what we might call "magical jurisprudence".

Well. I don't think the courts admit "spectral evidence" anymore. I'd love someone to be able to prove that magic did anything...that would open up a really awesome legal playground.

As for magical jurisprudence...can't say I've ever really given that much thought. Although, If I was to be tried with a jury of my peers...I'd get off scot free. :)

[sonofthemummy]

If you doubt that black magick, whatever that really is, should be practiced, then it is probably going to serve you ill. If you strongly believe that harming none entitles you to fierce protection, you may be right. :apumpkin: Yet, this protection must sometimes still be invoked. :tarotwitc

[Vigdisdotter]

There needs to be an "other" option :)

I don't subscribe to the whole white/black nonsense, since the best of intentions can have bad consequences and that which is out to harm another may be done for the purpose of defense.

[Carla O'Harris]

Yes, but there is such a thing as malevolence stemming from unhealed resentment, and if this comes from a person with a fragile ego, it's a recipe for disaster.

It's also important to remember that defensiveness can become paranoia, so even doing things "for defense" can generate all kinds of negative repercussions...

[Xirian]

so even doing things "for defense" can generate all kinds of negative repercussions...
Can't the same be said for healing as well? Aren't you taking energy from other things, (negativity - leaving them without), to heal something else (positivity - giving them more)?

[Carla O'Harris]

Perhaps to some degree, but not to such an extent. The question is one of positive malevolence (I don't mean "good" but "active") rather than merely a choice of attention. Obviously any choice of attention directs energy somewhere rather than everywhere. However, neglect is not the same thing as positive malevolence. Many things will do fine with neglect, as they have self-sufficiency. Other things will do fine with neglect by magic users as they are being attended by the gods.

But no, I don't think healing involves robbing anyone else of anything, at least not in and of itself.

[Xirian]

I see, thank you for answering my questions. :)

[Acid09]

Black magick is magick for the purpose of power. Doesn't matter what flavor of power one seeks be it lust or vanity or control or combination of any vice. People' who practice black magick do so without regard for ethics or consideration of their own or others' well being. Now it can be as sadistic as magick that is intented to kill another or it could be as mundane as somebody wanting a sports car.

Personally I don't practice black magick. But I don't think it takes much to step into the "dark side" of things and if ever I felt I was in a situation that warrented the use of black magick I would use it.

[Dale Ivarie]

Nature is how I connect spiritually...many pagans claim they do the same but then set them selves up as superior to nature by rejecting violence....nature is violent

Animals are violent weather is violent
violence is not wrong that is a dualistic montheistic concept
It is how and when you use violence that determines it's relative moral standing...

so yup I am perfectly willing to do harm if the situation calls for it...I am not a christian saint and do not believe in turning the other cheek

"Those who beat their swords into plowshears, will end up plowing their fields for those who kept their swords"

Dale

[VelvetBlade]

I think magic is magic is magic. But that said...if you were to preform what's known as black magic to harm someone who's a threat to you or yours....is a spell of harm to them, or a spell of protection to you and yours?

~VB

[Seshata]

but then with this you could go into the territory of - is euthanasia good or bad?

Would you do magick to make someone's ending easier if there was no hope anymore and this is what they wanted or asked for?

BB

Seshata

[Carla O'Harris]

Nature is how I connect spiritually...many pagans claim they do the same but then set them selves up as superior to nature by rejecting violence....nature is violent

Animals are violent weather is violent
violence is not wrong that is a dualistic montheistic concept
It is how and when you use violence that determines it's relative moral standing...

so yup I am perfectly willing to do harm if the situation calls for it...I am not a christian saint and do not believe in turning the other cheek

"Those who beat their swords into plowshears, will end up plowing their fields for those who kept their swords"

Dale


Animals are violent under certain circumstances. The weather is not violent but can be destructive. (Keep in mind that harmonious weather was ruled by gods in Germanic culture, but destructive weather tended to be ruled by Jotunns.)

You're making generalizations that I don't see as clarifying.

"Perfectly willing to do harm if the situation calls for it."

And under what circumstances does the situation call for it?

And why would you need to use magic (ie., a backhanded way that the opponent has no opportunity to defend themselves, one reason why magical attacks were considered unmanly in Norse culture) instead of simply defending yourself physically?

I shudder to think of a mafia-mentality ruling amongst magic users, especially, again, given the widespread cattiness, competition, fragile egos, and in-fighting amongst groups. It's a recipe for disaster. I certainly wouldn't want to associate with someone who didn't have at least a basic commitment to frith, and that means not going off at the drop of a hat and going full force against someone who is at the very least a comrade. Social life cannot function without some commitment to taming violence and competition with some form of harmony and a will not to harm.

[Vigdisdotter]

It's also important to remember that defensiveness can become paranoia

I'll be sure to tell my girlfriend who's BF was beating her black and blue that it was all just in her paranoid mind.

[Vigdisdotter]

Would you do magick to make someone's ending easier if there was no hope anymore and this is what they wanted or asked for?

Yes. It's something I'm facing with my mother. And nightly I pray to my gods that they make what remains of her life joyful and without pain, that they aid her to her crossing.

It would be incredibly selfish of me to keep pumping energy into her just so that she can stick around a few months longer.

[amunakht]

Hey guys, like my new avatar? It's Lucifer_firedevil

[Carla O'Harris]

I'll be sure to tell my girlfriend who's BF was beating her black and blue that it was all just in her paranoid mind.


Hey ... that was only a reminder. Defensiveness becoming paranoia can happen to the best of us.

But again, it seems there are many different options. So many different kinds of bindings (rather than curses)! Magical restraining order. Keep him away from her and anyone else. Desire to get his shit together and improve. Etc...

[Vigdisdotter]

But again, it seems there are many different options. So many different kinds of bindings (rather than curses)!

A binding is still considered "black" magick by many since it seeks to restrict the free will of another.

[CleftOfLight]

Well I have studied Black Magick,and practised it,and have learned a lot.Ihave also practised what would be called white magick.Also I have met people that claimed they were white but were diabolical and those who were black that were very nice.

Is up to the individual of how they use the magick,or there own power.For me I believe the best place is in the middle,Grey,that way you know both sides but do not pledge yoourself to one set system and rules.

[Carla O'Harris]

A binding is still considered "black" magick by many since it seeks to restrict the free will of another.


I've certainly heard that argued, but I don't know that I buy that. I think that's imposing a particular philosophical position upon magic that may not be native to it. Wyrd transcends determinist/free will dichotomies, I think.

By its very nature, it is transforming what the other person wants. If they truly want it, how is their free will interfered with?

Who can say what motivates most people? Who can say what random forces make a person desire this rather than that? Ever since Freud, anyone arguing the extreme position of Free Will is fighting an uphill battle. There are so many motivations, impulses, and even whimsies that can change what a person wants.

On the other hand, if a person is really solid in who they are, and what they're about, they probably wouldn't be very subject to influence. But I doubt such a person would really be perpetuating much evil in the world, either.

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

I'll be sure to tell my girlfriend who's BF was beating her black and blue that it was all just in her paranoid mind.

I hope my saying this doesn't offend anyone, but if you've got a guy physically abusing one of your friends, personally, I'd set aside all magick, black white or grey, and break his nose, then make it clear exactly how much pain he'll be in if he hurts anyone again. Quite honestly, I think it'd be more effective. Maybe it seems a bit too violent, but anyone who's willing to give out ought to know what it's like to get some back.

And yes, afterwards, I'd be awfully tempted to use black magick.

Which is more ethical: Hurting a cruel person to save an innocent some pain, or refusing to hurt another person, however cruel they be, and stand by idle while they cause an innocent harm? Personally, I think protecting the friend is more important than worrying over what means to use on a guy who clearly isn't worth the consideration.

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, beaters and sexual assaulters are certainly much easier to justify ...

So I guess my next question to all and sundry would be ...

... Where do you draw the line?

If you would consider using curses / black magic, where do you draw the line? What offenses would it be acceptable for? What offenses no matter how obnoxious would you not consider it acceptable for? Do you have any limits?

[Sage Rainsong]

... Where do you draw the line?

If you would consider using curses / black magic, where do you draw the line? What offenses would it be acceptable for? What offenses no matter how obnoxious would you not consider it acceptable for? Do you have any limits?

Well I would only do in the case of abusers of some kind. In a case where the other is really going to hurt me or someone I love. Assuming that I can't do something more mundane. If someone were to use say try to slander me and it would affect my life in a serious way, I would probably use a binding. It's very tempting to use vengence against people who have wronged me.

[Malcolm]

If you would consider using curses / black magic, where do you draw the line? What offenses would it be acceptable for? What offenses no matter how obnoxious would you not consider it acceptable for? Do you have any limits?

I'd say intentionally doing harm to anyone is reason enough for a curse. Its obviously on a case by case basis but if their intention was to cause harm from the onset of their actions...then its open season.

Of course this opens the "But your curse intentionally harmed someone so by your logic you should be cursed" thing...which may be true. But thats the burden of the whole process. Is the curse worth the repercutions it may cause? Was the harm they inflicted worth the potential backlash(and I don't mean karma or the rule of three...I don't buy either)?

[MankyCat]

I hope my saying this doesn't offend anyone, but if you've got a guy physically abusing one of your friends, personally, I'd set aside all magick, black white or grey, and break his nose, then make it clear exactly how much pain he'll be in if he hurts anyone again. Quite honestly, I think it'd be more effective. Maybe it seems a bit too violent, but anyone who's willing to give out ought to know what it's like to get some back.

And yes, afterwards, I'd be awfully tempted to use black magick.

Which is more ethical: Hurting a cruel person to save an innocent some pain, or refusing to hurt another person, however cruel they be, and stand by idle while they cause an innocent harm? Personally, I think protecting the friend is more important than worrying over what means to use on a guy who clearly isn't worth the consideration.


That's if that friends *wants* to be helped. A lot of times, such efforts can make the person cling more to their abuser. Unfortunately, in most abuse cases, the best thing to do is be there for the person and be ready to call the cops or knock the asshole out if necessary for your friend's survival.

Abusers can manipulate the victom's mentality, their way of thought, to the point that the victim will drive you away if you try to meddle (ie. protect them).

It's that double edged blade again. You try to help, and many times end up doing more harm.

But... even if considered "backhanded" by some, magic can do much more in the way of getting rid of some creeps. Be there for your friend emotionally and physically. She'd need that. Do your spellworkings to help her through, safely, and get rid of Mr. Jerk.

[MankyCat]

... Where do you draw the line?

If you would consider using curses / black magic, where do you draw the line? What offenses would it be acceptable for? What offenses no matter how obnoxious would you not consider it acceptable for? Do you have any limits?

I think I asked that earlier... and to answer... the line is drawn where each individual draws it.

I'm trying to understand where you stand. You seem to argue two sides in this.

[MankyCat]

Hey guys, like my new avatar? It's Lucifer_firedevil


Love it. Was just thinking about Lucifer the other day. The story of him anyways. Goes with what I said on the Ouija thread.

Many people consider him "evil". He's manipulative, deceitful, conniving, vengeful, and so forth.

But if you read about him, the stories in the Bible and other texts, you may see that he's not evil at all. He is merely doing his job. He doesn't want to be there, but he was assigned there as a form of punishment. A punishment for the sin of loving God more than man and believing that he and his fellow angels (who were at that time more like indentured servants or slaves) should be placed above humans in God's heart. He wanted his "father" and master to love him and his brothers as much as they loved him. That's what brought about the war that ended with Lucifer being thrown down to Hell and being assigned the role of watching over God's wayward and less worthy flock. He was assigned the role to help weed out the unworthy so only the best and most devout humans could reach Heaven.

As I said in the Ouija thread, all because a cat must hunt doesn't make it evil.

[Vigdisdotter]

if you've got a guy physically abusing one of your friends, personally, I'd set aside all magick, black white or grey, and break his nose

I'd love too, except that I was in the same town as she at the time.

Magick wasn't a first resort, it was a last. After the moving out, the not answering phone calls and seeking a restraining order.


Personally, I think protecting the friend is more important than worrying over what means to use on a guy who clearly isn't worth the consideration.

I agree.

[Vigdisdotter]

I've certainly heard that argued, but I don't know that I buy that. I think that's imposing a particular philosophical position upon magic that may not be native to it. Wyrd transcends determinist/free will dichotomies, I think.

And thus why I made my original point about there not BEING black and white magick. Nothing is is clear cut as being one or the other as you yourself show.


If they truly want it, how is their free will interfered with?

And you have the authority to determine what people REALLY want? <raises eyebrow>


Frankly I don't buy that one. I've seen it used so many times to justify not doing something, not caring, to rationalize a great number of unsavory things....including that my mother CHOSE to get renal failure and suffer a long decline before death.

Nope, not going there. It's too arrogant for words.


they probably wouldn't be very subject to influence.

Sure they would. Everyone is. The difference between a strong practitioner and a weak one is knowing how to effectively apply that influence.

[La Fortuna]

Hi All!:wave:

I believe in restoring Maat (truth, balance and order). If it takes a special kind of ritual to do that, then I will not hesitate.

I have had to use Heka (authoritative Utterance) to deal with a couple of situations and only if other means have failed. It always works and I don't believe one suffers negative consequences for seeking justice, truth and restoration of order. I think is is our duty to restore these things as we are presented with the dilemma.

Malicious acts are another story. I think most will agree with me, that it is not appropriate to act with "dubious magic" out of unreasonable emotions such as jealousy, envy, greed or hatred or out of maliciousness.

Warm regards, La Fortuna:fpraise:

[Dale Ivarie]

Animals are violent under certain circumstances. The weather is not violent but can be destructive. (Keep in mind that harmonious weather was ruled by gods in Germanic culture, but destructive weather tended to be ruled by Jotunns.)

You're making generalizations that I don't see as clarifying.

"Perfectly willing to do harm if the situation calls for it."

And under what circumstances does the situation call for it?

And why would you need to use magic (ie., a backhanded way that the opponent has no opportunity to defend themselves, one reason why magical attacks were considered unmanly in Norse culture) instead of simply defending yourself physically?

I shudder to think of a mafia-mentality ruling amongst magic users, especially, again, given the widespread cattiness, competition, fragile egos, and in-fighting amongst groups. It's a recipe for disaster. I certainly wouldn't want to associate with someone who didn't have at least a basic commitment to frith, and that means not going off at the drop of a hat and going full force against someone who is at the very least a comrade. Social life cannot function without some commitment to taming violence and competition with some form of harmony and a will not to harm.


Animals are violent under many circumstances and at times for little reason or provocation...
Ahh so destructive is different than violent....spliting hairs in my view...

I coach a mixed martial arts team..full contact and the rituals fighters do before a fight could very easily be called a form of magic...and I see nothing wrong with it..

If you research back to cultures like the celts...they were very mafia like actually...
Definately a violent society...

Violence is a tool like a hammer
A tool's value is determined by how it is used not the fact it is a hammer

You can build a house with a hammer
or
You can break some one's skull with it

An example to illustrate...
If the police suddenly could do nothing more violent than use harsh language...
How much death and destruction would be caused by those kept in check by the violence the police could normally bring to bear...

I personally would think if you took the police off the streets or removed their ability to use force few people would feel safe....

Violence is a tool...to say it is evil is moral dualism ultimate good ultimate evil..brought to us by the monotheisitic black and white religions..the reason I am pagan is I think the world is made up of many shades and colors...pure evil pure good...black and white are
RARE...

Just my thoughts...

Remember thinking of dancing monkeys will usually produce a smile...

Dale

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

Well, beaters and sexual assaulters are certainly much easier to justify ...

So I guess my next question to all and sundry would be ...

... Where do you draw the line?

If you would consider using curses / black magic, where do you draw the line? What offenses would it be acceptable for? What offenses no matter how obnoxious would you not consider it acceptable for? Do you have any limits?


Ahh, that's the real problem, isn't it? For my part, I think it should be used primarily as a last resort. The only time I would completely flip and go all-out warfare on somebody is if they deliberately caused an innocent serious harm (or attempted to cause serious harm) I, personally, have never used black magick. However, I have done a lot of training physically, and if someone hurts another deliberately (especially people I care about), I pay it back tenfold. It's wrong to harm another simply because they annoy you, but when they cross the line, I have no qualms about stepping over it with them. The only crimes I cover under this are abuse and assault. Abject neglect often gets my Irish up as well, but I don't feel punishment is able to fix that.

[anasia*la*fae]

how do define black magic? demonology? satanism? mal-intent? or just calling on the dark deities?

if we're talking about mal-intent, why would you want to do anything to hurt yourself? after all, i find that when you have plans to hurt somebody, you spend more time making yourself angry and irritated by dwelling on them and how you're going to 'get them' than taking care of the problem without mal-intent, by extent having a horrible experience in the process.

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

how do define black magic? demonology? satanism? mal-intent? or just calling on the dark deities?

if we're talking about mal-intent, why would you want to do anything to hurt yourself? after all, i find that when you have plans to hurt somebody, you spend more time making yourself angry and irritated by dwelling on them and how you're going to 'get them' than taking care of the problem without mal-intent, by extent having a horrible experience in the process.

My definition of black magick is magick intended to harm or manipulate an individual. And while the fact that, more often than not, you get hurt in some way in the process is a strong deterent, for extreme situations it could be necessary. When I talk about potentially using it, I'm not speaking solely for 'revenge' reasons. I'm speaking out of defense-of-others, only to be used when someone has done or plans to do something truely terrible. If a person hurts another and gets away with it, they're highly likely to continue to do so. If I can make them realize they won't get away with it, I will, even if it means I'll get hurt in the process. After all, if a person attacks someone and I do nothing to either prevent it or stop them from doing it again, I am partially guilty for all the pain they put others through later, because I allowed them to do so. I would rather cause myself harm to protect others than keep myself clean and allow others to be hurt.

I don't know if that makes sense to you, but that's the best I can explain it.

[amunakht]

how do define black magic? demonology? satanism? mal-intent? or just calling on the dark deities?

I believe you mean Demonolatry, demonology is just the study of demons.

[chris5389ny]

I have done it in the past but I know better now because it certainly does come back to you.

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

I have done it in the past but I know better now because it certainly does come back to you.

I don't mean to pry or open old wounds, so feel free to tell me it's none of my business, but I've got to ask: What happened? How bad did it come back?

[anasia*la*fae]

My definition of black magick is magick intended to harm or manipulate an individual. And while the fact that, more often than not, you get hurt in some way in the process is a strong deterent, for extreme situations it could be necessary. When I talk about potentially using it, I'm not speaking solely for 'revenge' reasons. I'm speaking out of defense-of-others, only to be used when someone has done or plans to do something truely terrible. If a person hurts another and gets away with it, they're highly likely to continue to do so. If I can make them realize they won't get away with it, I will, even if it means I'll get hurt in the process. After all, if a person attacks someone and I do nothing to either prevent it or stop them from doing it again, I am partially guilty for all the pain they put others through later, because I allowed them to do so. I would rather cause myself harm to protect others than keep myself clean and allow others to be hurt.

I don't know if that makes sense to you, but that's the best I can explain it.

that makes perfect sense to me- but i think you can go about that situation seeking justice without mal-intent being the source that powers your magic.

[anasia*la*fae]

I believe you mean Demonolatry, demonology is just the study of demons.

ty:hahugh:

[anasia*la*fae]

I believe you mean Demonolatry, demonology is just the study of demons.

ty:nyah:

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

that makes perfect sense to me- but i think you can go about that situation seeking justice without mal-intent being the source that powers your magic.

I don't think of it as mal-intent, not exactly. Say Person A is going to seriously hurt Person B, and there's no way you can resolve the situation peacefully. Yes, I may have to do something that hurts Person A to get Person B out of there, but the intent was never to hurt Person A. The intent was to protect Person B. There are some situations in which you must either do both or do neither. For my part, I will always be the one to do both. If someone is going to be hurt no matter which way I step, I've got to do what I can to protect he/she who is being attacked.

That's the reason it's only last resort. I do try to find whatever outs I can before I fight. I don't like hurting others, but sometimes you just don't have a choice. There are a lot of bad people in this world who can't be reasoned with or outrun.

[Cynyr]

Do you practice it?

No, dont' even know how.



do you think it is wrong?


Wrong is a relative term, so no.



why?


because it can be fought and countered.



Do you think there is a time and place to practice the Black art?


uh, yah! Any!



Do you have any experiences you can share with us, either as testiments of the power of black magick, or as a warning why not to do it?

alas, No

[Sequoia]

Can't vote. No suitable answer. Same old stupid question. C'yah.

