Can one be Wiccan and embrace negative energy?

[SacredWithin]

Okay, I do my religious studies, but there are always questions that arise the more you learn. :)

Is it possible for a person to be Wiccan and be able to embrace negative energy if they follow the Rede? Or can you be accepting of negative energy and not embrace it as a Wiccan?

I ask because I learned that some believe that the difference between a New Ager and a Pagan is that a Pagan embraces both the positive and negative energies and the new Agers are just about the positive energy.

I try not to make generalizations and I understand that beliefs really differ from person to person so I ask what are your individual opinions on this. Thanks. :)

[Rhaevyn]

I'm Wiccan and I embrace negativity. I think it's very important to be aware of and embrace the "shadow side". Ignoring negativity doesn't make it go away, nor does it help you learn from it.

I honestly don't see how the Rede might prevent someone from accepting that there's negativity out there to deal with.

[Silver_FireStar]

To be honest I don't really know if I'm wiccan. I embrace certain aspects of it. But this is my viewpoint...
Wiccans believe in the opposites, day and night, sun and moon, man and woman, earth and air, fire and water etc, light and dark plus posative and negative are just more opposites so they should be embraced. Afterall you cannot have one without another.

[Bix]

Like Silver_Firestar said, I see Wicca as a duality based religion. While I don't think Wicca endorses that you use negative energy for harmful means, you should be aware that it is there.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Actually, you can't be a Wiccan unless you at least acknowledge negative energy. It's the other side of the coin, and you don't get the full picture unless you acknowledge the positive and the negative.

As for "embracing" it, that depends what you mean by that. If someone focuses entirely on negative energy at the expense of positive energy, I'd say they weren't being a very good Wiccan.

As for the Rede, it's just a guideline, and it says nothing about negative energy. If you do follow it, then it this case it's simply a matter of being aware of the consequences of embracing negative energy.

[merlo]

There's no way to ABSOLUTELY harm none. I believe that one has to make the guidelines s/he chooses. When I sit in the woods, on the ground, there's all kinds of little critter bugs I'm probably squashing. "Sorry guys," is all I can say for them. I'm not a vegetarian, so I'm in part responsible for a turkey, a cow and probably some pig's death, just today. I have a right to be in this existance. Whoever made that choice, I can't at this time be for sure who, had to have taken into consideration that some parts of this universe were gonna have to make way for me. I try not to take more than what I think I need. Sometimes I do. We should enjoy life Yes? My guideline for living is from Pulp Fiction "The toes you step on today, could be connected to the A$$ you kiss tomorrow." I expect no more or less from people than what I myself would give or tolerate. Do I send out negativity? No. What comes around goes around. All that you do comes back to you. Do I tolerate negativity in my direction? NO, I am the mirror. That was an extremely hard lesson for me to learn. How to handle negativity directed towards me. Only through confronting my dark side have I learned to see the depth of darkness in others. Some people shield well though. I am still learning. This weekend was a great stride for me.

[semi]

I knew someone who criticized me for my darkness. She said that she only wanted to emit light and that my practices were inferior to hers. I told her that if she also learned how to cook, then she would be as useful as a microwave. For some reason she never spoke to me again.

Light and darkness, + and -, exist in everything. To ignore one of these energies in yourself is to be only half whole, in my opinion. I think balance is strength, not one extreme or the other.

[Bullet]

It is not wrong but you must except the consiquences of your actions.

[Jenne]

Actually, you can't be a Wiccan unless you at least acknowledge negative energy. It's the other side of the coin, and you don't get the full picture unless you acknowledge the positive and the negative.

As for "embracing" it, that depends what you mean by that. If someone focuses entirely on negative energy at the expense of positive energy, I'd say they weren't being a very good Wiccan.

As for the Rede, it's just a guideline, and it says nothing about negative energy. If you do follow it, then it this case it's simply a matter of being aware of the consequences of embracing negative energy.
Exactly. Wiccans embrace more or less the *responsibility* of using what energy you choose, whether it be negative OR positive.