[Carla O'Harris]

And thus why I made my original point about there not BEING black and white magick. Nothing is is clear cut as being one or the other as you yourself show.



And you have the authority to determine what people REALLY want? <raises eyebrow>


Frankly I don't buy that one. I've seen it used so many times to justify not doing something, not caring, to rationalize a great number of unsavory things....including that my mother CHOSE to get renal failure and suffer a long decline before death.

Nope, not going there. It's too arrogant for words.



Sure they would. Everyone is. The difference between a strong practitioner and a weak one is knowing how to effectively apply that influence.


I think we may have a misunderstanding here. I never said I had the authority to determine what people really want. I was making a much simpler statement : if one influences desire so that another really wants something, then they really want it. It's tautological. I make no claims as to their heart or soul's true will. I'm not making the new-age argument that everyone chooses what happens to them. All I'm saying is that if you believe that one can cause another to desire something magically, and they truly are being caused to desire, then by definition they desire it. There's no grand philosophical statement being made here.


As far as not being able to distinguish between black and white magic merely because of the twists and turns of wyrd, I think this is a cop-out. Ethical evaluations, judgements, and distinctions can be made even in the midst of a colorful world, and it is important to do so. I do not buy into any form of ethical relativism. It is far too easy for human beings to justify what they do, especially when they are angry. I have heard people here say that they would only do something rash when the situation warranted it, but even then some have expressed a willingness to go far beyond all sense of proportional justice. I hesitate to think that people with a limited ethical sense should arrogate to themselves the powers of gods --- we have licenses for guns, and I think there's some logic to limitations on magical powers when it may be the equivalent of giving moral children matches to play with. I'm not directing that towards anyone here, but discussing it as a larger principle. I think drawing on a little of Kant's categorical imperative here might be of some value. If one is going to be "playing god", and that is, in a sense, what this kind of magic is, then one might want to ask whether the kind of god one is enacting is the kind of god one would want governing the universe, human affairs, or both.

As far as a strong practitioner being able to change the desires of anyone, I'm not sure I agree with you. This may rest on some philosophical principles. If there is such a thing as a True Will, and one is aligned with it, it is unlikely that distractive desires are going to take one off course. The degree to which one is subject to poor impulse control and distraction by whimsy will probably determine the degree to which one is subject to this kind of magic. Hypnotists know you can only get someone to do something they might otherwise agree to do under some circumstances anyway ; that someone affecting others in dream-states or subliminal states would have much more power than this is highly doubtful.

[Carla O'Harris]

I don't think of it as mal-intent, not exactly. Say Person A is going to seriously hurt Person B, and there's no way you can resolve the situation peacefully. Yes, I may have to do something that hurts Person A to get Person B out of there, but the intent was never to hurt Person A. The intent was to protect Person B. There are some situations in which you must either do both or do neither. For my part, I will always be the one to do both. If someone is going to be hurt no matter which way I step, I've got to do what I can to protect he/she who is being attacked.

That's the reason it's only last resort. I do try to find whatever outs I can before I fight. I don't like hurting others, but sometimes you just don't have a choice. There are a lot of bad people in this world who can't be reasoned with or outrun.


I agree with you, in theory, and your examples do seem to illustrate some prudence in your judgements, but I will just add that protectors often themselves become protection rackets ... In other words, it makes some sense to distrust good guys/bad guys arguments, when the good guys are allowed to use the same tactics the bad guys use, but the good guys are protecting us, and somehow their use of these tactics in no way stains them. It is the structure of almost all narratives in Western culture, what one theologian has called the myth of "redemptive violence". Obviously there are some situations where one has to judge for oneself, and all the abstract theorizing in the world is not going to stop one from defending oneself. But again, often restraint itself is enough to defend oneself. Heroes often go overboard trying to prove how heroic they are.

[Seshata]

But then are you indicating by those comments that action should not be taken? Just because someone may have to use a more 'hands on' reaction to deal with someone - eg if pulling them off or yelling at them will not stop a physical attack does not immediately imho indicate that they are 'stained' or will use physical force again. To add, they may also use force to restrain the attacker if they've called for officials (eg police) to attend the scene.

Also, talking magically. How about if you have had someone who is pretty good with their magic who decides to attack you (no figments of imagination, I'm using as an example a case that I know that happened), you've used the 'protection techniques' but there is only so much of that you can use, the attack continues - what would you do? Various things were happening, including a plague of insects without any way that they could have spontaneously appeared - trust me on that. Mundane methods aren't going to work here. Yes, there are various ways and even within bindings you can get pretty close to the line, they are not all lighter than light and in some ways can be seen as a 'nastier' effect than a 'curse'.

Personally I think it all comes down to experience and the individuals concerned. Not all that do 'cursings' or 'bindings' are doing it in the heat of the moment, some have weighed out all the options and have found themselves in a situation where action needs to be taken.

BB

Seshata

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

The worst thing about attacking someone, even when it's absolutely neccesary to protect another, is the bad taste it leaves in your mouth. I've been in situations like that a couple of times, and even though I can think of no other outcome no matter how many times I review what happened, I still feel guilt for it. Sometime's I think it's worse than being the bad guy; at least then others determine your punishment. When no one dishes it out even though you feel you deserve it, you end up punishing yourself.

I think that, because of this, if I ever ran into a situation where I had to fight to save my own skin rather than to defend another, I'd just let myself get hit and hope for a chance to run.

[amunakht]

I feel no remorse. If they deserve it, then so be it. If you trully hate your enemy then you will feel no compassion, no guilt for them whatever.

If you are feeling guilt then you don't trully hate them. I hate one certain guy I know with a true hate. If he dies I would LAUGH.

[Vigdisdotter]

As far as not being able to distinguish between black and white magic merely because of the twists and turns of wyrd


That's not what I said. You should probably read my post again.


Ethical evaluations, judgements, and distinctions can be made even in the midst of a colorful world, and it is important to do so.


Agreed, but there is no hard and fast rule about what is "ethical". What one person considers beneficial could be detrimental to the mind of another. THAT is why black and white magick don't exist, because the labeling is wholly subjective and entirely artificial. It only addresses the speakers opinion, not the magick itself.


I do not buy into any form of ethical relativism.


Why not? Look around you. people have different values, so of course it's relative.


I hesitate to think that people with a limited ethical sense should arrogate to themselves the powers of gods


Ummm...thay already do. It's a bit late for complaining, and not relevant to the topic.


I think there's some logic to limitations on magical powers when it may be the equivalent of giving moral children matches to play with.


Why? What do you have to base this on? If you're going to argue an absolute lawgiver, then first you have to show that such exists.


As far as a strong practitioner being able to change the desires of anyone, I'm not sure I agree with you.


I was using your own logic on that one. So are now saying that people can't want things?


If there is such a thing as a True Will, and one is aligned with it, it is unlikely that distractive desires are going to take one off course.


You're assuming people have attained such. I've not met anyone that was possessed of such a state.

[Carla O'Harris]

That's not what I said. You should probably read my post again.



Agreed, but there is no hard and fast rule about what is "ethical". What one person considers beneficial could be detrimental to the mind of another. THAT is why black and white magick don't exist, because the labeling is wholly subjective and entirely artificial. It only addresses the speakers opinion, not the magick itself.



Why not? Look around you. people have different values, so of course it's relative.



Ummm...thay already do. It's a bit late for complaining, and not relevant to the topic.



Why? What do you have to base this on? If you're going to argue an absolute lawgiver, then first you have to show that such exists.



I was using your own logic on that one. So are now saying that people can't want things?



You're assuming people have attained such. I've not met anyone that was possessed of such a state.


It doesn't make it subjective. There are standards whereby one can determine the ethics of an action.

Again, I don't subscribe to ethical relativism. I know that there are different values, but not all of them are right. The Nazis thought they were right. They were wrong. Ethical relativism is a pathological form of conformity. The fact that people will conform to any variety of cultural norms no matter how pathological is not something to celebrate.


But people playing god and not thinking about the kind of god they're playing IS very relevant to the discussion.

I don't have to show an absolute lawgiver. I can show the necessity for regulation, and let human beings regulate such. And they did so --- quite justifiably, I believe, in some cases --- for many years by taking to court those who engaged in maleficia, which was, I believe, quite justifiably a crime. While it was abused under the Inquisition, it worked quite well in Germanic, Roman, and other cultures. There human beings did get together and decide to draw the line. And in fact, in cultures all over the world, shamans are in danger of being burned if they step over the line and end up causing too much harm. Not a bad thing, I think : shaman-types can often get too arrogant and begin to think they're god. Look at gurus, after all.


Well, "True Will" may be an ideal that no one ever reaches, but there is a threshold beyond which trying to change what one wants is going to do very little. For example, a spell to make someone no longer desire another who they love very much, when they are an extremely loyal person who knows themselves and knows what they want, is not going to do much. Jedi mind tricks work on the mentally weak.

[Carla O'Harris]

I feel no remorse. If they deserve it, then so be it. If you trully hate your enemy then you will feel no compassion, no guilt for them whatever.

If you are feeling guilt then you don't trully hate them. I hate one certain guy I know with a true hate. If he dies I would LAUGH.


So hating someone is all the justification necessary to cause harm?

So you want to live in a world where the law of the blood feud is the only law that regulates human relations?

So you will living in a world of hate, and have no problem perpetuating that hate, no matter what the costs are?

To feel no guilt over doing harm to another is to be sociopathic. It's something worth considering. I'm not saying anything about you personally, but it is still worth giving some thought to.

[Vigdisdotter]

It doesn't make it subjective. There are standards whereby one can determine the ethics of an action.


Of course it's subjective, since those standards change from person to person, country to country, time period to time period.


Again, I don't subscribe to ethical relativism.



You still aren't showing me how I'm wrong.


Ethical relativism is a pathological form of conformity.



I disagree and will turn that around on you. Relativism requires that one can think and judge for themselves REGARDLESS of what others say. Your absolutism on the other hand is very much the pathological conformity you speak of.


But people playing god and not thinking about the kind of god they're playing IS very relevant to the discussion.


Nope, since you still have not shown how it relates, nor what is wrong with my statements about relative ethics.


I don't have to show an absolute lawgiver.



Yes you do, because until you do, my examples of ethical relativism, being both acceptable and real, stands undisputed. Never mind that without such all you have is one person deciding that their way is the right way and imposing it on others.


I can show the necessity for regulation


So you want one person's relative ethical system imposed on another. That doesn't' seem to help your case.


there is a threshold beyond which trying to change what one wants is going to do very little.


And again, it's the measure of one's skill to know how to go about achieving that change, since as you say, none will reach that ideal.

You're still not actually refuting anything I've said, merely repeating your own opinion.

[amunakht]

So hating someone is all the justification necessary to cause harm?

So you want to live in a world where the law of the blood feud is the only law that regulates human relations?

So you will living in a world of hate, and have no problem perpetuating that hate, no matter what the costs are?

To feel no guilt over doing harm to another is to be sociopathic. It's something worth considering. I'm not saying anything about you personally, but it is still worth giving some thought to.

No, hate towards a person is caused by something they did wrong to you. If it was just a little thing, then nothing happens and you should forget it but not if it's something serious.

[Dale Ivarie]

Death and violence are parts of the natural cycle of life..to reject them is to reject nature..

I do not feel superior to the farm cat who tortures a ground squirel because it's in its nature......

I am not superior to any other spirit..equal to some...beneath others...it is simply the way of things...

Dale

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

I feel no remorse. If they deserve it, then so be it. If you trully hate your enemy then you will feel no compassion, no guilt for them whatever.

If you are feeling guilt then you don't trully hate them. I hate one certain guy I know with a true hate. If he dies I would LAUGH.
I guess I just can't find it in me to truly hate anyone, even if I ought to. I'm kind of glad that I don't. At least I know that, if I feel remorse for my enemies, I haven't turned into them.

[David19]

No, hate towards a person is caused by something they did wrong to you. If it was just a little thing, then nothing happens and you should forget it but not if it's something serious.

I think i get what you're saying, if it's something serious (like say someone raped your daughter or son, or a pediphile abused a child you knew, etc), then they deserve what's coming to you.

I'd use magic against someone like a pediphile, rapist (like i was raped, or friend, boyfriend, whatever, etc, i think they'd deserve what was coming to them), or racist's (say someone threatened a friend of mine or one of my Jewish relatives, etc).

I think it all depends on the situation, people shouldn't curse someone or whatever just for getting a parking ticket (instead, do some magic so the car gets undetected by parking wardens or something), small stuff doesn't matter, big stuff, i think, justifies the means.

I think Anton Lavey said it (although i'm not too sure 'cause i don't have the Satanic Bible), but when you curse someone, you should make sure you don't feel any guilt or feelings at all to them, so don't curse a friend, but i doubt you'll have 'loving' feelings to a rapist, etc.

Not sure if i made sense there.

[anasia*la*fae]

I don't think of it as mal-intent, not exactly. Say Person A is going to seriously hurt Person B, and there's no way you can resolve the situation peacefully. Yes, I may have to do something that hurts Person A to get Person B out of there, but the intent was never to hurt Person A. The intent was to protect Person B. There are some situations in which you must either do both or do neither. For my part, I will always be the one to do both. If someone is going to be hurt no matter which way I step, I've got to do what I can to protect he/she who is being attacked.

That's the reason it's only last resort. I do try to find whatever outs I can before I fight. I don't like hurting others, but sometimes you just don't have a choice. There are a lot of bad people in this world who can't be reasoned with or outrun.

i have an inkling that we may be saying the same thing!

[anasia*la*fae]

The worst thing about attacking someone, even when it's absolutely neccesary to protect another, is the bad taste it leaves in your mouth. I've been in situations like that a couple of times, and even though I can think of no other outcome no matter how many times I review what happened, I still feel guilt for it. Sometime's I think it's worse than being the bad guy; at least then others determine your punishment. When no one dishes it out even though you feel you deserve it, you end up punishing yourself.

I think that, because of this, if I ever ran into a situation where I had to fight to save my own skin rather than to defend another, I'd just let myself get hit and hope for a chance to run.

i understand that too well. i find it much easier to stand up for others than myself in those situations, because i feel it's worth whatever i have to take on if it means i can stop unnecessary violence towards someone else. but somehow when it's against me, i feel the need to get through it without hurting them but only restraining them if necessary. maybe it's an idealistic sense that i can reason with anybody, and i hope to get them to stop for themselves without my control intervening. i know it's silly, and a bit polyanna, or maybe it's just that i trust my own strength too much and am setting myself up for the fall.

[Carla O'Harris]

Of course it's subjective, since those standards change from person to person, country to country, time period to time period.




You still aren't showing me how I'm wrong.




I disagree and will turn that around on you. Relativism requires that one can think and judge for themselves REGARDLESS of what others say. Your absolutism on the other hand is very much the pathological conformity you speak of.



Nope, since you still have not shown how it relates, nor what is wrong with my statements about relative ethics.




Yes you do, because until you do, my examples of ethical relativism, being both acceptable and real, stands undisputed. Never mind that without such all you have is one person deciding that their way is the right way and imposing it on others.



So you want one person's relative ethical system imposed on another. That doesn't' seem to help your case.



And again, it's the measure of one's skill to know how to go about achieving that change, since as you say, none will reach that ideal.

You're still not actually refuting anything I've said, merely repeating your own opinion.



Nor was it my intention to refute it. An entire refutation of the philosophical commitment to ethical relativism would take a series of debates much longer than I'm willing to commit to at this point. You are taking a classically ethical/cultural relativism position. I am taking a critical position, giving the possibility for critiquing behavior in any context. I don't will the energy at present to such a debate. Maybe some other time.

When you say I'm repeating my position, you are correct. I am countering you merely by making it clear that your position is not the only position. We can hash out the relativism versus critical perspective in some other forum. I will, for the moment, however, point out that the most consistent adherent to ethical/cultural relativism was the Marquis de Sade, and there are some frightening implications to his invocations of that principle. (I am not implying that you follow those directions, but merely pointing out they have dangerous ramifications.)

[Carla O'Harris]

No, hate towards a person is caused by something they did wrong to you. If it was just a little thing, then nothing happens and you should forget it but not if it's something serious.


How far back? There were people who did quite injurious things to me in junior high school whom I most certainly felt hate towards (but would never have considered cursing, although perhaps wishing them away), who I've gotten over it. (Obviously, some injuries one would not get over. But those are the kind that are seriously injurious.)

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

i understand that too well. i find it much easier to stand up for others than myself in those situations, because i feel it's worth whatever i have to take on if it means i can stop unnecessary violence towards someone else. but somehow when it's against me, i feel the need to get through it without hurting them but only restraining them if necessary. maybe it's an idealistic sense that i can reason with anybody, and i hope to get them to stop for themselves without my control intervening. i know it's silly, and a bit polyanna, or maybe it's just that i trust my own strength too much and am setting myself up for the fall.
I think it's easier to take risks like that when you don't have to worry over the safety of a third person. In my mind, there's also the issue of who-deserves-what when it's 1-on-1 between you and a would-be attacker. If I'm in a position where either I'll be seriously hurt, or even killed, unless I do so to the other person, well, who am I to say I deserve life more than they do? Logically, one would think, "Well, they're attacking me, so obviously they're the bad guys", but that doesn't stop me from wondering if, on the whole, they're still a better person than I am, and maybe I don't have the right to inflict pain. It's a weird moral dillemma for me.

[CleftOfLight]

IF you are being beating by a bf or gf.And you make no attempt to get away,or ask for help,then in some sick way you must enjoy it.And are therefore more responsible than the abusive person because you are feeding his/her power cravings.If I was beating I would be gone so fast all you would see is GHOST.

Also I tried to help an abused woman ounce and she attacked me for breakig her bf nose.So since then I will tell the person were to get help,how to get there and pray that they have enough strength to be delivered from that situation.

WILL is always apart of all magick.Will and Faith or your strongest tools.

Draw the line? Why must such lines be drawn? Magick has no limits.You may use magick one way I another yet magick is both.I see no use in having lines,let the individual decide as they go.

No one is better than another person.We must come to understand that we are all on an equal playing field.The only barriers are the ones you set on yourself in your mind.

If you can't stand up for yourself then how are you ever going to stand up for others?

[~Elise~]

IF you are being beating by a bf or gf.And you make no attempt to get away,or ask for help,then in some sick way you must enjoy it.And are therefore more responsible than the abusive person because you are feeding his/her power cravings.If I was beating I would be gone so fast all you would see is GHOST.

Also I tried to help an abused woman ounce and she attacked me for breakig her bf nose.So since then I will tell the person were to get help,how to get there and pray that they have enough strength to be delivered from that situation.

WILL is always apart of all magick.Will and Faith or your strongest tools.

Draw the line? Why must such lines be drawn? Magick has no limits.You may use magick one way I another yet magick is both.I see no use in having lines,let the individual decide as they go.

No one is better than another person.We must come to understand that we are all on an equal playing field.The only barriers are the ones you set on yourself in your mind.

If you can't stand up for yourself then how are you ever going to stand up for others?

Those who are beaten are NOT sick. They have NO or low self esteem and think that is what they deserve. You need to re-think this line of thought.
In most cases, their parent beat them and/or parent was beaten - and the cycle continues.

Before you get all high and mighty--do some research.

JMO and YMMV

Elise

[gurlygurl2004]

I tried it in my early, disgruntled teen days. I knew it was wrong but I was always tempted with it. On occasion I'm tempted to do a black, love spell. That means the ultimate taboo: making someone fall in love with you (through a spell).

[Vigdisdotter]

Nor was it my intention to refute it.


Then why are you bother to post to me? You certainly don't seem willing to engage in discussion, since you refuse to address my points.


When you say I'm repeating my position, you are correct. I am countering you merely by making it clear that your position is not the only position.


And there's no way anyone could have figure that out on their own, right?

Again, why are you bothering to post to me? Your dancing franticly as you avoid actual discussion isn't the least bit interesting to me.


We can hash out the relativism versus critical perspective in some other forum.


What wrong with this one? After all, it's where YOU made your claims about ethics.

So go for it. Explain your claims. Start with what made for "frightening implications."

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

If you can't stand up for yourself then how are you ever going to stand up for others?
Easy. I care more about others than I care about myself.

[XsimpleXsimonX]

Wouldnt black magic be wrong by definition?

[Xirian]

Wouldnt black magic be wrong by definition?
I suppose that would depend on your definition of "black" magic. If you view "black" magic as I do, (which is why I still haven't voted on this poll), then the answer to your question would be, no.

(You will understand why "black" is quoted above, once you read the following quote:)


At this point in my life, I personally don't necessarily believe in black magic. Yes, I believe there are forms of magic that may produce negative effects on all parties, but I'm not sure I believe that the manipulation of energy is necessarily a good or bad thing, but just is. I am of the thinking that whatever type of magic you do is negative as well as positive at the same time, even if you are only using your own energy and manipulating or taking and replacing it with some other kind of energy.

Now as far as others are concerned, I'm sure their answers to your question might be different from mine. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Malcolm]

Wouldnt black magic be wrong by definition?

In so far as the term is rubbish and doesn't exist yes. Magic has no color. Its just a tool its no more evil or good than a pipe wrench depending on how its used. You could whack someone over the head with a pipe wrench but it doesn't suddenly become a "black pipe wrench". You could just as easily fix a pipe but that doesn't make the wrench a "white pipe wrench".

[MankyCat]

Those who are beaten are NOT sick. They have NO or low self esteem and think that is what they deserve. You need to re-think this line of thought.
In most cases, their parent beat them and/or parent was beaten - and the cycle continues.

Perhaps re-think this too.

A lot of times, you are slowly conditioned to stay in those situations. The relationship you enterred is far from what it turns out to be, but by the time you realize this, you are so far from who you were that you can't even think straight. Manipulators and abusers know how to bide their time, widdle you down, blind you, deafen you, turn you on yourself... it can take months or years to do that, but they will get you to that point. They feed on your weaknesses and trust and faith, and plant themselves on them. Then, like weeds, they spread through you, strangling your strengths, hopes, and resolve.

My sister put it best. They change the way you think. They change the way you see things. It's like they change everything you were and your brain is no longer functioning as it should. Worst part? You don't even realize this is happening, it's done so thoroughly and meticulously. (The guy that did that to me worked at it for years to get me to that point.)

I had and have a very high self esteem in many ways, even then. I just couldn't see where the poisons were coming from and that they were hurting me. Abuse isn't always physical... and by the time it is, you likely already went through other forms that prepped you to take that punch. (However, he knew that if he threw, punched, or did anything physically violent to me, the animals, or even an inanimate object, I'd be gone. Sometimes though, I knew that he was very close to doing something. I learned the game and the dance and avoided what he apparently did to his previous g-f... which I only recently found out he did.)

Easy to say you wouldn't stay or put up with that... when you haven't gone through it.

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

In so far as the term is rubbish and doesn't exist yes. Magic has no color. Its just a tool its no more evil or good than a pipe wrench depending on how its used. You could whack someone over the head with a pipe wrench but it doesn't suddenly become a "black pipe wrench". You could just as easily fix a pipe but that doesn't make the wrench a "white pipe wrench".
True. I'm pretty sure the term is just to clarify the meaning. In this case, it means magick intended to harm or manipulate, for whatever cause. Is it actually a different kind of magick? No. But it simplifies an explanation of the topic to two words.

[Fechín Taliba Rune]

Wouldnt black magic be wrong by definition?
Not necessarily. First of all, to my way of thinking, magick is magick is magick. This whole 'black magick'/'white magick' term thing just helps us clarify the intent. I define black magick as any magick that will harm or manipulate any other. This doesn't mean it is always wrong, because sometimes such things may be absolutely neccesary for the defense of one's self or of others.

[anasia*la*fae]

IF you are being beating by a bf or gf.And you make no attempt to get away,or ask for help,then in some sick way you must enjoy it.And are therefore more responsible than the abusive person because you are feeding his/her power cravings.If I was beating I would be gone so fast all you would see is GHOST.

Also I tried to help an abused woman ounce and she attacked me for breakig her bf nose.So since then I will tell the person were to get help,how to get there and pray that they have enough strength to be delivered from that situation.

WILL is always apart of all magick.Will and Faith or your strongest tools.

Draw the line? Why must such lines be drawn? Magick has no limits.You may use magick one way I another yet magick is both.I see no use in having lines,let the individual decide as they go.

No one is better than another person.We must come to understand that we are all on an equal playing field.The only barriers are the ones you set on yourself in your mind.

If you can't stand up for yourself then how are you ever going to stand up for others?

i know too many people in this situation or who have been in it. but as one reply has already been made, if they don't feel they deserve anything better, why take the effort to change it, since you are so undeserving that it will happen again?

i've helped some people who had been in this situation, but the perp had either died or been jailed. they still had the mentality that that kind of abuse forces and conditions into a child- because you can almost always trace it back to childhood abuse of some sort that distorted their sense of self. the person who is closest to my that i helped was in a downward spiral of self-destruction when i met him. only now- after two years of being repeatedly shown that there is joy and beauty in the world- reason for living- is he getting to the point where he won't allow that to happen to him and where he is starting to feel the equality we all spout. it's such a hard thing to do, for the victim and anyone helping them. it comes down to inner validation and self-worth. there will always be someone out there ready and willing to abuse someone else. it's very sad, but true. breaking the perp's nose might make you feel better for the moment, but even if that one leaves, another will come along until the victim is truly healed.

you are right to say the power to stop abuse lies in the one being abused. but one who's mindset has been so altered and or mal-nourished cannot be compared to someone who has not known true abuse. it is infinitely hard, and yet paradoxically simple, for someone to truly leave such a situation. the best thing any of us can do is remove our judgments and help them to see the joy and beauty innate in the world around and how it can be tapped into at any point- thus giving them a reason to live. it may not have a lot to do with magic, but it's the most magical thing we can do.

[MankyCat]

they still had the mentality that that kind of abuse forces and conditions into a child- because you can almost always trace it back to childhood abuse of some sort that distorted their sense of self.

I've known a number of people who did not have abuse in their childhood and ended up in the same trapping. It's not always that the abusee feels they deserve it. More cases than not, they know they don't, they just don't know how to end it. (And in some cases, the fear of what that person would do to you if you leave might keep you there longer than the fear of being hurt.) And a lot of times, the abusees can see beauty in the world. They can even feel joy. It's an interesting picture people in this thread are painting of abused people. Like they are these pathetic victims that want what they are getting. That they have no self-worth or "reason to live". Unfortunately, that doesn't help rectify the problem at hand and can actually worsen the situation.

We all have our own lessons. You don't need to show an abused person beauty in the world. But you can be the shoulder they cry on when they hit rock bottom. Sometimes, that support will help them take the first step to get out. Finding people to show them "the beauty in the world" isn't the hard part. The hard part is finding an understanding ear when hard times come.

[anasia*la*fae]

It's an interesting picture people in this thread are painting of abused people. Like they are these pathetic victims that want what they are getting. That they have no self-worth or "reason to live". Unfortunately, that doesn't help rectify the problem at hand and can actually worsen the situation.

We all have our own lessons. You don't need to show an abused person beauty in the world. But you can be the shoulder they cry on when they hit rock bottom. Sometimes, that support will help them take the first step to get out. Finding people to show them "the beauty in the world" isn't the hard part. The hard part is finding an understanding ear when hard times come.

it's not that i mean to categorize all people who have had all sorts of abuse into this or any previous post. when i speak, it is specifically from my experience and self-worth and reason to live were very tightly wrapped in his problem. he had an exceedingly pessimistic and depressed outlook. it wasn't that he felt he deserved the beatings, but that he didn't deserve better. does that make sense? in no way did i ever mean to imply that he wanted the abuse because, god (or whatever sense of divinity) knows that he did neither want nor deserve it. the very fact that he was able to make it out of childhood alive is a testament to his strength, for you cannot survive such a situation with or without grace if you are a 'pathetic weakling.' that also is not to say that people who are currently trapped in those situations or those who have perished were 'pathetic' in any way, shape or form either. i don't really believe there is such a thing as a true pathetic weakling- there is always a reason people take the action or inaction they take.

i believe that it stemmed from being beaten as a child because as a child that has done nothing wrong, doesn't 'deserve' their beatings, and the very people in their life that are supposed to safeguard them from with their very lives perpetuate it, it does have an effect on the child's and then later adult's sense of self-worth and self-esteem. often times it does get to the point where they feel no happiness in their lives, and as such no reason for living aside from perhaps revenge, which, after achieved, can leave the person without any reason to live.

the whole subject of abuse is so incredibly expansive, and everyone has so many different experiences and contact with abuse, that there is no simple way to put anything. we can only talk from our own experiences and perspectives, and if i have come down as totalitarian or pendantic with my own views, i apologize. these are the things that i have observed and positively confirmed in my life. i have helped people to find that they deserve more than abusive situations and, i'd like to think, to look past debilitating fear to allow them to seek the happiness i believe that everyone deserves.

[Carla O'Harris]

Then why are you bother to post to me? You certainly don't seem willing to engage in discussion, since you refuse to address my points.



And there's no way anyone could have figure that out on their own, right?

Again, why are you bothering to post to me? Your dancing franticly as you avoid actual discussion isn't the least bit interesting to me.



What wrong with this one? After all, it's where YOU made your claims about ethics.

So go for it. Explain your claims. Start with what made for "frightening implications."




Wow, you're demanding, aren't you? Let me restate my basic position : I'm not here to meet others' demands or expectations. So you may have to be content with a little disappointment.

That doesn't mean I won't enter into discussion. But if you want to discuss the relativistic versus the critical perspective, you'll have to make that another thread. One needn't defend or explain a widely held perspective every time one asserts it.

Ethics by definition explores the implications of actions in relationship. Actions which affect oneself and only oneself -- a valid if relatively small domain -- are one's business. But by definition, anything which is affecting someone else automatically becomes their business, and therefore one may assess injury and justice outside the boundaries of the reference point of one individual. I've already made the claim that the community has an interest in regulating harm. That's a basic point of law, and I see no reason why that should not be applied theoretically to magic as well. If one is taking effective action to harm or injure another, that is by definition at the very least, a tort, and sometimes a criminal action. The only exception would be action in self-defense, and even this must only be sufficient to ward off the danger.

[MankyCat]

anasia*la*fae,

If you don't mind my asking, have you only experienced from observing others?

As you said (and I tried to make clear), there is no way to categorize this sort of thing. There is no way to understand it either unless you went through it. It's like taking someone who has never been depressed and having them try to aid people who are clinically depressed. That person will never truly understand what these people are going through, how, or even why.

I've done research on this subject a lot when I was younger (was very interested in become a lawyer in defense of abuse victims). I've known a great deal of people who went through abuse (in childhood and adulthood... which is why I say it really isn't always or even mostly childhood experiences that lead to becoming an abusee in adulthood).

I'm glad you feel or were able to help those people. But your wording originally made it sound like they couldn't find a reason to live without your help. Fact is, abusees are the best survivors I've ever met. And those that break out of the situations are some of the strongest people I've had the honor of knowing. (And usually, it's not you aren't showing them the beauty of the world that gets them out of it. It's the friendly ear. The shoulder offered. And their tenacity to scratch and scrape their way out of the darkness.)

[cydira]

Two points:

one: As a person who has survived being abused multiple times in nearly every way imagineable (including nearly killed by an abuser) I have to say that the impilcation that the abused person is enjoying or some how desires the abuse as the reason why they are staying in the realtionship is the most disgusting thing I have encountered in years.

I stayed with the man that abused me because he told me that he would kill me, my family, the persons whom I became romantically involved with and any children I might have if I left him. That is why when I got married, I didn't publish the announcement in the newspaper. And that was over 10 years after that threat was made.

When you are in a situation where you're being abused, you walk on eggshells at times. At other times you work to forget the ... horror of it all. To do otherwise puts you in a position where you can not function due to the pain and fear. And then, then there are the moments of anger. We, the abused, feel anger.

It's a cold, bitter thing that bubbles up in the dark hours of the night. And we're forced to struggle against the overwhelming terror that keeps us there. Then, one day, if we're lucky, our anger overwhelms the terror that has been inflicted on us and we'll get out. Until then, we're held prisioner in our own minds by the abuse. Some of us make a full escape while others fall back into the trap and then into another abusive relationship.

So, if you want to start yipping about how we may have "wanted" it, you should look into if people who have clinical psychological problems wanted them. After all, depression is just feeling sad, according to you, right? If you eat some ice cream and be happy, it'll all go away and you won't want to end your life. That kind of blanket generalization is the exact same thing that you've doen in your statements. It is repulsive.

two: Ms. O'Harris, with all due respect, I can't stand what you're presenting. As I read what you've posted, I see some one that's refusing to actually attempt to defend, explain or otherwise support her argument. It's rather ironic that a teacher such as yourself is refusing to teach.

Instead, you throw inflammatory comments and accusations about like some demented form of confettii. Aside from that, you grandstand and dictate to us how we're supposed to feel or view this topic. Your authority on the topic I hold as highly questionable.

Tell me, Ms. O'Harris, what is your practical experience with black magic? Have you ever been faced with having to choose between using it or using mundane modes of dealing with problems? Do you understand what the process is to construct a curse, a binding, or an ill wish? Can you describe to me the difference between offensive and defensive magic? Can you illustrate to me how one is preferable to the other?

What I see in your statements, Ms. O'Harris, is your saying "Black magic is naughty. We must be good witches and not use it so that the Inquisition doesn't start up again and burn us. But we can fudge a little bit if we don't get caught."

I know that I am going to offend you with this post along with many others reading this. I genuinely don't care. The concept of "black" magic *is* foolish because magic doesn't have a color to it. There is offensive and defensive uses to magic. This is the same for martial arts.

Do you use it to protect yourself? Do you use it to attack others with the intent of bringing needless suffering? The question of magic being good or bad is irrelevent. The correct thing to ask, in my less then humble opinion, is are our decision in the practice of the magical arts made with full acceptance of the responciblities and reprocussions from these actions?

Simple logic and the first Law of Motion dictates that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Every single thing we do magically speaking will be constrained by that law because it is a fact of how the universe works. The question is, do we intend for the action to have those results? Can we pass the "moral culpability" test for this?

Again, I know, this will most likely offend nearly everyone in here. I am feeling rather ... offended by the general sense of hubiris that's flying about on the part of the "elders" in the Wiccan/witchcraft community.

[anasia*la*fae]

anasia*la*fae,

If you don't mind my asking, have you only experienced from observing others?

As you said (and I tried to make clear), there is no way to categorize this sort of thing. There is no way to understand it either unless you went through it. It's like taking someone who has never been depressed and having them try to aid people who are clinically depressed. That person will never truly understand what these people are going through, how, or even why.

I've done research on this subject a lot when I was younger (was very interested in become a lawyer in defense of abuse victims). I've known a great deal of people who went through abuse (in childhood and adulthood... which is why I say it really isn't always or even mostly childhood experiences that lead to becoming an abusee in adulthood).

I'm glad you feel or were able to help those people. But your wording originally made it sound like they couldn't find a reason to live without your help. Fact is, abusees are the best survivors I've ever met. And those that break out of the situations are some of the strongest people I've had the honor of knowing. (And usually, it's not you aren't showing them the beauty of the world that gets them out of it. It's the friendly ear. The shoulder offered. And their tenacity to scratch and scrape their way out of the darkness.)

I don't mean to seem totally lacking in hubris, and i apologize if my wording made it seem so. You're right to ask if I've ever known abuse. The truth is that I have, for who of us has known a life totally void of some sort of abuse. I'm not going to lie and pretend that it was nearly as traumatic as that which so many have to endure. There was no physical abuse- only the threat of it. If it hadn't been for my mother, there would have likely been physical abuse as well.

I agree with you entirely about the fact that abusees are the best survivors. Whether we like it or not, there is much truth to the cliche 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.' And by saying that I helped someone- one person in particular am I refering to- to see the beauty in life, I do not imply that without me he could not have found it. But the paths of our lives happened to meet, and I believe and others in our circle including himself have attested that I was the vehicle for him to see that there may still be reason to live- with or without me personally. His circle of friends was very prone to suicide, cutting, burning and depression. Those people couldn't help him out of the trauma in his life any more than they could help themselves get out of it. The very fact that I wasn't reeling from physical abuse in my life and had already recovered from the psychological abuse in my life are what allowed me to help him to rise above the problems in his life. I happened to be the means that ws presented to him- perhaps another would have crossed his path to the same effect or perhaps he would have been able to get through regardless. However, certain events which I am not at liberty to disclose could illuminate why I believe that the latter was unlikely. After all, if we really look at our lives, there is very little if anything at all that we truly do independently without any influence from others. That's what I was, an influence. He chose how to be affected by that influence.

There are others that I try to help when I can- but admittedly I cannot help everyone. Some I have been able to say the right thing at the right time to confirm the growing suspicions in their head that they not only merit better treatment, but that it's possible as well.

I too have done a bit of research- although granted not as extensively as one who was training for law (though I had contemplated it myself.) I too have known several individuals who have survived or are enduring abuse. I agree whole-heartedly when you say a shoulder to cry on or an ear to lend. When I say 'seeing the beauty in the world,' I mean very much the same thing, only I'm saying it from a different perspective. Believe me, I listened more than anything else- that is what showed an aspect of that beauty to which I refer- the beauty of someone who hardly knows you caring enough to listen to you long enough to perhaps understand you when you feel as though the number of people who actually care for you is in the negative. When I talk of Beauty, I probably mean it in much broader terms than other people. The simplest act can be beautiful, and enough justification to keep going in this life.

As for my views on how our society categorizes and how they decide to handle clinical depression- that is another discussion.

[MankyCat]

Cydira, you hit the nail on the head in so much of your post.

Thank you for sharing your experiences.

[anasia*la*fae]

Two points:

one: As a person who has survived being abused multiple times in nearly every way imagineable (including nearly killed by an abuser) I have to say that the impilcation that the abused person is enjoying or some how desires the abuse as the reason why they are staying in the realtionship is the most disgusting thing I have encountered in years.

I stayed with the man that abused me because he told me that he would kill me, my family, the persons whom I became romantically involved with and any children I might have if I left him. That is why when I got married, I didn't publish the announcement in the newspaper. And that was over 10 years after that threat was made.

When you are in a situation where you're being abused, you walk on eggshells at times. At other times you work to forget the ... horror of it all. To do otherwise puts you in a position where you can not function due to the pain and fear. And then, then there are the moments of anger. We, the abused, feel anger.

It's a cold, bitter thing that bubbles up in the dark hours of the night. And we're forced to struggle against the overwhelming terror that keeps us there. Then, one day, if we're lucky, our anger overwhelms the terror that has been inflicted on us and we'll get out. Until then, we're held prisioner in our own minds by the abuse. Some of us make a full escape while others fall back into the trap and then into another abusive relationship.

So, if you want to start yipping about how we may have "wanted" it, you should look into if people who have clinical psychological problems wanted them. After all, depression is just feeling sad, according to you, right? If you eat some ice cream and be happy, it'll all go away and you won't want to end your life. That kind of blanket generalization is the exact same thing that you've doen in your statements. It is repulsive.


I know that I am going to offend you with this post along with many others reading this. I genuinely don't care. The concept of "black" magic *is* foolish because magic doesn't have a color to it. There is offensive and defensive uses to magic. This is the same for martial arts.

Do you use it to protect yourself? Do you use it to attack others with the intent of bringing needless suffering? The question of magic being good or bad is irrelevent. The correct thing to ask, in my less then humble opinion, is are our decision in the practice of the magical arts made with full acceptance of the responciblities and reprocussions from these actions?

Simple logic and the first Law of Motion dictates that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Every single thing we do magically speaking will be constrained by that law because it is a fact of how the universe works. The question is, do we intend for the action to have those results? Can we pass the "moral culpability" test for this?

Again, I know, this will most likely offend nearly everyone in here. I am feeling rather ... offended by the general sense of hubiris that's flying about on the part of the "elders" in the Wiccan/witchcraft community.



Well said- and hubiris to hubris (sry- I'm compulsive!)



And if I in any way implied that any abused person 'wanted' their abuse- I sincerely apologize for any inarticulateness on my part that could lead to such a gross misunderstanding- and if you could point out where I have done that I would appreciate it very much so as to avoid mishap in the future, and possibly rectify misunderstanding amongst my posts.

[MankyCat]

anasia*la*fae,

I was speaking more the "traumatic" abuse. Where the threat is so real that you know the person will hit you if you aren't careful. Where you are scared for your own safety. Or the abuse where the person can take a strong, independent person, and widdle them down to a self-loathing, dependent person.... though usually that will lead to the physical abuse. I believe that is what the original comment was about... a person who's friend was being physically abused by her boyfriend.

Of course there are various forms:
Physical, mental, spiritual, sexual, to name some of the most common (and the other forms of abuse usually can be categorized into).

There are a lot of people who say they are depressed when they are only really sad for a small stint. Then there are people who are actually clinically depressed. I have never heard of an abuse that was not traumatic. Either you were abused (in one of the ways listed above... not just physically) or you weren't. If you were abused, the affects are lasting. Not everyone goes through abuse, just like not everyone who's sad is or ever was depressed.