[Dio]

For some reason, when asking anyone what the Rede is, they will automatically say, "An ye harm none, do what ye will".... Hrm, cute....

Sure, it's a nice little quote, but in my opinion, it's missing the point. Like Merlo said, it is impossible to live without harming. Life feeds on life. Life causes death. It's natural.

When I see the Rede, I see, "In perfect love and perfect trust". This line says it all. Loving all that is natural. Loving equally, both light, and darkness. And trusting it all, light and dark, for what their true nature. Respecting it and embracing it.

If one is not truly embracing the light and dark equally, one can never be completely balanced. 'In perfect love and perfect trust'. It says it right there, in the Rede.

Heheh...and I'm not even a wiccan.

[Rhaevyn]

Exactly. Wiccans embrace more or less the *responsibility* of using what energy you choose, whether it be negative OR positive.
My thoughts exactly.

[Silver_FireStar]

For some reason, when asking anyone what the Rede is, they will automatically say, "An ye harm none, do what ye will".... Hrm, cute....

Sure, it's a nice little quote, but in my opinion, it's missing the point. Like Merlo said, it is impossible to live without harming. Life feeds on life. Life causes death. It's natural.

When I see the Rede, I see, "In perfect love and perfect trust". This line says it all. Loving all that is natural. Loving equally, both light, and darkness. And trusting it all, light and dark, for what their true nature. Respecting it and embracing it.

If one is not truly embracing the light and dark equally, one can never be completely balanced. 'In perfect love and perfect trust'. It says it right there, in the Rede.

Heheh...and I'm not even a wiccan.

Hehe, that's how I quote the rede. You gotta trust that the descisions you make are the right ones. You got to trust that by embracing the dark, even if by embracing you don't use it just acknowledge it, that you can know of it and it not take over. Unfortunatly I have met a few wiccans who embraced the dark and forgot about the light. You gotta keep them equal, life's a balencing act. Gotta keep things equal even if you don't use them all.

[DebLipp]

For some reason, when asking anyone what the Rede is, they will automatically say, "An ye harm none, do what ye will".... Hrm, cute....

Sure, it's a nice little quote, but in my opinion, it's missing the point. Like Merlo said, it is impossible to live without harming. Life feeds on life. Life causes death. It's natural.

When I see the Rede, I see, "In perfect love and perfect trust". This line says it all. Loving all that is natural. Loving equally, both light, and darkness. And trusting it all, light and dark, for what their true nature. Respecting it and embracing it.

If one is not truly embracing the light and dark equally, one can never be completely balanced. 'In perfect love and perfect trust'. It says it right there, in the Rede.

Heheh...and I'm not even a wiccan.

"The Wiccan Rede" is "An it harm none, do what ye will." It appears to have been coined by Doreen Valiente in the early 1960s.

A poem entitled "The Rede of the Wicca," written by Lady Gwen Thompson in 1975 (ish) contains the lines "Bide the Wiccan Rede ye must/In perfect love and perfect trust."

"In perfect love and perfect trust" is part of the poem, not part of the Rede.

That said, what does the Rede say? It says if ("an") it harms none, you can do what you will. It doesn't say anything about what you can do if it harms. It's a guide about what's permissable, not about what's forbidden.

Gay marriage: Harms none -- do what ye will.
Running around naked: Harms none -- do what ye will.
Kicking your neighbor's dog: Harms -- not covered by the Rede.

The Rede doesn't say you can't kick your neighbor's dog. It doesn't say "never harm." It doesn't say it's okay either. It doesn't address the right and wrong of things that cause harm at all. It only says that things that don't harm are always permitted.

[Silver_FireStar]

Well my rede wich is older than the 60's has the 'in perfect love and perfect love' line. There are as many redes out there as there are living wiccans. So how you can say something is not in the rede is beyond me

[Valnorran]

One variation of the rede I saw somewhere:

"An it harm none, do what you will. An it harm some, do what you must."

I'm Wiccan, and what the others have said about negative energy is true. One of my primary dieties is the Morrigan, hardly a being of light. Balance is the key.

[Crow Laylancer]

(looks at neighbors dog)
*thinks i could take him*

no i think that if you know what you darkside is in detial its easier to cope with and mix in perfectly to your spirituality balance is good

[RubyRose]

The rede is a guide. I know from experience, that you cannot harm no one. I also know there are repercussions of the harm you do to others. I guess its a matter of what you do with the knowledge. You can either learn from your mistakes, or you can keep repeating them.

You can't have the positive without the negative. So you shouldn't try to ignore one either.

[tensen]

[color=indigo]Is it possible for a person to be Wiccan and be able to embrace negative energy if they follow the Rede? Or can you be accepting of negative energy and not embrace it as a Wiccan?

I ask because I learned that some believe that the difference between a New Ager and a Pagan is that a Pagan embraces both the positive and negative energies and the new Agers are just about the positive energy.


Can you embrace negative energy? Yes, of course you can.

As for the New ager and pagan, it is really hard to go about comparing the two.
In theory you could be pagan and only embrace negative energies if you really wanted to. Too much on both categories.
But for the two, the closest I can think of is:
paganism involves religious beliefs
New Age appears to involves metaphysical beliefs

[Ben Trismegistus]

Well my rede wich is older than the 60's has the 'in perfect love and perfect love' line. There are as many redes out there as there are living wiccans. So how you can say something is not in the rede is beyond me
Well, there a difference between "a rede" and "The Rede". I absolutely agree with your intepretation, but strictly from a semantic viewpoint, The Wiccan Rede is exactly what DebLipp says it is. You can choose to interpret it in any way you like, and I personally interpret it much like you do (and exactly like Deb does).

You're welcome to have as many redes as you like, and they can say anything. But just so that Wiccans all know they're talking about the same thing, it's just easier to agree that "The Wiccan Rede" refers to the infamous eight words. Doesn't mean there can't be other redes.

[DebLipp]

Well my rede wich is older than the 60's has the 'in perfect love and perfect love' line. There are as many redes out there as there are living wiccans. So how you can say something is not in the rede is beyond me
Isn't that just obfuscation? "The Rede" is shorthand for a particular phrase, just as "the President" is shorthand for the guy in the Oval Office, even though there are hundreds of corporations, clubs, and charities with Presidents.

Maybe every Wiccan has a personal Rede but that's not what we're discussing. If it's personal, then no one knows anyone else's, so discussing what's in it is meaningless, like saying "my diary says..."

If you're under 45 years old, how is your Rede older than the 60s? Is it secret, or can you post it?

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

I disregard the Rede as one of those well-meaning rules that doesn't work in daily life. It's a very nice idea, but I don't think it works very well.
I don't do 'negative' magic very often, if at all. I've only used some very unpleasant Bindings for purposes it is absolutely impossible to rectify in physical ways. I rarely do that sort of thing because I don't really have a need to, not because I'm afraid it'll happen to me thrice over.
As for 'embracing the negative', well, SOMEONE has to balance out all those fluff-bunnies, right?

[Rev R]

From an outside perspective. If The Rede was written in the 60's wouldn't it be true that it was created with the zietgiest in mind? If this is the case it would stand to reason that this Rede thing just needs an update. Something that would bring it more in line with the beliefs of a certain group of individuals here(it may be stretching it to say majority). It's obvious to my observational skills that more than a few people see the Wiccan structure as kinda like the Betamax of religious/spiritual/philosophic beliefs. There are enough intelligent people here why not give it a shot? A community project if you will.