Sorry, but this is something I feel strongly about.


(Edited for a quick clarification shortly after posting.)

[MankyCat]

Well said- and hubiris to hubris (sry- I'm compulsive!)

And if I in any way implied that any abused person 'wanted' their abuse- I sincerely apologize for any inarticulateness on my part that could lead to such a gross misunderstanding- and if you could point out where I have done that I would appreciate it very much so as to avoid mishap in the future, and possibly rectify misunderstanding amongst my posts.

I believe she might've been referring to the first posts regarding abuse, not necessarily yours. I could be wrong though.

[anasia*la*fae]

anasia*la*fae,

I was speaking more the "traumatic" abuse. Where the threat is so real that you know the person will hit you if you aren't careful. Where you are scared for your own safety. Or the abuse where the person can take a strong, independent person, and widdle them down to a self-loathing, dependent person.... though usually that will lead to the physical abuse. I believe that is what the original comment was about... a person who's friend was being physically abused by her boyfriend.

Of course there are various forms:
Physical, mental, spiritual, sexual, to name some of the most common (and the other forms of abuse usually can be categorized into).

There are a lot of people who say they are depressed when they are only really sad for a small stint. Then there are people who are actually clinically depressed. I have never heard of an abuse that was not traumatic. Either you were abused (in one of the ways listed above... not just physically) or you weren't. If you were abused, the affects are lasting. Not everyone goes through abuse, just like not everyone who's sad is or ever was depressed.

Sorry, but this is something I feel strongly about.


(Edited for a quick clarification shortly after posting.)

I'm sorry, but I find 'clinical' to be a man-made concept that does not necessarily reflect the truth of situations. An artificial line that says- your case is worth paying attention to but this other person is just being weak and can't handle life.

'Traumatic' is not on or off, it has a gradiation. I have had trauma in my life- however I am not making it available to be judged as to whether it was 'traumatic' enough to be 'traumatic'. I'm not here for a game of my life sucks more than theirs or to justify why I have the opinions I have. It is through experience, as is all the information in the textbooks- only it's someone else's. I trust my own judgment and experience at least as much as I trust others' (especially a group of authors' whom I've never met- I've had enough college and done enough free study- look at my name- to be critical of what gets published and not to take it for holy writ).

Nor am I here to tell someone that their abuse counts but this other person's does not. Abuse is largly defined by the effect it has on the recipient. Sex can be love-making or rape. The action does not always define the abuse. The intent and/ or reception are what defines abuse. And just because somebody gets out of abuse in its early stages does not mean they were not abused.

I do not help others in order to get validation. I help them because I believe it is the right thing to so at the time. In my first post, and any further ones, I was only trying to provide another perspective. I was not looking for kudos or commisery.

Simply:
If you helped someone, thank you for the good will you have put into the world.
If you can and choose to, thank you again.
If you choose not to, it is your decesion and I bear no ill-will.
If you made it through a tough situation, I truly admire you for your fortitude.

To get back to the thread, I wanted to show that sometimes 'mundane' means are as, if not more, effective than magical- if you can separate the two.

Thank you all for your inputs on my posts. However, my opinion about my own experiences remains the same, seeing as I am the best qualified to form them.

[CleftOfLight]

Those who are beaten are NOT sick. They have NO or low self esteem and think that is what they deserve. You need to re-think this line of thought.
In most cases, their parent beat them and/or parent was beaten - and the cycle continues.

Before you get all high and mighty--do some research.

JMO and YMMV

Elise

A) I am not high and mighty
B) I have done research.
C) Low self esteem is an exscuse which people use to do nothing for themselves.
D) Everyone is responsible for themselves,again,ths cycle as they call it,is just another exscuse to be beating or to beat.
I care nothing about being liked,or politicaly correct.

[anasia*la*fae]

A) I am not high and mighty
B) I have done research.
C) Low self esteem is an exscuse which people use to do nothing for themselves.
D) Everyone is responsible for themselves,again,ths cycle as they call it,is just another exscuse to be beating or to beat.
I care nothing about being liked,or politicaly correct.

I admire that you do not cater you views to fit into others' fancies. But what about children who have been abused from infancy and are being abused as pre-teens, teens? Is low self-esteem then an excuse or the only reality they have ever known?

[MankyCat]

anasia*la*fae, I am only going by what you wrote, especially in regards to your statements on certain things and what seemed to be implied on others.

As for the rest, the posts I've made in other threads reflects my feelings on those. (ie. things aren't cut-and-dry definitions, how to help others through example, and so forth.)

And per your statement about clinical depression and not perscribing to the definition. That's your right. But it doesn't make you right. It just shows you don't really understand what it truly is. Again, a case where you have to go through it to understand the depth. Though some research might be helpful to get some idea that it's more than a simple emotion.

[anasia*la*fae]

anasia*la*fae,

I was speaking more the "traumatic" abuse. Where the threat is so real that you know the person will hit you if you aren't careful. Where you are scared for your own safety. Or the abuse where the person can take a strong, independent person, and widdle them down to a self-loathing, dependent person.... though usually that will lead to the physical abuse. I believe that is what the original comment was about... a person who's friend was being physically abused by her boyfriend.

Of course there are various forms:
Physical, mental, spiritual, sexual, to name some of the most common (and the other forms of abuse usually can be categorized into).

There are a lot of people who say they are depressed when they are only really sad for a small stint. Then there are people who are actually clinically depressed. I have never heard of an abuse that was not traumatic. Either you were abused (in one of the ways listed above... not just physically) or you weren't. If you were abused, the affects are lasting. Not everyone goes through abuse, just like not everyone who's sad is or ever was depressed.

Sorry, but this is something I feel strongly about.


(Edited for a quick clarification shortly after posting.)

just feel this to be bordering on judgmental- sry but judgmentalism is something that gets my blood up.

[CleftOfLight]

Wouldn't being beaten since you were born want you to get away? Why would you want to be a victime? Because society tells you that you are.But if you looked within yourself you know that you are not a victime,your inner self never accepts being the victime.

If you are a baby,you are stuck until you can get away.But the minute you are 9 to 18,you have means of getting away.Teachers,police,rabbi's,priests,councelors.

Reality is only what you make it,it is as you want it to be.

I would never tell someone to get ice cream for depression,I would tell them to get in tune with themselves and find the cause of why they are depressed and fix it.

There are many ways to heal yourself whether through prayer,meditation and so on and so forth.

[anasia*la*fae]

anasia*la*fae, I am only going by what you wrote, especially in regards to your statements on certain things and what seemed to be implied on others.

As for the rest, the posts I've made in other threads reflects my feelings on those. (ie. things aren't cut-and-dry definitions, how to help others through example, and so forth.)

And per your statement about clinical depression and not perscribing to the definition. That's your right. But it doesn't make you right. It just shows you don't really understand what it truly is. Again, a case where you have to go through it to understand the depth. Though some research might be helpful to get some idea that it's more than a simple emotion.

again- i prefer in my life not to assume that mine are the only definitions that can be applied to a term or situations. i also prefer not to assume what experience in study or life another might have in any arena of scholarship or life. i also prefer not to tell people what they do and do not understand. you can understand something while you refute it. if you automatically adhered to anything you understood, then we would be admitting that there is one true and right way to do or interpret anything that can be done or conceived. understanding something allows you to make a decision as to whether or not you agree with it. you may choose to agree with the assessments and modus operendi of the scientific and medical worlds- but i choose not to simplify things so much. you're right- that may not make me right- but it doesn't make me wrong either, just as your statements are neither right nor wrong.

[anasia*la*fae]

Wouldn't being beaten since you were born want you to get away? Why would you want to be a victime? Because society tells you that you are.But if you looked within yourself you know that you are not a victime,your inner self never accepts being the victime.

If you are a baby,you are stuck until you can get away.But the minute you are 9 to 18,you have means of getting away.Teachers,police,rabbi's,priests,councelors.

Reality is only what you make it,it is as you want it to be.

I would never tell someone to get ice cream for depression,I would tell them to get in tune with themselves and find the cause of why they are depressed and fix it.

There are many ways to heal yourself whether through prayer,meditation and so on and so forth.

add a touch of you have been conditioned against the police or you have had several encounters with corrupt police, you distrust the church because they have lied under oath against your family in court, councelors have betrayed your trust and the thing you believe you would be getting away to is worse than the abuse, or it actually is the same or worse. fyi- this was a real sit.

what then?

however- to a very large extent you do make your own reality. in many, one might even say most, cases, you do have those resources but don't know or don't trust them, further making you feel debilitated. it's getting past that debilitated mindset that can allow one to truly leave abuse. you are right- the mind is very powerful. but that means that when your own mind has been conditioned against you, it is the most powerful weapon that can hold you down.

[MankyCat]

again- i prefer in my life not to assume that mine are the only definitions that can be applied to a term or situations. i also prefer not to assume what experience in study or life another might have in any arena of scholarship or life. i also prefer not to tell people what they do and do not understand. you can understand something while you refute it. if you automatically adhered to anything you understood, then we would be admitting that there is one true and right way to do or interpret anything that can be done or conceived. understanding something allows you to make a decision as to whether or not you agree with it. you may choose to agree with the assessments and modus operendi of the scientific and medical worlds- but i choose not to simplify things so much. you're right- that may not make me right- but it doesn't make me wrong either, just as your statements are neither right nor wrong.

Sometimes simplicity is the only way to get people to understand to some degree.

Mine was to defend the people that were being portrayed harshly. It has, however, gone on longer than my original intention.

To each their own.

(And nothing I said was meant to be judgemental. But again, there we are entitled to our own opinions. You about my comments, I about yours. We at least agree on that. 'Nuff said.)

[MankyCat]

If you are a baby,you are stuck until you can get away.But the minute you are 9 to 18,you have means of getting away.Teachers,police,rabbi's,priests,councelors.

This is a more recent development and in some parts of the country, the laws regarding minors vary. All the people listed above are confined to the limitations of the law and of the public view. Running away doesn't always work, telling people doesn't always work, and sometimes, you really are stuck until you are 18 years old or 17 at the least. Try younger and you might end up in a worse situation... separated from your family (the non-abusive members) and risking never finding them again. Risk getting stuck in a family that treats you worse. It's all things that can weigh heavily on a child's mind when debating whether to come forward or not.

Fear is a very real and powerful thing.

[cydira]

Wouldn't being beaten since you were born want you to get away? Why would you want to be a victime? Because society tells you that you are.But if you looked within yourself you know that you are not a victime,your inner self never accepts being the victime.

If you are a baby,you are stuck until you can get away.But the minute you are 9 to 18,you have means of getting away.Teachers,police,rabbi's,priests,councelors.

Reality is only what you make it,it is as you want it to be.

I would never tell someone to get ice cream for depression,I would tell them to get in tune with themselves and find the cause of why they are depressed and fix it.

There are many ways to heal yourself whether through prayer,meditation and so on and so forth.


I am left in utter speechlessness by your blindness. While you won't take the band-aid route on depression, you do so on child-abuse, and it seems all other forms of abuse as well.

It must be very nice to live such a safe life. I don't suppose any one you know has ever been abused, because the things I hear spewing from your mouth clearly don't reflect the reality of the situation.

A child that is abused for all of their childhood comes away from it with serious psychological problems. They're taught that their value is only as high as it is according to others, usually the power figure in a relationship. They're taught that the power figure expects perfection and the child will strive for that, even if they have no idea how to do so.

Non-abusive relationships are not emotionally safe for the abused child because they feel that there is too much unpredictability and risk. As a result, they seek out (sub-consciously) to recreate the abusive childhood because of the emotional security in such relationships. Why is there emotional security in this? Because it was how they were taught that love is expressed by their abusers. Aside from this, they also have problems within themselves correlating the way they were raised (as valued only in respect to others) and the information from the world around them (valueable by virtue of yourself). This manifests in many different ways.

On the whole, the psychological effects of child abuse (and most other forms of abuse) manifest as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. If you feel like actually educating yourself, look it up at the NIMH website. I'm not going to give you the link, because if you're interested in learning then you'll find it out on your own.

This attitude right here:

Wouldn't being beaten since you were born want you to get away? Why would you want to be a victime? Because society tells you that you are.But if you looked within yourself you know that you are not a victime,your inner self never accepts being the victime.

This attitude makes me feel violently sick to my stomach. These are the words of a person that has no concept what so ever of what they're speaking of and is prattling on with pretty words to fill the air. Abuse and it's effects aren't a result of some one "wanting" it. Being victimized by abuse is not something that you choose due to social pressure, like smoking as a teen. Being victimized by abuse, in any fashion, is as much a crime against the dignity of a person as being mugged on the street.

The victims of abuse don't choose to be abused, especially not the children. The initial abuse is an unexpected event and the subsequent abuse is the result of conditioning. The victims of systematic abuse of any form are *brainwashed* by their abusers.

Great example: I wear a pink blouse. I get hit for wearing it, each time. I have two choices. I can fight back against a person who's obviously stronger then I am or I change my behavior so they stop hurting me. I stop wearing the pink blouse. The beatings for it stops.

Just a few *months* of this can result in a person being firmly conditioned to this, as it takes a little over a month for something to become a habit. Continue longer, the more entrenched the process becomes. Now, you may ask, what on earth did the person getting beat for the pink blouse get conditioned to do? They were taught to do what the person wanted, as to not get hurt.

CleftofLight, let me know when you wake up. Hitting that brick wall of reality is going to hurt, I hope you've got some asprin.

[CleftOfLight]

I am left in utter speechlessness by your blindness. While you won't take the band-aid route on depression, you do so on child-abuse, and it seems all other forms of abuse as well.

It must be very nice to live such a safe life. I don't suppose any one you know has ever been abused, because the things I hear spewing from your mouth clearly don't reflect the reality of the situation.

A child that is abused for all of their childhood comes away from it with serious psychological problems. They're taught that their value is only as high as it is according to others, usually the power figure in a relationship. They're taught that the power figure expects perfection and the child will strive for that, even if they have no idea how to do so.

Non-abusive relationships are not emotionally safe for the abused child because they feel that there is too much unpredictability and risk. As a result, they seek out (sub-consciously) to recreate the abusive childhood because of the emotional security in such relationships. Why is there emotional security in this? Because it was how they were taught that love is expressed by their abusers. Aside from this, they also have problems within themselves correlating the way they were raised (as valued only in respect to others) and the information from the world around them (valueable by virtue of yourself). This manifests in many different ways.

On the whole, the psychological effects of child abuse (and most other forms of abuse) manifest as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. If you feel like actually educating yourself, look it up at the NIMH website. I'm not going to give you the link, because if you're interested in learning then you'll find it out on your own.

This attitude right here:

Wouldn't being beaten since you were born want you to get away? Why would you want to be a victime? Because society tells you that you are.But if you looked within yourself you know that you are not a victime,your inner self never accepts being the victime.

This attitude makes me feel violently sick to my stomach. These are the words of a person that has no concept what so ever of what they're speaking of and is prattling on with pretty words to fill the air. Abuse and it's effects aren't a result of some one "wanting" it. Being victimized by abuse is not something that you choose due to social pressure, like smoking as a teen. Being victimized by abuse, in any fashion, is as much a crime against the dignity of a person as being mugged on the street.

The victims of abuse don't choose to be abused, especially not the children. The initial abuse is an unexpected event and the subsequent abuse is the result of conditioning. The victims of systematic abuse of any form are *brainwashed* by their abusers.

Great example: I wear a pink blouse. I get hit for wearing it, each time. I have two choices. I can fight back against a person who's obviously stronger then I am or I change my behavior so they stop hurting me. I stop wearing the pink blouse. The beatings for it stops.

Just a few *months* of this can result in a person being firmly conditioned to this, as it takes a little over a month for something to become a habit. Continue longer, the more entrenched the process becomes. Now, you may ask, what on earth did the person getting beat for the pink blouse get conditioned to do? They were taught to do what the person wanted, as to not get hurt.

CleftofLight, let me know when you wake up. Hitting that brick wall of reality is going to hurt, I hope you've got some asprin.


I know lots of people that were abused by loved one.My cousin was crippled by her husband.

I never said they choose to be abused,I said wouldn't make you want to get away.

I know what Post Traumatic Depression is,I do have medical and psycholcal books.

But nothing you or anyone says will get me to change my mind.I've heard this argument before over and over.

I never take aspring.

And if you don't trust cops or priests,you can always go to a neighbor,or find some other way of exscape.

But thats just my opinion.

[CleftOfLight]

If someone hit me I would automaticaly fight back,whether the person was stronger than me or not.I have fought people stronger than me,but I would rather fight than just take someone pounding on me trying to change me.

Of course we are not all the same,and people handle things in very different ways.

[Temptation]

If someone hit me I would automaticaly fight back,whether the person was stronger than me or not.I have fought people stronger than me,but I would rather fight than just take someone pounding on me trying to change me.

Of course we are not all the same,and people handle things in very different ways.

Oh, I would too. I would beat the crap out of anyone who dared raise their hand to me. I can do that today, as a mature adult, because I know now that no one has the right to abuse another human being be it physically or emotionally.

I did not know this as a 5 year old when my father was busy hitting me simply because I didn't conform to his idea of the "perfect" daughter. This went on for 7 more years and my only wish every day of my childhood was that he would die so that I could finally be free. Eventually the gods took pity on me. He died shortly after my 12th birthday.

It took me 15 years to repair the psychological damage he left behind. Some of it is so deeply ingrained and only comes out in extreme times of stress, I'll never be able to get rid of it all completely.

Children can't just pick up and leave and by the time they're old enough to do so a lot of them are too psychologically weakened to even attempt to escape. Adults who have been robbed of their childhoods in this manner aren't always as lucky as I have been in getting the help to overcome the trauma. Their responses to certain siuations might seem incomprehensible to you, but they're just the result of how they were conditioned to respond.

Fighting the trauma of child abuse is a lifelong struggle. Many adults in abusive relationships were also abused as children. Their whole mental process is altered as a result. You can't just expect them to react the way you would.




Edited to add: I didn't read the whole thread, but how did a thread about the ethics of black magic end up being about abusive relationships?

Anyway to answer the original poll: Yes

Do you practice it?

Absolutely. Except I don't call it black magic. Magic doesn't have a color. It's just magic no matter what the intent.

do you think it is wrong?

No, I don't think it's wrong.

why?

"Black magic" is a lot more popular than "white magic" no matter what the new breed of "harm none" believers want to think. People all over the world turn to witches and other magic practitioners with the specific intent to request a curse or other similar "black magic" spell. Definitely the kind of stuff most Wiccans would frown upon.

I was raised in a family of non Wiccan witches. My grandmother got asked for these kinds of spells on a daily basis. It usually involved one or both of these things: love and revenge. She had no problem casting these spells whatsoever and I don't either. The only thing she wouldn't ever do is agree to cast a spell to break up a marriage or any other situation where children were involved. Other than that, everything else was pretty much fair game. Not all witches believe in the three fold law or the harm none concept.

Do you think there is a time and place to practice the Black art?

Nope. Can be done anytime, anyplace.

Do you have any experiences you can share with us, either as testiments of the power of black magick, or as a warning why not to do it?

And give away the family secrets? Are you mad? ;)

All I can say is that, for some reason, "black magic" works a lot better than "white magic" for me. Maybe because the intent and the concentration is so much more intense when practicing the darker side of magic.

[cydira]

[snipped = comments on abuse]

All I can say is that, for some reason, "black magic" works a lot better than "white magic" for me. Maybe because the intent and the concentration is so much more intense when practicing the darker side of magic.

First off: I agree, the discussion of domestic abuse and all other forms of abuse is now falling outside of the topic of this thread and I hope that everyone will return to the said topic. :)

I've got to say, I find it interesting that "black" magic works better for you then "white." What seems to be the difference you've noticed?

For my part, they both seem to work equally effectively. Alot of the things for white magic that I've encountered are poorly drafted and in desperate need of revision, there seemed to be more emphasis on making it look pretty rather then work. But, generally, I don't have much problem working either kinds.

[ViolinGoddess]

Nope! I would get in trouble with God if I did.

Violin Goddess

[Temptation]

I've got to say, I find it interesting that "black" magic works better for you then "white." What seems to be the difference you've noticed?

Because I am an evil, wicked, corrupted and dark soul. Mwhahaaaaaa! I have the Debil in me and I walk teh path of darkness!11!one

Seriously, now. :lol: I really don't know. I think maybe it's because I have more practice with the darker side of things. And it's not just with magic either. I just feel more comfortable with the dark than with the light.