[Ben Trismegistus]

From an outside perspective. If The Rede was written in the 60's wouldn't it be true that it was created with the zietgiest in mind? If this is the case it would stand to reason that this Rede thing just needs an update. Something that would bring it more in line with the beliefs of a certain group of individuals here(it may be stretching it to say majority). It's obvious to my observational skills that more than a few people see the Wiccan structure as kinda like the Betamax of religious/spiritual/philosophic beliefs. There are enough intelligent people here why not give it a shot? A community project if you will.
Well, you would think, but I personally find it tremendously difficult to sum up an entire ethical code in a sound bite.

Best to simply try to be a good person. We focus too much on external moral standards anyway. We all have an idea of what is right or wrong without having to consult a list of rules, so why not leave it at that?

[Ben Gruagach]

From an outside perspective. If The Rede was written in the 60's wouldn't it be true that it was created with the zietgiest in mind? If this is the case it would stand to reason that this Rede thing just needs an update. Something that would bring it more in line with the beliefs of a certain group of individuals here(it may be stretching it to say majority). It's obvious to my observational skills that more than a few people see the Wiccan structure as kinda like the Betamax of religious/spiritual/philosophic beliefs. There are enough intelligent people here why not give it a shot? A community project if you will.

There's a good explanation of the Wiccan Rede (which Deb and Ben T have pointed out is the eight words phrasing first uttered by Doreen Valiente in the 1960s) and also the poem called The Rede of the Wiccae by Lady Gwen Thompson (which is often mistakenly called the Wiccan Rede) at this website (http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede3.shtml).

The basic idea of the Rede has existed in Wicca since Gardner mentioned it -- it's in his book Witchcraft Today, although it was just one of many ideas. The Rede doesn't seem to have become important until after Doreen Valiente said the famous eight words phrasing in the 1960s -- I guess it was just such a good idea, nicely worded, and so it took off!

I'll add my voice to Deb's and Ben T's to ask Silver_FireStar to share their particular Rede which is supposedly from before the 1960s. I'm really curious to see what it says and what sorts of ideas it includes.

Just as another interesting tidbit, Doreen Valiente also wrote a poem she called "The Witches' Creed" which she included in her 1978 book "Witchcraft for Tomorrow." It's similar to Lady Gwen's "The Rede of the Wiccae" and also includes the Wiccan Rede concept. It starts on page 172 of my copy of that book.

[MagickalHack]

Energy is energy, it has no positive or negative, it is all in the intent of the one who is shaping the energy. If you have negative intent for a magickal working, you will have a negative effect.

That was just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

[Ben Gruagach]

Negative and positive are relative terms too.

Example: If I want to cure an infection, I'll have to kill off the virus or bacteria that are causing it. Is killing always negative? Is doing something negative always going to produce more harm? (I'd think that in some cases killing an infection would produce less harm -- because the patient gets better -- than if I just chose to let the infection win out.)

As it's been pointed out, we do harm by merely existing. We kill microorganisms when we breathe, and our immune systems kill off those microorganisms that we've taken in. We kill things (insects, plants) when we walk around. We kill plants and animals to eat.

But then if we killed ourselves in order to stop doing harm to those insects, microorganisms, plants, and animals, we are doing harm to ourselves and are causing at least emotional harm on our friends and families.

It's all about balance, trying to be aware of the consequences of our decisions, and being mature in accepting responsibility for those consequences.

[Rev R]

Well, you would think, but I personally find it tremendously difficult to sum up an entire ethical code in a sound bite.

Best to simply try to be a good person. We focus too much on external moral standards anyway. We all have an idea of what is right or wrong without having to consult a list of rules, so why not leave it at that?

Wouldn't "Best to simply try to be a good person." be described as summing up an ethical system in a sound bite? It's not that difficult then is it, especially since your answer is repeating the same thing in modern English. But is it helpful to say that this Rede is useless claptrap that has no bearing on "reality"(that's what I've pulled out of this discussion...I've been known to misinterpret things...nothing personal)?

Is it ok that noobs are brought up learning this "incorrect code"? You have a unique position Mr Trismegistus. The respect you command gives you the abiltiy to influence the misguided. Granted "misguided" is as much a relative term as "good person" or "negative". But tell me honestly which is better, allowing people to wallow in an ignorant shadow of a belief or putting forth the effort to allow a more accurate and balanced method of thought which may or may not be listened to?

This may no longer be on the same topic as my train of thought has many switches.

R

[SacredWithin]

Energy is energy, it has no positive or negative, it is all in the intent of the one who is shaping the energy. If you have negative intent for a magickal working, you will have a negative effect.

That was just my opinion, feel free to disagree.

Well, I shoudl have been clearer in the starting post. This is what I meant when I said negative and positive.

My personal thoughts on the whole negative/positive thing is that you should do what you feel is right. I try not to hurt people in the process, but I do think that at times, it is necessary. And if I ever choose to hurt someone, it would be for the greater good, that all parties will come out winners in the end and would have learned something. I believe it can happen.

[Dawa Lhamo]

I just do everything out of Love. If it ends up harming, then, well, I'm aware of that. If it doesn't, all the better. Really, I feel like I'm on pretty safe ethical ground working with Love. But the point is to have balance and take responsibility for *everything* you do.

I really don't think we Wiccans have the strict religious maxim of "no harm" like Jains or anything. Like DebLipp said, it's a conditional statement, and therefore applies only when the conditions are in place. If you aren't harming anything, then you're free to do what you want. (or is it Will?.. there's a good argument for that, too) It certainly seems to imply more consequenses or restrictions when harm is involved, and I think that it simply serves to draw one's attention to taking responsibility and realizing what consequences take place when you harm something/someone. Meaning it would be irresponsible to run around hexing everyone in sight, but not necessarily that it's always bad to hex someone. ^_^

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Ben Trismegistus]

Wouldn't "Best to simply try to be a good person." be described as summing up an ethical system in a sound bite? It's not that difficult then is it, especially since your answer is repeating the same thing in modern English.
Perhaps, but, like the Rede itself, it's rather vague, and therefore not much help.

But is it helpful to say that this Rede is useless claptrap that has no bearing on "reality"(that's what I've pulled out of this discussion...I've been known to misinterpret things...nothing personal)?
Well, I'm not saying it's useless claptrap. I'm saying that if it helps YOU as an individual, fantastic. But it's not a hard and fast rule that "must be obeyed". There are plenty of people out there who think that it is, and therefore if they don't believe in it, they can't be Wiccan. And that's just not true.

Is it ok that noobs are brought up learning this "incorrect code"? You have a unique position Mr Trismegistus. The respect you command gives you the abiltiy to influence the misguided.
Well, the only misguidedness I'm referring to is the idea that you MUST follow the Rede to be a Wiccan. Like I said, your own personal interpretation of the Rede itself can't possibly be incorrect, because it's an interpretation.

Granted "misguided" is as much a relative term as "good person" or "negative". But tell me honestly which is better, allowing people to wallow in an ignorant shadow of a belief or putting forth the effort to allow a more accurate and balanced method of thought which may or may not be listened to?
No, I understand what you mean. I'll say, however, that I don't believe it's my place to tell others what their system of personal ethics should be. What's right for me isn't right for everyone. And there's nothing "wrong" with the Rede itself, especially given the interpretation that it doesn't simply mean "harm none".