I like night better than day; dark colors better than light ones; stormy weather better than sunshine. Not that I'm a goth or anything, far from it. I just feel more comfortable when things are not as bright and cheery and loud. To me light is loud and dark is silent. I like silence. :) Also, I've always found the Devil a lot more interesting than God. Mwahaha!

So I suppose it's not all that suprising that I would be more attracted to dark magic. It's not that white magic doesn't "work" when I use it, it does. It's just that I feel more comfortable practicing dark magic, so that's what I spend more time doing.


For my part, they both seem to work equally effectively. Alot of the things for white magic that I've encountered are poorly drafted and in desperate need of revision, there seemed to be more emphasis on making it look pretty rather then work. But, generally, I don't have much problem working either kinds.

Well, that's another thing that doesn't work for me. I can't use other people's spells and rituals. What I mean by other people is those outside my family tradition. I've used my grandmother's and my aunt's rituals and, just like they did before me, I have added my own to the mix. I usually write my own spells these days. And to get back to the ethics issue, just like my grandmother, there are some things that I just won't do. Breaking up a relationship, whether the people are married or not, is off limits; so is making someone ill.

People keep giving me all these spell books as gifts that I just can't use. They're just collecting dust on my bookshelf. Besides they're crammed with happy, joy, harm none spells. Yuck. :lol:

Anyway, like I said in my other post, people come to us with requests for dark spells 80% of the time. So I have more practice with those. The spells I feel compelled to cast for myself or my loved ones are always of the dark kind. I can deal with the happy stuff in more mundane ways and get better results, so who needs light magic, huh? ;)

I hope this made sense and is not too jumbled up. It's 6am and even though it's still my favorite shade of dark outside, my brain is a little fuzzy.

[CleftOfLight]

I agree,writing your own spells are way better than taking someone elses.Maybe its because it helps put you in that state to do magick.

I also don't agree with the wiccan laws.

[anasia*la*fae]

If someone hit me I would automaticaly fight back,whether the person was stronger than me or not.I have fought people stronger than me,but I would rather fight than just take someone pounding on me trying to change me.

Of course we are not all the same,and people handle things in very different ways.

have you been abused since childhood? if not, perhaps the 'strength' you so pride yourself on having is not as innate as you think.

sry- i posted this before i saw that we left our tangentiality

[Vigdisdotter]

Wow, you're demanding, aren't you?

Wow, evasive, aren't you?


Until such time you are will to engage in discussion, there really is no point in your posting anything to me, other then to see your words in print.


But if you want to discuss the relativistic versus the critical perspective, you'll have to make that another thread.

No *I* don't. You're the one that brought it up in here and here I will address it, since it is still very topical to this thread.


One needn't defend or explain a widely held perspective every time one asserts it.

They do when they are on a discussions board and the other person makes points about the claims. Assuming that the person in question wants to be intellectually honest, of course.


Ethics by definition explores the implications of actions in relationship. Actions which affect oneself and only oneself -- a valid if relatively small domain -- are one's business. But by definition, anything which is affecting someone else automatically becomes their business, and therefore one may assess injury and justice outside the boundaries of the reference point of one individual.

No kidding. And the individual and the person effected will have different takes on the morality of the action. Thus you've made my point about morality being relative.


I've already made the claim that the community has an interest in regulating harm.

And have in no way shown how their doing so is NOT relative to that particular community and it's needs.



That's a basic point of law, and I see no reason why that should not be applied theoretically to magic as well.

So NOW you're claiming that there is some grand council out there ready to slap the wrists of the "wrong doers"? Because that's what it would take for your analogy to work.


If one is taking effective action to harm or injure another, that is by definition at the very least, a tort, and sometimes a criminal action.

Depends on the situation, such as defense. Thus we're back (yet again) to my original premises: Black and white exists ONLY in the mind of the practitioner and is highly subjective, having nothing to do with the magick itself.


The only exception would be action in self-defense, and even this must only be sufficient to ward off the danger.

But again, you're talking relative mortality. You don't get to define what that "self-defense" is and you don't' get to declare for others whether or not what they are doing is "black" magick.

[Xirian]

Hijacking the thread for a moment.

This discussion you and Carla are having, Vigdisdotter, seems vaguely familiar. *scratches head*

One needn't defend or explain a widely held perspective every time one asserts it.
Yep, that's very familiar, but differently worded. Unfortunately, I have no really good advice for you, except to bow out now. But if you enjoy circular arguments, this will be perfect. :D Otherwise, chances are highly likely, you'll get no where.

Hijacking over.

[Carla O'Harris]

Hijacking the thread for a moment.

This discussion you and Carla are having, Vigdisdotter, seems vaguely familiar. *scratches head*

Yep, that's very familiar, but differently worded. Unfortunately, I have no really good advice for you, except to bow out now. But if you enjoy circular arguments, this will be perfect. :D Otherwise, chances are highly likely, you'll get no where.

Hijacking over.


Lawyer #1. Yesterday, the defendant drank a glass of water, and then went and picked up the weapon.

Lawyer #2. Your use of the term "Yesterday" implies a linear, consecutive sense of time that you well know is disputed in many philosophical circles, and therefore begs the case. Please prove that the linear, consecutive sense of time you are invoking is proven.

Lawyer #1. I am going to do no such thing! This is not the time and place for such a debate. The linear, consecutive sense of time I am invoking is a well-respected one amongst others in the philosophical community, and does not require debate to be asserted with validity.

Lawyer #2. Aha! You see? (Gestures to audience.) Circular argumentation! She is not willing to defend her case!

Lawyer #1. It is not relevant to the case! It is a side argument that can be had in another place and another time.

Lawyer #2. Ah, I see, invoking that unproven linear, consecutive time again.

[Xirian]

You don't really think I'm going to fall for this. You're barking up the wrong tree Carla. And no, I didn't read what you had to say. I'll take that back, I read the first two sentences, but felt it was too wordy and a tad bit preachy. :D

[Carla O'Harris]

[B][COLOR=indigo]So NOW you're claiming that there is some grand council out there ready to slap the wrists of the "wrong doers"? Because that's what it would take for your analogy to work.

Do the words "benandanti" have any meaning? Or how about "community self-policing"?




Depends on the situation, such as defense. Thus we're back (yet again) to my original premises: Black and white exists ONLY in the mind of the practitioner and is highly subjective, having nothing to do with the magick itself.

Intent to harm is fairly clear. The distinction between self-defense and various forms of assault and tort are made every day in courts of law, and are not made up in the moment, but based on clear guidelines and precedents, a body of law that is anything but "subjective".




But again, you're talking relative mortality. You don't get to define what that "self-defense" is and you don't' get to declare for others whether or not what they are doing is "black" magick.


The community has such a right, and as a member of the community who cares about others in that community, I do have the right to speak up about violence within that community, and injuries done.

Someone earlier spoke about magical practitioners doing curses for hire. I wonder how a community would feel about completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins for hire? That sounds like the mayhem of gang rule. I don't see why the application of force however arcane the methodology should be subject to no regulation simply because the mechanisms are less well understood.

And I do have the right to speak out about whether I want to live in a community where people enact violence on the basis of resentment, envy, projection, and a host of other pathological, un-worked-through emotions. Again, the resultant sounds like Lord of the Flies with Grimoires. A pathologically repress/ed/ive concept of good should not inspire a reactionary intrigue with pathologically repress/ed/ive concepts of evil or dark, but a revisioning of good. This fascination with the "dark" puzzles me. I, too, love the night, the shade, and shadows ; and in a literary or theatrical context can appreciate a good villain as much as anyone else --- but in real life, there is already so much suffering that revelling in it or seeking to perpetuate it to me seems like a decadent, pathological luxury.

[Vigdisdotter]

Do the words "benandanti" have any meaning? Or how about "community self-policing"?

And again were back to the subjective and relative morality if the individuals.


Intent to harm is fairly clear.

Depending on perspective and who is being asked. I'm a martial artist. my "intent" is to make sure the attack can't continue to come after me or those I'm trying to protect. If that takes the shattering of his knee, then that's what I will do.


The distinction between self-defense and various forms of assault and tort are made every day in courts of law, and are not made up in the moment, but based on clear guidelines and precedents, a body of law that is anything but "subjective".

And all of those are RELATIVE to the society that produced them. But keep going, you're only making my case stronger.


The community has such a right, and as a member of the community who cares about others in that community, I do have the right to speak up about violence within that community, and injuries done.

Yup, you do. But that right doesn't make you're morality any less relative. Same with eh laws of the land.

So many it's time you try a different tactic, hmm? You're not proving your contention in any shape or form, but instead are only strengthen mine.


I wonder how a community would feel about completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins for hire?

What are you talking about? They ARE unregulated. It's only if their caught doing something illegal that laws can be imposed on them. How people "feel" about it is irrelevant. And this STILL has nothing to do with your claimed objective morality.


I don't see why the application of force however arcane the methodology should be subject to no regulation simply because the mechanisms are less well understood.

<LAUGHS> Adan who would be in charge of that? You? So that we could all be subjected to YOUR relative morality? I don't think so.


And I do have the right to speak out about whether I want to live in a community where people enact violence on the basis of resentment, envy, projection, and a host of other pathological, un-worked-through emotions.

Yes you do. And? Lets try to stay on topic here.


but in real life, there is already so much suffering that revelling in it or seeking to perpetuate it to me seems like a decadent, pathological luxury.

Whoop-dee-do. Back to the topic now: You still haven't shown objective morality to exist. But I've shown time and again how relative morality does.

[cydira]

Do the words "benandanti" have any meaning? Or how about "community self-policing"?

Ms. O'Harris, you may have a valid point about community self-policing, as most communities do establish a certian set of activities and behaviors that are viewed as acceptable. Usually this set of acceptable things are proven to be the benefit of the group at large and is not questioned by the group members, thus being agreed upon by acquiescence.

On the matter of the benandanti, however, you are sorely mistaken. Not all witches subscribe to the organization of the tradition of Strega or related traditions of Greco/Etruscan descent. For that matter, the subsect that is promoted by these traditions makes up a relatively minor portion of the population of practicing witches. The vast majority of witchcraft practiced is the fruit of Anglo-Celtic origin, predominantly of English revisionist witchcraft, as seen in Gardener's work. The point of this rambling, is that the majority of the witches you encounter are not operating under the auspices of the benandanti or some other group of sacred elders.

I highly advise that you recall this, as I know it may be rather foregin to the tradition/sect of witchcraft that you practice. Assuming that all other witches are beholden to some group of sacred elders is on par with declaring that a tradition with such elders is a matter of orthodoxy and an integral part of the structure of the religion of witchcraft. Witchcraft, however, is not constrained by such orthodoxy, as I am sure you are aware. It appears, however, that you are stating this.



Intent to harm is fairly clear. The distinction between self-defense and various forms of assault and tort are made every day in courts of law, and are not made up in the moment, but based on clear guidelines and precedents, a body of law that is anything but "subjective".

Ms. O'Harris, are you familiar with the legal distinction between self-defense and assault? Would you please present it to us or perhaps kindly clarify this point, as I do not see how this directly relates to the discussion. Are you arguing that intent to harm is an essential component to assault or that intent to harm can be classed in two different categories: self-defense and assault?



The community has such a right, and as a member of the community who cares about others in that community, I do have the right to speak up about violence within that community, and injuries done.

I find little place to argue with your statement here. The only thing that I see here is begging questions: What is the role of the community in relation to the individual? What is the role of the individual in relation to the community? What is the role of individuals, within this community, with relation to eachother? In short, Ms. O'Harris, what is the social contract in place here?



Someone earlier spoke about magical practitioners doing curses for hire. I wonder how a community would feel about completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins for hire? That sounds like the mayhem of gang rule. I don't see why the application of force however arcane the methodology should be subject to no regulation simply because the mechanisms are less well understood.

This returns back to the question of what is the social contract within the community. It's ironic that you state the question of "how a community would feel about completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins for hire?" in the light of the fact that such things are in play in our "mundane" society. You don't usually think about such unplesant things, do you, Ms. O'Harris? Or, am I incorrect in my estimation and you are deeply troubled by this matter as well? The matter of such ... unsavory professions and individuals aside, there is another statement you made that I find most interesting as well.

"I don't see why the application of force however arcane the methodology should be subject to no regulation simply because the mechanisms are less well understood."

The application of force must be regulated, is this what you are arguing? I presume this theoretical regulation would include a listing of scenarious where force is viewed as acceptable and unacceptable. Who would compile such a listing, Ms. O'Harris? Can you personally assure me that this listing would be ehxaustive and touch upon each and every circumstance where force is contemplated as an option? Thus, if I were in a position where I had to choose between lethal and non-lethal action in the defense of myself, my family, my interests, my property or the life and well being of others, I could make an informed decision?

I highly doubt that you, a well meaning and upstanding member of society at large and a respected individual within the Pagan community, can grant me such assurances. I also highly doubt that such an exhaustive list can be compliled. We can not expect others to view a given situation through the same lense as we do, Ms. O'Harris, and as such can not expect them to view every situation as we would. For this reason, we must work to secure our liberties rather then place more constraints upon the tresspasses.

It is far easier to lose freedom then to gain it.



And I do have the right to speak out about whether I want to live in a community where people enact violence on the basis of resentment, envy, projection, and a host of other pathological, un-worked-through emotions. Again, the resultant sounds like Lord of the Flies with Grimoires. A pathologically repress/ed/ive concept of good should not inspire a reactionary intrigue with pathologically repress/ed/ive concepts of evil or dark, but a revisioning of good. This fascination with the "dark" puzzles me. I, too, love the night, the shade, and shadows ; and in a literary or theatrical context can appreciate a good villain as much as anyone else --- but in real life, there is already so much suffering that revelling in it or seeking to perpetuate it to me seems like a decadent, pathological luxury.

Ms. O'Harris, I am ... appauled by your blanket statement. You, of all people, should realize that "dark" magic is not all based upon the socially defined traits of evil (resentment, envy, projection, greed, anger, sloth, etc.). "Dark" magic is a thereputic tool in resolving the rifts within ourselves that such emotions can create. It has means by which we can expunge the excess of said emotions and come to terms with them.

This is but one of many, many possibilities of "dark" magic, Ms. O'Harris. A banishment is a form of "dark" magic. It involves the sending away of something. Thus, a person who is ill with a severe cold can aid the healing from said illness by performing a banishment. Is this something motivated by the traits commonly associated with "dark" magic by society at large? The communication with the dead is classically considered a "dark" art. I see no evidence of malice prompting this, for in most cases it is an innate talent.

Madam, unless you provide evidence to clarify your sentiments, I am forced to say that you are as blind on the topic of "dark" magic as the people who are inclined to persecute us. My reasoning for this is because your statements all indicate that you feel that we are at dire risk of playing with forces of evil that will consume us, no matter what form of "dark" magic we work. I do hope that a teacher of the Craft, such as yourself, is more enlightened then this and that my estimation of this point is based on misinterpreting your words.

[anasia*la*fae]

Ms. O'Harris, you may have a valid point about community self-policing, as most communities do establish a certian set of activities and behaviors that are viewed as acceptable. Usually this set of acceptable things are proven to be the benefit of the group at large and is not questioned by the group members, thus being agreed upon by acquiescence.

On the matter of the benandanti, however, you are sorely mistaken. Not all witches subscribe to the organization of the tradition of Strega or related traditions of Greco/Etruscan descent. For that matter, the subsect that is promoted by these traditions makes up a relatively minor portion of the population of practicing witches. The vast majority of witchcraft practiced is the fruit of Anglo-Celtic origin, predominantly of English revisionist witchcraft, as seen in Gardener's work. The point of this rambling, is that the majority of the witches you encounter are not operating under the auspices of the benandanti or some other group of sacred elders.

I highly advise that you recall this, as I know it may be rather foregin to the tradition/sect of witchcraft that you practice. Assuming that all other witches are beholden to some group of sacred elders is on par with declaring that a tradition with such elders is a matter of orthodoxy and an integral part of the structure of the religion of witchcraft. Witchcraft, however, is not constrained by such orthodoxy, as I am sure you are aware. It appears, however, that you are stating this.



Ms. O'Harris, are you familiar with the legal distinction between self-defense and assault? Would you please present it to us or perhaps kindly clarify this point, as I do not see how this directly relates to the discussion. Are you arguing that intent to harm is an essential component to assault or that intent to harm can be classed in two different categories: self-defense and assault?



I find little place to argue with your statement here. The only thing that I see here is begging questions: What is the role of the community in relation to the individual? What is the role of the individual in relation to the community? What is the role of individuals, within this community, with relation to eachother? In short, Ms. O'Harris, what is the social contract in place here?



This returns back to the question of what is the social contract within the community. It's ironic that you state the question of "how a community would feel about completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins for hire?" in the light of the fact that such things are in play in our "mundane" society. You don't usually think about such unplesant things, do you, Ms. O'Harris? Or, am I incorrect in my estimation and you are deeply troubled by this matter as well? The matter of such ... unsavory professions and individuals aside, there is another statement you made that I find most interesting as well.

"I don't see why the application of force however arcane the methodology should be subject to no regulation simply because the mechanisms are less well understood."

The application of force must be regulated, is this what you are arguing? I presume this theoretical regulation would include a listing of scenarious where force is viewed as acceptable and unacceptable. Who would compile such a listing, Ms. O'Harris? Can you personally assure me that this listing would be ehxaustive and touch upon each and every circumstance where force is contemplated as an option? Thus, if I were in a position where I had to choose between lethal and non-lethal action in the defense of myself, my family, my interests, my property or the life and well being of others, I could make an informed decision?

I highly doubt that you, a well meaning and upstanding member of society at large and a respected individual within the Pagan community, can grant me such assurances. I also highly doubt that such an exhaustive list can be compliled. We can not expect others to view a given situation through the same lense as we do, Ms. O'Harris, and as such can not expect them to view every situation as we would. For this reason, we must work to secure our liberties rather then place more constraints upon the tresspasses.

It is far easier to lose freedom then to gain it.



Ms. O'Harris, I am ... appauled by your blanket statement. You, of all people, should realize that "dark" magic is not all based upon the socially defined traits of evil (resentment, envy, projection, greed, anger, sloth, etc.). "Dark" magic is a thereputic tool in resolving the rifts within ourselves that such emotions can create. It has means by which we can expunge the excess of said emotions and come to terms with them.

This is but one of many, many possibilities of "dark" magic, Ms. O'Harris. A banishment is a form of "dark" magic. It involves the sending away of something. Thus, a person who is ill with a severe cold can aid the healing from said illness by performing a banishment. Is this something motivated by the traits commonly associated with "dark" magic by society at large? The communication with the dead is classically considered a "dark" art. I see no evidence of malice prompting this, for in most cases it is an innate talent.

Madam, unless you provide evidence to clarify your sentiments, I am forced to say that you are as blind on the topic of "dark" magic as the people who are inclined to persecute us. My reasoning for this is because your statements all indicate that you feel that we are at dire risk of playing with forces of evil that will consume us, no matter what form of "dark" magic we work. I do hope that a teacher of the Craft, such as yourself, is more enlightened then this and that my estimation of this point is based on misinterpreting your words.

Quoted in the affirmation of its eloquence.

[Carla O'Harris]

On the matter of the benandanti, however, you are sorely mistaken. Not all witches subscribe to the organization of the tradition of Strega or related traditions of Greco/Etruscan descent. For that matter, the subsect that is promoted by these traditions makes up a relatively minor portion of the population of practicing witches. The vast majority of witchcraft practiced is the fruit of Anglo-Celtic origin, predominantly of English revisionist witchcraft, as seen in Gardener's work. The point of this rambling, is that the majority of the witches you encounter are not operating under the auspices of the benandanti or some other group of sacred elders.

Ginzburg found parallel structures to the Benandanti all over Europe. And all over Europe were found structures for prosecuting maleficia.

As far as Gardner's work, let us quote :


So it is Ardane that none shall use the Art in any way to do ill [45] to any, howevermuch they have injured us. And for long we have obeyed this law, "Harm none" and nowtimes many believe we exist not. So it be Ardane that this law shall still continue to help us in our plight. No one, however great an injury or injustice they receive, may use the Art in any to do ill or harm any. [50] But they may, after great consultations with all, use the Art to prevent or restrain Christians from harming us and others, but only to let or constrain them and never to punish, to this end.


In England 'tis now many a year since a witch hath died the death, but any misuse of the power might raise the Persecution again; so never break this law, [65] however much you are tempted, and never consent to its being broken. If you know it is being broken in the least, you must work strongly against it, and any High Priestess or High Priest who consents to it must be immediately deposed, for 'tis the blood of the Brethren they endanger.

Let me emphasize :


If you know it is being broken in the least, you must work strongly against it



But ever let the Coven debate the matter at length. Only if all are satisfied that none may be harmed [80] may the Art be used. If it is not possible to achieve your ends one way without harming any, perchance the aim may be achieved by acting in a different way, so as to harm none. May the Curse of the Goddess be on any who breach this law.

(http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos38.htm)

I think that's pretty self-explanatory. Not only is the Coven to debate situations that may involve harm, but every witch is enjoined to strongly work against any ill-workings.


I highly advise that you recall this, as I know it may be rather foregin to the tradition/sect of witchcraft that you practice. Assuming that all other witches are beholden to some group of sacred elders is on par with declaring that a tradition with such elders is a matter of orthodoxy and an integral part of the structure of the religion of witchcraft. Witchcraft, however, is not constrained by such orthodoxy, as I am sure you are aware. It appears, however, that you are stating this.

I am advising community self-policing and against an "anything goes" mentality that allows the worst and lowest of human impulses to wield dangerous technologies.




Ms. O'Harris, are you familiar with the legal distinction between self-defense and assault? Would you please present it to us or perhaps kindly clarify this point, as I do not see how this directly relates to the discussion. Are you arguing that intent to harm is an essential component to assault or that intent to harm can be classed in two different categories: self-defense and assault?

While I have no intention of legally educating you, here is a beginning :

http://www.useofforce.us/


In the United States, it is illegal to harm another person intentionally ... You can, however, make the case that you were legally justified in your actions, and if you can prove that, then you’re clear. But while establishing that you did the eye-poking is the prosecution’s problem, establishing justification is yours—your burden of proof.


See also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(theory)


In most jurisdictions, when the defense succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force should only be used in situations of "extreme" danger. The defense would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place. Sometimes there is a duty to retreat which makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception (see: Edward Coke) which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium" i.e. Latin for "and each man’s home his safest refuge”).

Please note that the burden of proof is upon the person having committed the force to prove that it was justified on grounds of self-defense.




The only thing that I see here is begging questions: What is the role of the community in relation to the individual? What is the role of the individual in relation to the community? What is the role of individuals, within this community, with relation to eachother? In short, Ms. O'Harris, what is the social contract in place here?

These are good questions for the community to explore.



This returns back to the question of what is the social contract within the community. It's ironic that you state the question of "how a community would feel about completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins for hire?" in the light of the fact that such things are in play in our "mundane" society. You don't usually think about such unplesant things, do you, Ms. O'Harris? Or, am I incorrect in my estimation and you are deeply troubled by this matter as well? The matter of such ... unsavory professions and individuals aside, there is another statement you made that I find most interesting as well.

Well, in our society, the hiring of mercenaries and assassins is regulated and illegal. Such things happen, but they are not legal. And they can be prosecuted. If there were a situation of completely unregulated mercenaries and assassins, the level of mayhem would be far greater than it is.

Your assumptions about what I usually think about or do not think about are inaccurate and irrelevant.


"I don't see why the application of force however arcane the methodology should be subject to no regulation simply because the mechanisms are less well understood."

The application of force must be regulated, is this what you are arguing? I presume this theoretical regulation would include a listing of scenarious where force is viewed as acceptable and unacceptable. Who would compile such a listing, Ms. O'Harris? Can you personally assure me that this listing would be ehxaustive and touch upon each and every circumstance where force is contemplated as an option? Thus, if I were in a position where I had to choose between lethal and non-lethal action in the defense of myself, my family, my interests, my property or the life and well being of others, I could make an informed decision?

What libertarian sarcasm! But the fact of the matter is that courts do form such rules of thumb to regulate such matters. If you'd like to learn those distinctions, I suggest you study case law. As far as the idea that the application of force must be regulated, most people feel that not everyone should have access to rocket launchers, tanks, surface-to-air missiles, etc. And a society that lives by the rule of law in general agrees to the regulation of force.


I highly doubt that you, a well meaning and upstanding member of society at large and a respected individual within the Pagan community, can grant me such assurances. I also highly doubt that such an exhaustive list can be compliled. We can not expect others to view a given situation through the same lense as we do, Ms. O'Harris, and as such can not expect them to view every situation as we would. For this reason, we must work to secure our liberties rather then place more constraints upon the tresspasses.

More sarcasm. Nice. Exhaustive lists are not as important as understanding principles. The courts do expect people to be able to apply these principles, and in fact will prosecute failure to do so. Laws were in place to prosecute maleficia for millenia in Europe, and it is only recently that such laws have been taken off the books. So long as the consensus is that there is no such thing as psychic-harm, it makes no sense to prosecute maleficia as such. However, if the consensus were to shift that there is validity to psi activities, such laws might be looked at in a new light and updated. In other words, there is a long history in law to regarding maleficia as prosecutable.

And while we may not be able to expect others to view things through the same lens as we do, the law demands that when it comes to certain things, that we have the proper lens installed. Failure to do so can result in prosecution.


It is far easier to lose freedom then to gain it.

One does not have the "freedom" to harm. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes, "...The right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins."




Ms. O'Harris, I am ... appauled by your blanket statement. You, of all people, should realize that "dark" magic is not all based upon the socially defined traits of evil (resentment, envy, projection, greed, anger, sloth, etc.). "Dark" magic is a thereputic tool in resolving the rifts within ourselves that such emotions can create. It has means by which we can expunge the excess of said emotions and come to terms with them.

This has been an extremely long thread, so I will try to summarize some context which will help here. I made it clear that psychodramas are not troubling to me, only actions with clear intent to harm. If people want to blow off some steam, that is their own business.


This is but one of many, many possibilities of "dark" magic, Ms. O'Harris. A banishment is a form of "dark" magic. It involves the sending away of something. Thus, a person who is ill with a severe cold can aid the healing from said illness by performing a banishment. Is this something motivated by the traits commonly associated with "dark" magic by society at large? [/QUOTE]

It is not maleficia. I have been addressing maleficia.


The communication with the dead is classically considered a "dark" art. I see no evidence of malice prompting this, for in most cases it is an innate talent.

This depends on when and where. Odin practiced it, so in the context of a culture where Odin was the chief god, it obviously didn't have the same negative connotations as in a Christian context.

Communication with the dead is in many contexts all over the world a very positive thing.

I agree that it has no trace in and of itself of maleficia.


Madam, unless you provide evidence to clarify your sentiments, I am forced to say that you are as blind on the topic of "dark" magic as the people who are inclined to persecute us. My reasoning for this is because your statements all indicate that you feel that we are at dire risk of playing with forces of evil that will consume us, no matter what form of "dark" magic we work. I do hope that a teacher of the Craft, such as yourself, is more enlightened then this and that my estimation of this point is based on misinterpreting your words.

Please observe that I am concerned with maleficia. I like the night and I like darkness. Those things have nothing to do with the deliberate intention to cause harm to another. One can be quite peaceful and loving in the dark. Additionally, healthy, appropriate, consensual psychodrama engaging shadow portions of the human psyche, so long as within boundaries that do not harm, does not in any way encroach upon maleficia.

I have not invoked "dire risk of playing with forces of evil that will consume us". I have prudently cautioned against bringing more harm into a world already replete with suffering.

[Carla O'Harris]

And again were back to the subjective and relative morality if the individuals.[QUOTE]

No real subjective morality in causing harm. These things are decided in juries every day.




Depending on perspective and who is being asked. I'm a martial artist. my "intent" is to make sure the attack can't continue to come after me or those I'm trying to protect. If that takes the shattering of his knee, then that's what I will do.

And you will be accountable to a jury and to crossexamination to examine whether others agree that your application of force was proportional to the harm.


In court cases involving violent confrontations, lawyers and judges may advise the jury to bear in mind a person’s martial arts, boxing or military training when evaluating the facts of the case, as in the Matter of the Welfare of DSF, 416 N.W.2d 772 (Minn. App. 1988), where the Minnesota Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant, who had “substantial experience in karate,” was aware enough of the potential of his blows to deliberately break the plaintiff’s jaw. (http://www.blackbeltmag.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=452)




And all of those are RELATIVE to the society that produced them. But keep going, you're only making my case stronger.

Not as much difference amongst civilized communities as one might imagine.




Yup, you do. But that right doesn't make you're morality any less relative. Same with eh laws of the land.

So many it's time you try a different tactic, hmm? You're not proving your contention in any shape or form, but instead are only strengthen mine.

I don't think you're getting this. I am not going to engage in a discussion about ethical relativism versus critical ethics, a discussion that can take place another time on another thread --- and one which I will participate in when I feel like it. I do not feel the need to defend it nor do I agree to debate it with you, not because I'm incapable of defending it, but because I simply have no desire to get into that at present. I will therefore clarify my position that I do not subscribe to your ethical relativism, and see its dangerous ramifications in, for example, de Sade. In other words, you can go on and on about how I am proving your point, but nothing is happening at all, because I am not debating that topic with you here.




What are you talking about? They ARE unregulated. It's only if their caught doing something illegal that laws can be imposed on them. How people "feel" about it is irrelevant. And this STILL has nothing to do with your claimed objective morality.

The laws exist whether the person is caught or not. You're arguing about enforcement. Assassins are prohibited, which I consider a rather strong form of regulation.




<LAUGHS> Adan who would be in charge of that? You? So that we could all be subjected to YOUR relative morality? I don't think so.

I didn't say that I would be in charge of that. Where did you get that? I spoke about community policing. I've already demonstrated in two very important witchcraft traditions the existence of community policing in one form or another. I have also demonstrated that the law regulates harm all the time without reference to my personal judgement. Additionally, I've cited the history of the prosecution of maleficia. None of that is personal.




Yes you do. And? Lets try to stay on topic here.

My statement is very relevant. People acting out of malice, resentment, and the intent to cause harm are of the essence.




Whoop-dee-do.

Whoop-dee-do? The issue of whether a world full of suffering has more or less suffering in it is of no import?




Back to the topic now: You still haven't shown objective morality to exist. But I've shown time and again how relative morality does.

I haven't shown anything about philosophical positions about ethical relativism versus critical ethics (not "objective morality") because, get this,
I'm not debating it with you. So yes, I haven't shown something I've stated again and again I have no intention of showing in this particular forum.

[David19]

I don't know too much about this Benandanti group, if it's Italian, maybe i'll make a post in Raven Grimassi's forum in the Authors Circle, but i just wanted to reply to something:


In England 'tis now many a year since a witch hath died the death, but any misuse of the power might raise the Persecution again

I've seen many quotes like this from Gardner and i think he just wanted to show that there was a 'witch religion' during the 'burning times' and he wanted to draw line from himself to it, i find quotes like that are, basically, part of the 'more persecuted than thou' syndrom so many 'pagans' seem to suffer from.

I doubt if someone used magic to harm, it would suddenly result in another 'burning times' (also it's kind of hard to prove you did magic, unless you go along shouting about it (which is kind of ignoring one of the goals of the witch 'To Keep Silent').

But aside from that, i'm interested in the concept of the Benandanti (again i'll make a post about in Grimassi's thread, but if anyone wants to tell me anything about it, feel free).

Off topic: BTW, i heard Ecstasies of the witches mentioned, and i plan on getting it from the library (as i think it deals with a group of witches or wizards who are in the service of Yahweh), is it any good, as, despite me not being Christian (or even raised Christian), i have an interest in Christian witch (or wizard, whatever they were called) groups.

[Carla O'Harris]

Actually, it's quite a rational approach. Those who openly practice maleficia and utilize supernatural intimidation to frighten and coerce those around them only confirm the most paranoid notions of witches that Christians and others have, and makes counter-reactions that much more likely, especially in Gardner's time. Paganism may be more well-organized at present, but it is incredible to me that having worked so hard to dispose of the negative stereotypes, there are people not only willing to embrace those stereotypes, but to actively celebrate them as being more "cool". It's propaganda. In general, the whole orientation towards "darkness" is a cowardly, unimaginative attempt to portray rational concerns about ethics, integrity, and public honour as weak, flimsy, unrealistic, or, the ever-used phrase, "fluffy". Of course there is a logic to facing and working-through what Carl Jung called the "Shadow" side of the psyche, but this is a different thing altogether than enacting unethical practices that increase the amount of suffering and harm in the world, however they are justified.

Gardner was not engaged in a "more persecuted than thou" mindstate, regardless of whether or not others have applied such a mindstate to witchcraft ; on the contrary, he was engaged in prudent caution, as well as a desire to perpetuate and propagate the great beauty, wonder, and joy that characterized the religion into which he was initiated. Whether this cult originated in the mid-nineteenth century, stretched back to Elizabethan times, or even had deeper roots does not touch the basic fact now established by Heselton that he was initiated into a cult that preceded him. He did not "make it up". An honest look at his writings yields the conclusion that he was attempting to supplement and revive the cult into which he had been initiated, and possibly -- possibly -- modernize it so it could be propagated more readily. An honest look at his writings also confirms that for him this religion was about joy and wonder, not about creating more mayhem in the world. In fact, it was about countering that mayhem (think of the operation against the German invasion). It had its appreciation for non-malefic darkness, such as the mysteries of death, and the powers an honest confrontation with death can bestow, but this was part of a program of harmonizing with life's realities in ways that augmented nature's blessings. He condemned but still compassionately understood class-based maleficia as a last-resort weapon in guerilla resistance to organized repression and persecution (and the witch-hunts, however you interpret them, are "persecution" under any reasonable definition thereof!), yet still considered it counterproductive. In fact, in the narrative he provides from the cult in which he was initiated, it was the witches who assidiously avoided malefecia who won in the learning-curve and managed to survive.

[Infinite Grey]

The more I look at the history of "witchcraft" the more I begin to believe that "witches" were indeed everything that Christians say they were. Largely because "witches" were an invention of the church leaders, representative of the worst religious crimes against Christianity. The groups of women and men that were considered "witches" were in fact practitioners of magic, alternative medicines or pagans. Now if you take into account the mentality/philosophies/doctrines of the Christianity, there are only two power bases; God (YHWH) and the Devil. If a person wields power not of God, then they were in league with the devil, it was as simple as that. Now consider the mentality of the people at the time, the politically powerful (on any level) were in God's favour, thus anyone else with any form of power was in league with the devil. This is obviously a fallacy as a great deal of those tried as witches were actually Christians, King James IV (I think) of Scotland personally tortured and ordered the execution of a woman who was a healer as a witch. She would chant the Lord's prayer and other Christian prayers as she used herbs to do what she did.

Well anyways, the point is, these people were only considered "witches" because some pointed a figure at them and accused them of being one. Simply practicing magic or healing wasn't enough to make you a witch, conversing with the devil was essential (and a little more than merely converse it would seem :smoke:). Of cause that was simple to prove, as the Devil left his mark... and if they wanted a witch to burn/hang/strangle/drown it was simple enough to find one, real or not.

ok... I've forgotten what my point was going to be... oh well :boing:

[Temptation]

Actually, it's quite a rational approach. Those who openly practice maleficia and utilize supernatural intimidation to frighten and coerce those around them only confirm the most paranoid notions of witches that Christians and others have, and makes counter-reactions that much more likely, especially in Gardner's time. Peopleism may be more well-organized at present, but it is incredible to me that having worked so hard to dispose of the negative stereotypes, there are people not only willing to embrace those stereotypes, but to actively celebrate them as being more "cool". It's proPeopleda. In general, the whole orientation towards "darkness" is a cowardly, unimaginative attempt to portray rational concerns about ethics, integrity, and public honour as weak, flimsy, unrealistic, or, the ever-used phrase, "fluffy". Of course there is a logic to facing and working-through what Carl Jung called the "Shadow" side of the psyche, but this is a different thing altogether than enacting unethical practices that increase the amount of suffering and harm in the world, however they are justified.

Gardner was not engaged in a "more persecuted than thou" mindstate, regardless of whether or not others have applied such a mindstate to witchcraft ; on the contrary, he was engaged in prudent caution, as well as a desire to perpetuate and propagate the great beauty, wonder, and joy that characterized the religion into which he was initiated. Whether this cult originated in the mid-nineteenth century, stretched back to Elizabethan times, or even had deeper roots does not touch the basic fact now established by Heselton that he was initiated into a cult that preceded him. He did not "make it up". An honest look at his writings yields the conclusion that he was attempting to supplement and revive the cult into which he had been initiated, and possibly -- possibly -- modernize it so it could be propagated more readily. An honest look at his writings also confirms that for him this religion was about joy and wonder, not about creating more mayhem in the world. In fact, it was about countering that mayhem (think of the operation against the German invasion). It had its appreciation for non-malefic darkness, such as the mysteries of death, and the powers an honest confrontation with death can bestow, but this was part of a program of harmonizing with life's realities in ways that augmented nature's blessings. He condemned but still compassionately understood class-based maleficia as a last-resort weapon in guerilla resistance to organized repression and persecution (and the witch-hunts, however you interpret them, are "persecution" under any reasonable definition thereof!), yet still considered it counterproductive. In fact, in the narrative he provides from the cult in which he was initiated, it was the witches who assidiously avoided malefecia who won in the learning-curve and managed to survive.

You seem to forget that most magic practitioners in the world have never even heard of Wicca, let alone know who Gardner is. They don't care about the consequences of what they agree to do, all they care about is getting paid for it.

Whether you like it or not, "maleficia" is an integral part of magical practice all over the world and it isn't likely to stop any time soon. The reason for that, as I have said before, is that most people turn to spellcasters when they want something bad enough to not care who it's going to harm or not.

Revenge spells, questionable love spells, bad luck spells and other similarly harmful magic is requested and performed far more often than the happy, love and light variety. If you've ever heard of the Italian "malocchio" or the dark practices of the "marabous" in Sub-Saharan Africa, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Such practices will never be eradicated as long as human beings are what they are: irrational, spiteful, vengeful and greedy. Even if such practices become punishable by law, and in some countries they are btw, it will never stop people from using and abusing them.

[Carla O'Harris]

Such practices will never be eradicated as long as human beings are what they are: irrational, spiteful, vengeful and greedy.


And such practices will perpetuate this vision of humanity. That's not magical at all ; it's just using some petty power to perpetuate misery. Just one more technology for people to create strife with? No thank you.



Even if such practices become punishable by law, and in some countries they are btw, it will never stop people from using and abusing them.


Well, perhaps we should approve of all crimes. Perhaps we should make all weapons available to every single person, and just give everyone free reign. Perhaps we should encourage a culture of mercenaries and assassins. Perhaps we should never protest when there are wars or massacres. I mean, it's all going to happen anyway, by your logic, so why not make a profit off of it?

[Temptation]

And such practices will perpetuate this vision of humanity. That's not magical at all ; it's just using some petty power to perpetuate misery. Just one more technology for people to create strife with? No thank you.




Well, perhaps we should approve of all crimes. Perhaps we should make all weapons available to every single person, and just give everyone free reign. Perhaps we should encourage a culture of mercenaries and assassins. Perhaps we should never protest when there are wars or massacres. I mean, it's all going to happen anyway, by your logic, so why not make a profit off of it?

No to be jaded or anything, but why do you think war is so popular? Yep. It makes a heck of a lot of people very, very rich.

No one said life was fair, Carla.
It may be your destiny to spread harmony and peace in this lifetime but, unfortuantely, the Universe needs both peace and strife to continue to be.

Chaos. It's made of order and disorder. It's what we're all made of. Some will chose the path of light and some will chose the darker path. It's all about opposites. Good and evil, light and dark, love and hate. The only choice we have is what side we chose to be on. If indeed it is our choice and not something decided by a higher power.

[Carla O'Harris]

The universe will do quite fine without strife. Drama, on the other hand, needs strife in order to create entertainment. I'm happy to allow the theatre to have all the conflict and strife it needs, and work towards harmonizing as much of life in the real world as possible.

[MerryBe]

Hmm, sorry but I couldn't vote on this one.
In my path, there are area's of grey, it's not just black and white.

I will banish something bad from myself or my life when needed.

For some, that may seem like a bad thing, so I didn't vote.

I will say one thing though, the mollocchia, is the "evil eye", which many Italians believe is a bad spell put on them by the envy or jealousy of another. So, the Italians will use their magic to remove the bad spell of the mollocchia.

By the way, those who are Kaballistic also believe in the "evil eye".

I don't believe in harming anyone or attacking anyone, but I will use self defense to protect myself and my family if I need to. Consider it a type of warding off per se.

I also am not Wiccan, my Path pre-dates Wicca.
But that doesn't mean I don't have a set standard of ethics to live by.