[Silverfire Darkmoon]

The oldest document *I* have been able to unearth referencing the idea of 'harm none' in a Wiccan context is from the Old Laws (which were, I believe, written in the 60's), where we are informed that 'Harm None' is in place so that people will not think someone has been hurt by witchcraft, therefore spawning a witch-hunt. *looks around* Do you see any Christians running around looking for Wiccans, thinking 'An but I can catch one of the Wicca I shall scape this firey pit'? No?
For the most part, sane people nowadays don't think Wiccans are out to eat babies. Back in the 60's, yellow journalism was running rampant, but now we have articles in the Globe and Mail explaing how Wicca and witchcraft are not one and the same (Thoughts and Arguments, 31 October 2003). I think we need a new ethical code that doesn't make us out to be people who're terrified of causing the slightest bit of harm to anything. Or maybe just do away with the concept of an eight-word ethical code. Being able to explain the ethics on an entire religion in eight words is sort of silly, in my opinion.

[Aowyn]

Perhaps, but, like the Rede itself, it's rather vague, and therefore not much help.


Well, I'm not saying it's useless claptrap. I'm saying that if it helps YOU as an individual, fantastic. But it's not a hard and fast rule that "must be obeyed". There are plenty of people out there who think that it is, and therefore if they don't believe in it, they can't be Wiccan. And that's just not true.


Well, the only misguidedness I'm referring to is the idea that you MUST follow the Rede to be a Wiccan. Like I said, your own personal interpretation of the Rede itself can't possibly be incorrect, because it's an interpretation.


No, I understand what you mean. I'll say, however, that I don't believe it's my place to tell others what their system of personal ethics should be. What's right for me isn't right for everyone. And there's nothing "wrong" with the Rede itself, especially given the interpretation that it doesn't simply mean "harm none".


And therefore have offered a fair and balanced alternative for consumption. :)

edit: Crap!! did it again.
R

[DebLipp]

The oldest document *I* have been able to unearth referencing the idea of 'harm none' in a Wiccan context is from the Old Laws (which were, I believe, written in the 60's).Fred Lamond dates them to '56 or '57, but the notion of Harm None is clearly based on Crowley's Law of Thelema, which is also based on older sources.

[Ben Gruagach]

Fred Lamond dates them to '56 or '57, but the notion of Harm None is clearly based on Crowley's Law of Thelema, which is also based on older sources.

The Wiccan Rede history webpage I linked earlier gives a helpful timeline identifying when the Rede idea could have been introduced, and when we know it was present because it was mentioned in print. The timeline is at http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede4.shtml

The Ardanes (the "Laws" that Fred Lamond dates to 1956 or 1957) were introduced by Gardner when Valiente and a few others in the coven had their blow-out with him. Valiente says the coven split happened in the summer of 1957 on page 72 of her book "The Rebirth of Witchcraft." So I think we have some other evidence to back up Fred's guess about when the "Laws" were introduced.

Getting back to the Rede timeline on that webpage I linked in this post, I would point out too that it is highly unlikely that the Rede (either the idea, or the long poem "The Rede of the Wiccae" in the form Lady Gwen presented) originated with Adriana Porter who died in 1946. Lady Gwen only brought the poem to the attention of another person in the late 1960s at the very earliest, after Doreen had already given her speech when she recited the eight-word phrasing. If "The Rede of the Wiccae" existed before Doreen's speech there is no proof of it. Perhaps Lady Gwen did get the majority of the material in the poem from her grandmother Adriana Porter, but the Rede phrase at the end was likely tacked on after it was made public by Doreen Valiente.

Just thought some people here might find this interesting!

[Ben Gruagach]

I think we need a new ethical code that doesn't make us out to be people who're terrified of causing the slightest bit of harm to anything. Or maybe just do away with the concept of an eight-word ethical code. Being able to explain the ethics on an entire religion in eight words is sort of silly, in my opinion.

In my opinion, one of the biggest strengths of Wicca is that groups and even individuals are largely autonomous. We are free to decide for ourselves what exactly we will do and believe. Sure, there is a core to Wicca that we generally all adhere to. We've gone over what that core might be in other threads here -- my personal favourite description of the core is Ben T's post here (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=1325830&postcount=122). But because Wicca does not have a central authority and does not have a single central scripture that all Wiccans follow, there is no mechanism in place to force all Wiccans to adhere to things.