Blessings,
Merry

[MankyCat]

The universe will do quite fine without strife. Drama, on the other hand, needs strife in order to create entertainment. I'm happy to allow the theatre to have all the conflict and strife it needs, and work towards harmonizing as much of life in the real world as possible.


It's great that you feel you know what's best for the Universe. That's quite a change from people simply knowing what's "best" for other people.

The Universe is made of order and chaos. I agree with Temptation there. Even if humans learned to live in peace without any strife even down to an individual level, animals will not conform to that. The Universe wouldn't conform to that. What happens to our happy little society when the Universe decides to toss an asteroid our way or causes our sun to expand? Would that be within the confines of Order and Stability? Nope. Just the universe tossing a little Chaos in our direction. Order is just a house of thin glass, and the Universe is a child standing outside with a pile of rocks.

:fishsmack

[David19]

The universe will do quite fine without strife. Drama, on the other hand, needs strife in order to create entertainment. I'm happy to allow the theatre to have all the conflict and strife it needs, and work towards harmonizing as much of life in the real world as possible.

The universe (or multiverse as i prefer) is much, much bigger than you or me, you can't say that it'll 'do quite fine without strife' 'cause you can't know the universe/multiverse (noone can), also there has to be a balance (ying/yang, etc), too much of anything can be bad (to use a TV series example, i'm going to bring in a Charmed episode, and please i'm not a RPGer (just wanted to clear that up, lol!), but there was this episode where the world completly got rid of evil, and was 'pure' good, it was too much that it was basically evil in another form (any minor break with the 'norm' was punishable by death), the point of the episode was you need a balance, you can't have one without the other (darkness/light, ying/yang, etc)).

And people have been using magic for selfish purposes since before i or anyone here was born, before even the U.S. was 'discovered', magic was used (and still is) to give people an advantage, in money, love, sex, war, death, fertility, etc, yes magic was also used for positive things (making your crops grow but that same person may have also made their crops grow and their neighbours crops die, so they could have no competition), the world needs diversity, nature needs it, no 'one thing' will ever dominate the world (whether it's religion, culture, or in magical terms (meaning you'll never get a group of all 'good' magical people).

Even the gods, themselves, aren't all 'good', their morality is different from ours (e.g. the Greek gods aren't 'immoral' but they will have sex with whoever they want (Zeus is the classic example), Yahweh will practically slay anyone who he doesn't like (or pisses him off too much!), that's why i like the Sumerian and Aztec religions, the gods are all thought of having their own personalities, moralities, desires, motives and divine plans (that humans often don't know or only have an idea or glimpse of it).

Most of the famous spells and magical things are for love, sex, money, or war, (e.g. the Goetic mages of the past would use their magic (e.g. summoning the Goetic demons, etc) into getting them money, gaining power for themselves, getting laid, etc).

I can't remember where this came from, but one quote i've heard is that a witch 'heals with one hand and curses with another' or the 'witch who can't curse, can't heal', and i agree with that.

You'll get people who practice magic, of every morality, some will be 'good', some will be 'evil' or psychopathic (e.g. astral stalking someone, psychically raping someone, etc) or some will be more a shade of grey (not 'pure good' but not 'evil' either, I might fit into that catergory).

[Carla O'Harris]

Yes, but the point is that people doing psychopathic things should be condemned and stopped by people who don't want to live in a world dominated by psychopaths.

I am sick of hearing idiotic, bogus arguments of "Hey, it's always happened and always will", as if that justifies it. So has murder -- do you think that's ok, too?

Have a little moral fibre instead of a weak, passive acquiescence that amounts to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". That's boring and unimaginative and pretty unmagical.

The universe needing balance does not mean that we need to have serial killers in order to have cookies. There are some things that are unnecessary.

And it makes total sense for people to condemn, criticize, ostracize, regulate, censure, oppose, protest, interfere with, and block unethical actions that are causing harm, regardless of how much anyone tries to justify it. Humans love to justify. So the f... what? We don't need to acquiesce to that, nor do we need to accept their rationalizations and justifications simply because some really narrow p.c. multicultural model tells us that all ways are correct and everything's relative, etc. No! Some things are wrong, and it's ok to say so, and it is ok to oppose them. In fact, it's important to oppose them.

The whole trend of portraying good will, love, and a desire for peace and healing as if it were some "fluffy bunny" kind of thing instead of an upright desire for being decent, kind, and ethical in a world already surfeit with suffering is just ridiculous, adolescent nonsense.

And the idea that anyone trying to be religious or spiritual would tolerate this kind of crap is just absurd. Spirituality is about raising the bar, not lowering it. It is about improving and refining ourselves, not openly cultivating the lowest common denominator and cynicism.

[Stormwt]

There is no such thing IMO as black or white when it comes to magic. Everything is shades of grey. Would you still call it black if the intentions/reason for the magick was honorable?

[Carla O'Harris]

I don't think everything is shades of grey. Get grey dark enough and it is black. Enough of the color metaphors, however : maleficia is what's at issue. Someone deliberately trying to cause harm to another rather than trying to improve the world and make it a better, more imaginative and interesting place is just doing everyone a disfavor.

[Stormwt]

I don't think everything is shades of grey. Get grey dark enough and it is black. Enough of the color metaphors, however : maleficia is what's at issue. Someone deliberately trying to cause harm to another rather than trying to improve the world and make it a better, more imaginative and interesting place is just doing everyone a disfavor.

Only from an outside opinion. The situation will likely look completely different from inside the head of the person involved.

My point with the shades of grey is that our views of good and bad/white and black are surely just pre-conceptions born from the society we live in.

[Carla O'Harris]

Maybe with some people, but not inevitably. Some people judge good, evil, harm, and non-harm from the basis of systematic thought and empathy, not from their premade, prefab cultural categories. But that it would be assumed that people are simply cultural robots is actually no surprise to me on a forum like Mystic Wicks where it seems evident that most people are simply using their preexisting cultural categories rather than really wrestling and struggling with concepts to figure out what they really think, and what they can question and challenge.

And who cares how the perpetrator of a crime justifies it in their own head? So they justify it --- so what? That doesn't make it relative. It makes them whacked.

[MankyCat]

I don't think everything is shades of grey. Get grey dark enough and it is black. Enough of the color metaphors, however : maleficia is what's at issue. Someone deliberately trying to cause harm to another rather than trying to improve the world and make it a better, more imaginative and interesting place is just doing everyone a disfavor.


Excuse me, but the person you were responding to seemed to be giving their opinion on the original topic. I don't see any reason to have jumped on them like that. Maleficia was not brought up until later in the thread.

And anyways... if even a small touch of white is added to black, then it is not truly black anymore but just a very dark grey.

[MankyCat]

Maybe with some people, but not inevitably. Some people judge good, evil, harm, and non-harm from the basis of systematic thought and empathy, not from their premade, prefab cultural categories. But that it would be assumed that people are simply cultural robots is actually no surprise to me on a forum like Mystic Wicks where it seems evident that most people are simply using their preexisting cultural categories rather than really wrestling and struggling with concepts to figure out what they really think, and what they can question and challenge.

And who cares how the perpetrator of a crime justifies it in their own head? So they justify it --- so what? That doesn't make it relative. It makes them whacked.


Carla, how are you sure you are not "simply using your pre-existing cultural categories rather than really wrestling and struggling with the concept to figure out what you really think"?

The fact is, you don't know what is right and wrong, especially in regards to other cultures. You can't even grasp the depth of what some of these cultures know or experienced. Now you can say that we as humans should transcend such "barbaric" and "psychopathic" behavior. Why? What makes you think that your way is any better? What makes you think that these people haven't transcended our level of consciousness?

It's not an excuse for "bad behavior". It's a statement of fact. You don't know. What you don't know, you can either condemn or you can accept as a different way of life. I'm sure that some of the people of these other cultures would look at us (and yes, you) and think we were lowly.

Then again though, I'm of the mindset that to make an omlette you have to crack a few eggs. To make most meals, something has to die (plant or animal or both) and the means by which they died is probably not the nicest way to go. To live, you kill. To move forward, you hold someone back (whether or not you realize you do). It's all a double edged sword.

The world was shaped by maleficia in some form. And some of it was muchly deserved, but that's just my opinion based on my upbringing and my experiences, and doesn't necessarily mean it would be viewed as such by other cultures.

There were many others who did horrid things to try to make the "perfect world" you speak of. And the atrocities they committed surpassed those of the people who simply understood that the world is never going to be perfect. Funny how the "good guys" can turn out to be the most destructive and brutal. A lot of times, the are the ones that are "whacked" (as you put it).

[Temptation]

I don't think everything is shades of grey. Get grey dark enough and it is black. Enough of the color metaphors, however : maleficia is what's at issue. Someone deliberately trying to cause harm to another rather than trying to improve the world and make it a better, more imaginative and interesting place is just doing everyone a disfavor.


What if said maleficia is directed at a child rapist, with the specific intent to do as much harm as possible to this poor excuse for a human being?

That is deliberately causing harm to another while at the same time doing the world a favor. Or not?


The universe needing balance does not mean that we need to have serial killers in order to have cookies. There are some things that are unnecessary.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Pure evil is as necessary as pure good, for how would you know one without the other?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't strive to make the world a better place as much as we can. We absolutely should. Our rejection of pain, evil and suffering seems to be something inborn. Human beings are capable of the absolute best and tend to willingly lend a helping hand to those who need it. We have an innate emptahy that is our salvation. Without it, this world would be a much more horrible place than it is.

Either way, evil is here among us and always will be. The only thing we can do is keep fighting it to keep the balance. What you need to understand is that sometimes, in order to fight evil, we must do evil things ourselves.

[MankyCat]

What you need to understand is that sometimes, in order to fight evil, we must do evil things ourselves.


Beautifully stated.

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

What you need to understand is that sometimes, in order to fight evil, we must do evil things ourselves.

Do evil things and Evil you will get in return.

There is a difference between Evil and mistakes. In order to keep the balance mistakes are accptable since it's a way to experience (avobe all), learn and understand. However doing evil things is and means "involution" for our souls.


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[MankyCat]

Do evil things and Evil you will get in return.

There is a difference between Evil and mistakes. In order to keep the balance mistakes are accptable since it's a way to experience (avobe all), learn and understand. However doing evil things is and means "involution" for our souls.


? Love ?

Sirius


And what is the definition of evil? Give me a definition that would be acceptable on all levels to all cultures and I'll give you a cookie.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

[Ron]

Last time I opened my eyes when my wand was squirting out anything, it was grey-coloured. So my magic must be grey. lol. But seriously, any intervention has an unknown universal impact... we cannot consider all the variables and therefore cannot predict the complete final impact, direct and indirect.

But there are forms of magic, that could be considered as "the right thing" or "the good thing" to do in any situation: a call to introspection for the non-introspective; a call to truth for the lying; a call to grace for the graceless; a call to creation for the destructive....

... but all of those could have a "dark" [destructive] impact in the end.

So... I see it all as grey...


Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, and perhaps it is the evil that one knows is evil, but still commits, that will be retributed. [... the acts for which one bears guilt...] This is a nice hypothesis, but I don't think it is practical: Do all joy riders feel guilty?-- I doubt it, but they should all be punished... no?

Over time, lots of people I know have become apathetic about pretty crimes committed in their past... Is their punishment overlooked?

I dunno! lol.

Edit: Or, maybe my hypothesis should be extended: evil that one subconsciously knows is evil, but committed is therefore punished by an unknown force.

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

And what is the definition of evil? Give me a definition that would be acceptable on all levels to all cultures and I'll give you a cookie.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Yuli, evil is when you suffer, when you're in pain...

Evil is something harmful and wicked with the intention to commit and achive such an action. The mere thought of making wrong to another is already evil. Not evil in its broad sense but it comes from the same root. Many other actions and feelings have the same root like: hatred, jealousy, envy, intolerance, discrimination, war, killings and slaughtery, irresponsability, excess, ambition, disrespect, etc.

The question is... do we do anything to stop this around the world or do we cooperate to let those things happen?


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

But seriously, any intervention has an unknown universal impact... we cannot consider all the variables and therefore cannot predict the complete final impact, direct and indirect.


... but all of those could have a "dark" [destructive] impact in the end.


Yes, and perhaps it is the evil that one knows is evil, but still commits, that will be retributed. [... the acts for which one bears guilt...


Or, maybe my hypothesis should be extended: evil that one subconsciously knows is evil, but committed is therefore punished by an unknown force.


That's it. We all know it.


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[MankyCat]

Yuli, evil is when you suffer, when you're in pain...

Evil is something harmful and wicked with the intention to commit and achive such an action. The mere thought of making wrong to another is already evil. Not evil in its broad sense but it comes from the same root. Many other actions and feelings have the same root like: hatred, jealousy, envy, intolerance, discrimination, war, killings and slaughtery, irresponsability, excess, ambition, disrespect, etc.

The question is... do we do anything to stop this around the world or do we cooperate to let those things happen?


? Love ?

Sirius

So... when you suffer or are in pain, that's evil...

So... Child birth is evil, because that brings much pain and suffering to many women. Or maybe the child is evil for doing that to it's mother (an ordeal that some women do not survive). Doctors are evil because the surgery they do cause pain and suffering, short term or long. Sure, they are trying to "fix" something in us and help us live longer or what have you, but the act itself must be evil by your logic.

Reprimanding a child is evil because it causes them emotional pain and suffering (and I'm not talking about the abusive forms). I guess said child is evil because he or she might be jealous of their siblings. I guess people who eat meat are evil because an animal was slaughtered. Heck, I guess everyone is evil because something was slaughtered to nourish them (if you feel plants are living, feeling things). And if ambition is evil, then everyone is evil for wanting to make a better life for themselves and their loved ones, even if they intend no harm to anyone else. I guess my older cat is evil because she might sometimes get jealous of the kitten. Or maybe the kitten is evil because she gets jealous of the older cat. (And I do try to give both equal attention, and they both love eachother immensely... almost taking on mother and daughter roles with eachother.) I guess the door is evil if I accidently hit my toe on it... because that hurts a lot... or maybe my toe is really the evil one. :hahugh:

Your question seems to say "you're either on my side or their side". Either we are fighting 'evil' or we are on the side of 'evil' and there is no inbetween. Fact is, you cannot stop people from feeling the way they do. Is feeling it evil? No. Is acting on it evil? Depends.

So, no cookie for you yet, because there are a lot of people out there who would not accept your definition. I look forward to your next attempt if you have one.

[MankyCat]

Yes, and perhaps it is the evil that one knows is evil, but still commits, that will be retributed. [... the acts for which one bears guilt...] This is a nice hypothesis, but I don't think it is practical: Do all joy riders feel guilty?-- I doubt it, but they should all be punished... no?

Over time, lots of people I know have become apathetic about pretty crimes committed in their past... Is their punishment overlooked?

I dunno! lol.

Edit: Or, maybe my hypothesis should be extended: evil that one subconsciously knows is evil, but committed is therefore punished by an unknown force.


The line was to express that the culture itself and the situation should be taken into account. What our culture calls evil another might not.

As one person put it, a healer might be considered "good" by their own culture, but to another (who is at odds with the first), they might be considered "evil".

In each culture, there is an exception to what is accepted. I am focusing on what is accepted by the culture (majority) and not these exceptions. (In our culture, pedophiles are an exception. They might not feel what they are doing is wrong, but our culture does. So I am not including them as a part of the definition of our culture. However, if another culture accepts it and allows it, then it is considered part of their culture. Hopefully that clears up what I meant.) We are not talking about the things the society claims is wrong, but what the society feels is okay or right (legally and majority-wise... also taking into account taboos that are accepted by said culture).


Editted to include the last paragraph.

[ShadowcatX]

And what is the definition of evil? Give me a definition that would be acceptable on all levels to all cultures and I'll give you a cookie.

Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Just because not all cultures agree on the definition of evil doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Tell me anything in the universe that every culture has agreed upon.

Wether the universe's definition of evil is different for each person, culture, race, or just a universal line in the concrete is something we don't know, and so those who believe themselves good do what they can to avoid doing evil, and do good as they can.

[Carla O'Harris]

The line was to express that the culture itself and the situation should be taken into account. What our culture calls evil another might not.

As one person put it, a healer might be considered "good" by their own culture, but to another (who is at odds with the first), they might be considered "evil".


There is a world of beings outside of cultural relativism. Beings who suffer.

Considering human being's knack for justification and rationalization, calling upon any particular culture's set of rationalizations and justifications hardly seems like much of an argument.

And it hardly seems like a magical worldview to imagine the universe as a zero-sum game where anytime someone gains, someone else loses. There is such a thing as synergy and harmony. If you're suggesting that the entire universe runs only on the principle of robbing peter to benefit paul, that's a pretty distorted look at the universe.

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

No Yuli... I meant suffer and pain in terms of "unhappiness-emptyness".

A mother would gladly suffer for her child who is coming or even give her life (for her child) in moments of risk.

There isn't still a world wide counsciousness about slaugthering animals. The moment people knew how bad is to kill (because of the consequences) they would cease doing it (at least partially). Ambition for ambition without caring the other (the end justify the means... something like that is the saying) is what I meant, to have goals in life is perfectly correct. And about jealousy and envy, I said that the "root" is evil, not in its "broad" sense.

I guess the thing about evil is what Ron said: when you know you do something evil and you still do it.


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[MankyCat]

Just because not all cultures agree on the definition of evil doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Tell me anything in the universe that every culture has agreed upon.

Wether the universe's definition of evil is different for each person, culture, race, or just a universal line in the concrete is something we don't know, and so those who believe themselves good do what they can to avoid doing evil, and do good as they can.


My point was simply, who are we to decide what is evil and what is not? Who are we to decide how the world should be and who is right to "fix" it or if it would be fixed. And again, what one person considers doing good might be hurting another terribly.

I'm not arguing over the existence of evil on this thread. Everyone can come to their own conclusions about that. I am merely responding to specific things that are being said. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Carla O'Harris]

The line was to express that the culture itself and the situation should be taken into account. What our culture calls evil another might not.

As one person put it, a healer might be considered "good" by their own culture, but to another (who is at odds with the first), they might be considered "evil".

In each culture, there is an exception to what is accepted. I am focusing on what is accepted by the culture (majority) and not these exceptions. (In our culture, pedophiles are an exception. They might not feel what they are doing is wrong, but our culture does. So I am not including them as a part of the definition of our culture. However, if another culture accepts it and allows it, then it is considered part of their culture. Hopefully that clears up what I meant.) We are not talking about the things the society claims is wrong, but what the society feels is okay or right (legally and majority-wise... also taking into account taboos that are accepted by said culture).


Editted to include the last paragraph.


So ... child molestation is ok in a culture that says it's ok? Would that mean that lynching blacks was ok in Southern culture of the late 1800s because that's what the culture said? How about pogroms of Jews in Europe and Nazi Germany? This just demonstrates the absurdity of cultural relativism, as if every person in a discrete geographic-social setting simply ought to conform to ideas of right and wrong, however ill thought out they might be.

[MankyCat]

There is a world of beings outside of cultural relativism. Beings who suffer.

Considering human being's knack for justification and rationalization, calling upon any particular culture's set of rationalizations and justifications hardly seems like much of an argument.

And it hardly seems like a magical worldview to imagine the universe as a zero-sum game where anytime someone gains, someone else loses. There is such a thing as synergy and harmony. If you're suggesting that the entire universe runs only on the principle of robbing peter to benefit paul, that's a pretty distorted look at the universe.


A simple rule of physics: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Name one thing done that is done for the benefit of someone or something, and I can name how that could cause harm in someone or something else.

There are people who refuse to see this duality but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Where in nature does harmony fully exist without some harm to another?

Please explain further what you mean about "beings who suffer." I'm honestly curious and confused by that line.

[MankyCat]

I guess the thing about evil is what Ron said: when you know you do something evil and you still do it.


? Love ?

Sirius

Again that depends on the definition of evil.

[Carla O'Harris]

My point was simply, who are we to decide what is evil and what is not? Who are we to decide how the world should be and who is right to "fix" it or if it would be fixed. And again, what one person considers doing good might be hurting another terribly.

Ummm, who are we? We're human beings with empathy and intelligence who have the ability to respond to violation. This isn't rocket science. I've already raised a criminological model because legal systems are found all over the world which recognize the basic principle of rights and negotiation and/or prosecution when those rights are violated. And the reason there are complex procedures of law is to make sure that the rights of all parties, including the accused, are respected.