That means that things like the Wiccan Rede, and any summary of ethics or philosophy, are only important for those Wiccans who decide they are important. The rest of us can just do our own thing.

It does make things "interesting" (or frustrating) as it means we have constant conflict over what the core of Wicca really is. There are a lot of groups and individuals out there who have decided to use that label for themselves. But in the end we don't have a Grand High Wiccan, or a Council of Wiccan Elders, or even a holy scripture that will decide these matters in any final way for us. That leaves the decision up to individual groups and individual practitioners.

And I wouldn't have it any other way!

If I really wanted a religion with a central authority to decide things for me, I could have picked any number of other religions to follow. But I chose Wicca because it really is the one that I feel represents me and my relationship with the Divine best. And that includes having the freedom and responsibility of making my own decisions.

[DebLipp]

The Ardanes (the "Laws" that Fred Lamond dates to 1956 or 1957) were introduced by Gardner when Valiente and a few others in the coven had their blow-out with him. Valiente says the coven split happened in the summer of 1957 on page 72 of her book "The Rebirth of Witchcraft." So I think we have some other evidence to back up Fred's guess about when the "Laws" were introduced.
Sorry that I was so unclear. Fred tells the same story that Doreen tells about the coven split. I didn't mean that Fred was guessing, I meant that I couldn't remember which year he said it was, and I was too lazy to go find the book.

[Serenity]

As a Wiccan, I acknowledge negative energy, but I don't embrace it. I acknowledge its existence and realize that it is necessary for balance. But I don't embrace it or harness negative energy for use in rituals or spellwork or anything like that.

It's my personal choice, and not because I am afraid to use this type of energy, but I just feel there are enough people and environments that are negative enough in the world today without my adding to the mix.

[SacredWithin]

As a Wiccan, I acknowledge negative energy, but I don't embrace it. I acknowledge its existence and realize that it is necessary for balance. But I don't embrace it or harness negative energy for use in rituals or spellwork or anything like that.

It's my personal choice, and not because I am afraid to use this type of energy, but I just feel there are enough people and environments that are negative enough in the world today without my adding to the mix.

This is what I thought most Wiccans' position was like.

[healeri2]

I have a right to be in this existance. Whoever made that choice, I can't at this time be for sure who, had to have taken into consideration that some parts of this universe were gonna have to make way for me.

I think that is very interesting.

Also - "An ye harm none, do what ye will" I really think that's about intention. It is impossible to harm none, as many mentioned just walking on the side walk, the ants sometimes end their existence when we tread. But I think it's about intention, to harm none on purpose that is. For those who are not vegetarian, and give no respect for the lives that have ended for their food, is somewhat disrespectful in my opinion. I think those who do eat of another, should atleast say a form of graceful respect, atleast reflect upon the meaning of life, how sacred it is, and how noble it is to pay respects with dignity and real intention.

Life, is not life without death. I find the Native's had it right, when they killed an animal during the hunt, it was a spiritual event. Religious ritual and use of all the creature, with respect and gratefulness. Today, with capitalism running its course, it seems as though life has no meaning, and is there for us only rather than it's own journey. I beg to differ. All sentient beings have the right to enjoy the sunlight and the sky. However, I do realize that everything must end, and all creatures will die at some point. The means to their death can either be of nature, or of another's choice. I like nature to take it's course, and if I kill something by mistake, a little respect isn't a bad thing.

Negative energy? It's there of course, the Yin and Yang - but it seems many are on the journey to get closer to the light and further from the dark. I myself enjoy the light, but I know it wouldn't be there without the dark, so it's just as important - however, I don't have interest in going deep down into the dungeons of negativity, it's not a pretty place I don't think. It's like when someone is depressed. When they come out of the depression it's like they are light years ahead of where they were before they went into it. It's a real place of learning that's for sure.