This is not a matter of imposing one person's concept of good onto another. It is a matter of stopping harm. For example, while it would be healthier for a smoker to stop smoking, I am not going to impose that on them. They are free to choose something better for themselves or not, and from their standpoint, given their life-alchemy, smoking might seem better to them than not smoking. That is their individual choice. Where the community has a right to come in is when that person is imposing their habit on someone else. If that person's smoke impinges upon my free oxygen, then I have the place to stop that harm.

The principle of redressing grievances for injuries is a basic point of law. It is also a basic point of law that this process must go through a "due process". Practitioners of maleficia are invoking the most barbaric, rancorous, and primitive conceptions of criminal law that would never be accepted in our legal system, taking it on themselves to be magical "Judge Dredd"s, acting as judge, jury, and executioner. It's an extremely unimaginative model, it's not subject to review, and is imposing on the community a form of vigilanteism it had no say in.

[Carla O'Harris]

A simple rule of physics: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Name one thing done that is done for the benefit of someone or something, and I can name how that could cause harm in someone or something else.

There are people who refuse to see this duality but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Where in nature does harmony fully exist without some harm to another?

Please explain further what you mean about "beings who suffer." I'm honestly curious and confused by that line.

My point is that there are beings outside of the idea-worlds of culture that you are invoking. Beings who are independent of cultural codifications of them. To one culture, a person might be a "slave" who deserves whatever treatment they decide to put out. That is a cultural imposition upon a being who exists independently of that imposed idea-world. Regardless of how that culture tries to justify it, or to even erase the suffering of that being, that being exists in a real world and suffers whether the culture recognizes that suffering or not.

I find it hard to believe that you really lack the imagination to conjure up situations where there is benefit without harm. Are you serious? Ok, I'm skipping down the sidewalk hand in hand with someone I enjoy. Assuming that we are careful to not step on any living creatures, and we do not obstruct the path of any creatures, what tangible harm have we caused to anyone or anything?

And just because there may be no perfect conditions of absolute harmlessness does not mean that the project of reducing harm is meaningless. To use your example of meat-eating, that would be like saying that the most cruel and torturous way of killing an animal for food is equivalent to the most humane way of doing so. We may not be able to eliminate all suffering in the world. But we do have an onus to go about our actions with the least harm possible.

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

Again that depends on the definition of evil.

Don't you tell me you DON'T feel pain and suffering...

We all do, some more... some less.

And as Carla O' Harris said It's a matter of stopping harm through counsciousness.


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[MankyCat]

So ... child molestation is ok in a culture that says it's ok? Would that mean that lynching blacks was ok in Southern culture of the late 1800s because that's what the culture said? How about pogroms of Jews in Europe and Nazi Germany? This just demonstrates the absurdity of cultural relativism, as if every person in a discrete geographic-social setting simply ought to conform to ideas of right and wrong, however ill thought out they might be.



Good points, and ones I thought about before posting. However, they might have felt that what they were doing was for the "good". You could bring up the Crusades. Nazis was one thing I thought about. As was your example of lynchings. I don't agree with pedophilia (I feel very strongly against it), or violence towards other cultures/races/people. Keep in mind that I am trying to keep my personal views and biases out of this.

However... the point was and still is, who are we to decide what is right and wrong?

Is executing a serial killer evil? Some say yes, some say no. I'm leaving my opinion out of this, because I know I'm biased on that. Is it dependent on the form of execution (how brutal)? Some say yes, and some say no. Some say, it depends on the crime.

You could say, cultural relativism isn't a good argument. I disagree. What else can you base your understandings on if not by what your culture defines them as and through the study of other cultures. It's like the idea of finding the "One true path" in spirituality. If you cling only to what you were taught to believe, then you won't see the "truths" in the other belief systems. Many would say, the best way to find the "One true path" is by learning about many and sifting through them. I say the same applies to cultural understanding. To find the definition of evil and good, one must at least attempt to look outside their own culture, understandings, beliefs, taboos, and so forth, to see what lies beneath it all. Heck, I'd even go further to say that all of nature (as we can learn about) should be studied. The relationship between animals, and the relationship between different plants. Not that I'm saying there is one true path or a definition for good/evil.

Like it or not, we are all products of our upbringing. What we feel is good for us, can be evil to another. Many germans felt that the Nazis were good. Not all, but many. Why? Because the Nazis were able to take a society that was oppressed and poverty-stricken and made it into a thriving economic and world super power. Does that excuse the oppression of specific groups of people and later the genocide? No. But the fact is, they were doing what they felt was right. I don't have to agree with it (and I definitely don't), but we truly need to look beyond our own beliefs and biases to see how and why things were.

And I really hope this discussion doesn't turn into a debate on oppression, genocide, pedophilia, and so forth.

[MankyCat]

We're human beings with empathy and intelligence who have the ability to respond to violation.


And again, who are you to decide what is a violation?



This is not a matter of imposing one person's concept of good onto another. It is a matter of stopping harm.


Funny, your earlier posts seem to say quite the opposite of not imposing, and seemed to taking "stopping harm" to an extreme. That is the only reason I entered into this little debate you were having.

[Carla O'Harris]

Well, I agree with you that cross-cultural appreciation is an important part of going beyond one's conditioning, but I do not agree that we are "products" of our culture. That would make us into completely passive beings stamped by the culture as a whole. We have individual responses, and we have the ability to think and feel for ourselves. The fact that protests occur within cultures is proof that culturalization is not total. Intracultural fractals and faultlines are as interesting as crosscultural comparison.

You are correct that there is vociferous debate about the death penalty. But note that the terms of the debate do not include the option of mob lynching, but how punishment shall be administered through due process. Anyone you're pissed at is somebody's son, daughter, mother, father, uncle, friend, etc., and therefore your beef with them -- if harm is involved -- involves more than just the two individuals. That's why justice is always a community affair on some level. People submit to systems of justice in order to avoid situations of blood feuds (or hex feuds).

I think it is important to consider the subjective reality of the other even if the other is an opponent. We can appreciate it, even have compassionate understanding for it, and still oppose it. No matter how justified Nazis felt they were in oppressing innocent Jews, they were wrong. Of course it's important to appreciate their particular circumstances, but they were never at any time determined by those circumstances, and that is proven by the fact that even in Nazi Germany there were protests. There are protests in totalitarian regimes. That proves that there is no strict cultural determinism.

Engaging with other cultures' conceptions of right or wrong is not equivalent to simply kowtowing to them. Anything and everything may be challenged on the basis of intelligent and loving critique.

[Carla O'Harris]

And again, who are you to decide what is a violation?





Funny, your earlier posts seem to say quite the opposite of not imposing, and seemed to taking "stopping harm" to an extreme. That is the only reason I entered into this little debate you were having.


Who am I to decide what is a violation? This is ridiculous! I am a human being with empathic capabilities. If I see someone beating upon an animal, human or nonhuman, I know they are violating that other being. It's really not rocket sciencef. There may be nuances in a courtroom to consider, but the principles are clear, and again, are invoked every day in courts of law.

Who we are are human beings affected by the world around us, and therefore free to respond to it in empathic and intelligent ways.

It is not imposing to stop someone from violating someone else. It is interfering with their attempts at violation, and that is simply part of the pact of mutual aid that society is about.

[MankyCat]

My point is that there are beings outside of the idea-worlds of culture that you are invoking. Beings who are independent of cultural codifications of them. To one culture, a person might be a "slave" who deserves whatever treatment they decide to put out. That is a cultural imposition upon a being who exists independently of that imposed idea-world. Regardless of how that culture tries to justify it, or to even erase the suffering of that being, that being exists in a real world and suffers whether the culture recognizes that suffering or not.

I find it hard to believe that you really lack the imagination to conjure up situations where there is benefit without harm. Are you serious? Ok, I'm skipping down the sidewalk hand in hand with someone I enjoy. Assuming that we are careful to not step on any living creatures, and we do not obstruct the path of any creatures, what tangible harm have we caused to anyone or anything?

And just because there may be no perfect conditions of absolute harmlessness does not mean that the project of reducing harm is meaningless. To use your example of meat-eating, that would be like saying that the most cruel and torturous way of killing an animal for food is equivalent to the most humane way of doing so. We may not be able to eliminate all suffering in the world. But we do have an onus to go about our actions with the least harm possible.


Honestly, I think you lack the imagination to conjure up an inkling of an understanding of what I am saying. You are arguing, it seems, for the sake of arguing, and are contridicting even yourself. And where there are points that are valid, you find some example that doesn't make much sense.

I don't argue in circles, and from various threads I've seen you post on, you do. I got my point across, to any that would like to see it. I'm not here to argue fine points with someone who jumps to conclusion, contradicts themselves, pick things apart to a level that was far from intended, and will not at least try to see what is actually being written.

Anything I would bring up, you'd find a way to argue, whether it makes sense or not. So, I leave it here. If you want to continue this, you can PM me.

[Xirian]

Yuli:

I believe I understand your point of view on this, but correct me if I don't. Are you saying that the term "evil" means different things to different individuals and groups people? Similar to how "good" means different things to different individuals and groups of people? And how can one individual or group of people decide what is right or wrong for another individual or group of people if they have not walked in their shoes and experienced what they have experienced and live and view life from a completely different perspective than the other? Similar to animal sacrifice. Some groups of people feel it is extremely important to their prosperity and their spiritual well being, while other groups of people scoff at them and judge them, even though they have never seen life from their perspective.

If this is the gist of your argument, I think you made clear and valid points.

[MankyCat]

Yuli:

I believe I understand your point of view on this, but correct me if I don't. Are you saying that the term "evil" means different things to different individuals and groups people? Similar to how "good" means different things to different individuals and groups of people? And how can one individual or group of people decide what is right or wrong for another individual or group of people if they have not walked in their shoes and experienced what they have experienced and live and view life from a completely different perspective than the other? Similar to animal sacrifice. Some groups of people feel it is extremely important to their prosperity and their spiritual well being, while other groups of people scoff at them and judge them, even though they have never seen life from their perspective.

If this is the gist of your argument, I think you made clear and valid points.


You got a good deal of what I was saying. In regards to the animal sacrifice, some people feel it's not just important, but that it is vital. It could mean the difference between life and death (of their family or even the tribe).

You can't study anthropology (ancient and modern) without coming to these types of realizations and understandings. Studies into different cultural histories can lead to even more understandings.

Thank you for wording it as you did. I think you cut to the point on several things I was trying to say.

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

You got a good deal of what I was saying. In regards to the animal sacrifice, some people feel it's not just important, but that it is vital. It could mean the difference between life and death (of their family or even the tribe).

But we don't live in a tribe.

There are people who still sacrifice, which means sacred, and "kill animals" in rituals. Don't you think that killing animals is EVIL?


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[Xirian]

Who is "we"?

I don't think animal sacrifice is evil, but according to the posts I've been reading, for some, that is right up there with all other crimes, if the society says so. Which is all based on the society and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's right or wrong. It just is an act.

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

Who is "we"?

I don't think animal sacrifice is evil, but according to the posts I've been reading, for some, that is right up there with all other crimes, if the society says so. Which is all based on the society and it doesn't necessarily mean that it's right or wrong. It just is an act.

An act of evil. And I didn't ask YOUR opinion, SIRIAN. I asked the question to someone else.



BTW, mammy has bought you a present: "a black stikfa" :)

Thanks for getting the job done, fallen angel

Here:
http://dagg.hp.infoseek.co.jp/image/stikfas.jpg



♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[Xirian]

Yes, I know that. And now, I'm asking you a question, that's how I thought message boards worked, or at least all the ones I've been on. I guess you can either answer it or not. It's all up to you now, but I'd love to hear what you have to say to my question that I asked you.

Who are "we"? The rest of the comment is nonconsequential and was for my benefit and the benefit of those who care.

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

We= modern western society or do you mean something else? ;)

What happened fallen angel? Are you so scared that your reign is falling down? =P

Evil tricks people huh?!

When the less you expect it... it turns against you. You fallen angel must know that, don't you?! ;)

But the thing is... don't distort the truth... I mean the outcome of the conversation. Sacred and killed animals and the evil act of doing so.


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[Xirian]

We= modern western society or do you mean something else? ;)

When I posted originally, I meant in general, and not just our culture specifically, (I believe that Yuli was agreeing with my comment and stating that it is not only important to some people (animal sacrifice), but it is "vital").

People from all walks of life and countries, generalize. But it appears they do so because they do not have all of the information to make an informed statement and tend to put and push their beliefs and perspectives on other people due to that lack of information. That seems unethical to me.


Similar to animal sacrifice. Some groups of people feel it is extremely important to their prosperity and their spiritual well being, while other groups of people scoff at them and judge them, even though they have never seen life from their perspective.

I think viewing things from other cultures perspectives is a good way to understand people, not just people in the United States and possibly Canada. This thread is about the ethics of "black" magic, but I personally don't feel that the ethics of the people living in the United States (pagan or otherwise) should be placed on or comparable to how other people view things in other countries. My opinion of course, do with it what you will.

Cheers!!!

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

what you will.
Yes, it's MY will ;)

Falling angel is angry cause it knows I'm right! ;)

I repeat: Evil plays tricks... when you less expect it, it turns against you.

Isn't it that way fallen angel? You will agree to that, won't you? ;)


Killing animals for rituals is evil and cruel... how can you kill a defenseless animal which can be your own buddy?

*Forgive the adoring beast* Judas Priest


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[Xirian]

Killing animals for rituals is evil and cruel... how can you kill a defenseless animal which can be your own buddy?
I suppose the same way I would do if I went fishing and caught food to eat. I personally have not sacrificed animals, but I do understand those who feel the need to do so.


Yes, it's MY will ;)

Falling angel is angry cause it knows I'm right! ;)

I repeat: Evil plays tricks... when you less expect it, it turns against you.

Isn't it that way fallen angel? You will agree to that, won't you? ;)


*Forgive the adoring beast* Judas Prist


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

As far as I'm concerned, no one can be wrong or right when dealing with this topic. It has to do with personal perspective, in my opinion.

I really can't agree or disagree with you here. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I asked you a question. You answered it. Then you asked another question, that I answered. The rest of it made no sense to me which is why I didn't comment on it, the same as the above, so I really can't answer you.

I am only here to express my opinions and read the opinions of others and ask questions to clarify the information in the thread. If you'd like to think I'm mad, I guess that's your choice. But I assure you, I can't get mad at comments that make no sense to me.

Cheers!!! :D

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

But you accepted the black stikfa and there is no way back...

Stop editing incarnated evil!!! =P

You're only here to express your opinions? hummm... yes, always "interfering in people's opinions".

And we're talking about killing animals "for rituals", not for food.


♥ Love ♥

Sirius


PS thanks for getting the job done... the path of excess leads to the Tower of Wisdom.

[MankyCat]

Sirius... I wasn't talking about we as a "tribe", but more about the tribes in different parts of Africa and such. The tribes there are some of the most diverse you will find. That is not excluding some found in South America (usually located in the rainforests, and away from what we consider 'civilized' culture), India, and other locations around the globe. Animal sacrifice is not an uncommon practice.

As for my personal feelings on the subject? I told you over PM that I am not interested in telling you anything about myself, and I have very good reasons for feeling that way. I will not answer your questions about my personal views (or any other type of information) there or over these threads. I am trying to discuss these matters without bringing in whether I feel something is right or wrong. You can view any and all of this however you feel.


Xirian... I agree about not comparing the ethics of one culture to another. They aren't always comparable since the intricacies aren't always understood. As for the way Sirius is talking to you... it's only the tip of the iceberg. Trust me on that.

[Xirian]

Incarnated evil. That's new.

I edit because I want to be clear about what I am saying. I know we are talking about animal sacarifice, but your question was, "...how can you kill a defenseless animal..." and my answer was, the same way I would kill a fish if I went fishing to eat it. Many people sacrifice animals and then eat it afterwards.

[Xirian]

Xirian... I agree about not comparing the ethics of one culture to another. They aren't always comparable since the intricacies aren't always understood. As for the way Sirius is talking to you... it's only the tip of the iceberg. Trust me on that.

I see. Thank you for the heads up, I didn't realize that. I will conclude my conversation with....

[MankyCat]

But you accepted the black stikfa and there is no way back...

Stop editing incarnated evil!!! =P

You're only here to express your opinions? hummm... yes, always "interfering in people's opinions".

And we're talking about killing animals "for rituals", not for food.



So the stikfa is how you are classifying who is who? Interesting.

Many of the animals killed for ritual are eaten as food after. These aren't typically cultures of waste. It's not the flesh that is the sacrifice, which is something that people seem to forget when discussing this sort of thing.

[Xirian]

I couldn't agree with you more Yuli.

We must have been posting at the same time. I understand your point of view clearly. This has been a very interesting conversation, to say the least.

[MankyCat]

We must have been posting at the same time. I understand your point of view clearly. This has been a very interesting conversation, to say the least.


Yup, good times. :cheers:

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

Yuli: you seem to know much about backwards societies and cultures...



Many of the animals killed for ritual are eaten as food after. These aren't typically cultures of waste. It's not the flesh that is the sacrifice, which is something that people seem to forget when discussing this sort of thing.

Sacrifice means sacred. The term is misunderstood by killing an animal or person. And yes, the flesh is not the offering when making rituals... but the "BLOOD" (bodies and blood are sacred things to evil spirits).


I heard screamings yesterday evening.



♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[*SiRiUs* Bright_Star]

Yup, good times. :cheers:

"That thing" that you are cheering at is the very same part of what made you fear for the second time.


♥ Love ♥

Sirius

[MankyCat]

"That thing" that you are cheering at is the very same part of what made you fear for the second time.


? Love ?
Sirius


Sacrifice means giving up something of personal value to a higher purpose or being and typically to fullfill an important need. Who are you to decide what is backwards?

Cain sacrificed vegetables to the God of the Old Testament and was ignored even though it was of value to him. Abel gave sacrifices of animals. Sacrifice of blood and flesh, and received the blessing of that God. I guess, by your definition God is an entity of evil. Of course, that's only one telling of the story, but it does reflect that sacrifices of blood were not only applicable in non-western belief systems. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info (which is reminding me of many more interesting passages of Christian text that relate to similar).

I'm not scared. Amused. And it's comments like "for the second time" that proves the knowledge you claim to have to be completely false (since there was no first time). As for fear? I have no idea what you are talking about. I also have no idea what you are referring to when you say you heard screamings yesterday evening (though I can guess from your PMs to me) or what their relevence here or to me is.


But I'm not going to respond to you again until I get my danged "black stikfa".

[Philosophia]

Yuli: you seem to know much about backwards societies and cultures...

Even though I'm keeping out of this conversation, I'm curious as to why you claim that these societies and cultures are "backwards"? Isn't that a bit presumptious to put your ethics on a religion you may know nothing about? Or, if you do know these religions, can you please tell us why you degrade their practices?

[Ron]

I'm going off topic-ish... not that this thread is on topic at all...

This conversation is insane. It's going up a scary hill. Killing animals is evil? ... Well if I kill that guy over there-- he's an animal-- I'll get locked up for awhile, even longer if I eat him too. But if I kill my dog and lick his bones dry, there's no secular penalty for me. And if I swat the fly that won't leave my ear along, no one's going to scold me. If I use antibiotics to murder bacteria, I will even get support from my health care plan to commit the act.... so why is inflicting harm upon another human being so looked down upon?

Perhaps it is so because we as human beings are one of the few species of known life that have the ability to reason, and suppress instinct and passion. We have strong consciousness: wisdom.

Therefore, we as humans once got together and said, "Why are we fighting? We both don't want to be. Let's never do it again, since we are smart enough to respect each other." Thus we installed laws within our cultures to restrict the breach of these tenets.

Why do we not have the same accord with wild animals (hereinafter "beasts")? Because beasts are not tame; we are unable to communicate with them effectively. We are unable to establish the accord. If only I could have told that fly to keep herself a m&#232;tre away from me, and she would have lived the entirety of her 48-hour lifespan. That pack of wolves could go out on a tangent and decide to eat my toddlers in their playpen, if I don't watch out; there's no way for me to say, "Hey you wolves, have this here steak and I won't take out my rifle on you." (I appreciate that I could give them steak upon arrival, but it might be another pack of wolves that attack, or another group of predators. You get the point.)

That's what I have to say on the issue of morality to beasts.

[ShadowcatX]

My point was simply, who are we to decide what is evil and what is not? Who are we to decide how the world should be and who is right to "fix" it or if it would be fixed. And again, what one person considers doing good might be hurting another terribly.

I'm not arguing over the existence of evil on this thread. Everyone can come to their own conclusions about that. I am merely responding to specific things that are being said. Nothing more, nothing less.

We're not any better, but sometimes people have to step up and do things even if they're not the best person to do it just so it gets done.

You can't please all the people, all of the time.