[Dragon_Lady_of_Air]

Well my thougth is that if you only now the positive side you are not balanced. I know both the light and the dark it does not mean that I do bad things, It just means I am balanced withing my spirituality (sp). I hope this makes sense

[Pure Ahimsa]

Wicca is about opposites. The God and The Goddess are opposites, but are companions. Wiccans know that their is opposites, though we do use things to bring in positive energy and banish negitive energy, we can use positive energy for bad and negitive energy for good.

[2-G]

I embrace both sides because I think it's balanced.

[plumedsnake]

[QUOTE=MagickalHack]Energy is energy, it has no positive or negative, it is all in the intent of the one who is shaping the energy. If you have negative intent for a magickal working, you will have a negative effect.

May I . . .

I believe that the true heart of energy is undifferentiated. Beyond Good and Evil. Yet it can manifest as good or evil. Good and Evil are not two separate things and never shall the twain meet. They are interlocked in a dance. In fact one becomes the other in a cycle and this is just the movement of the energy. The Chinese have a story to express this point . . .
A peasant farmer had a horse which one day ran away. His neighbours came running. 'O you unfortunate man, what an evil turn of events. What are you going to do?' Being a wise man, he looked on it with equanimity and said, 'good fortune ill fortune, It's all one.'
Would you know it, but the next day the horse, which was a mare on heat returned and trailing behind it was a horny stallion. His neighbours came running. 'O you fortunate man, if your horse hadn't run off you wouldn't have two horses today. What a lucky turn of events.' Again, being a wise man, he looked on it with equanimity and said, 'good fortune ill fortune, It's all one.'
Well, the next day as his son was trying to tame the wild stallion, the stallion threw him and he landed and broke his foot. His neighbours came running. 'O, you are an unfortunate man afterall. If your horse hadn't run off, and come back with the stallion, your son would still be whole, now who will help you work the land. This is certainly very unfortunate. Grave grave, oooh soooo grave.' Being a wise man, he looked on it with equanimity and said, 'good fortune ill fortune, It's all one.'
As fate would have it, the next day the emperors army came into the village to recruit all the able bodied young men to fight in the long and distant war. They took all his neighbours sons but left his due to his broken foot. His neighbours came running . . . . . .

And so life continues. My understanding of embracing good and evil is not that we must go around doing as much evil as we do good, but that we must understand that in the process of existence nothing is really good or evil, but as Shakespeare said, only thinking makes it so. So by embracing I understand that we must take things with equanimity, accepting all. That's why I try not to curse things that seem negative in my life, but embrace it in the belief that every cloud does have a silver lining. By rejecting any part of my experience, I am also rejecting the blessings that it brings with it and I know from my experience that good and evil come so intimately wrapped up in each other. Okay, it's easier said than done, but that's what I aspire to.
And lastly, Between Intent and Outcome there is the mischief maker at the crossroads. How often have I tried to help out and only messed someone up. How many times have I had wicked intentions and actually ended up helping my victim. Ultimately, I can only be true to what is in my heart and act accordingly, what the end results of my actions will be, I cannot tell.

[Greybird]

My father was in the US Army in Korea. When there was nothing going on around the base, they used to give the soldiers a can of white paint, a brush, and an instruction: "If it isn't moving, paint it white".

Note that they didn't need to say: "If it is moving, don't paint it white." That part was pretty much understood, and didn't need to be spelled out.

The rede is a bit like that - stating half of a duality, specifying one of two options and leaving the other one open. I have a desk. Everything in the universe is either on my desk, or not on my desk. Every action either harms, or does not harm (or, more realisticly, some combination of the two.)

The rede only tells you what to do if something does not harm; it doesn't bother to say what to do if something does harm. It just tells you to paint unmoving things white. It leaves it up to us to know what to do when the other alternative presents itself.

If you can do whatever you wish when it is harmless, then what do you do when it is harmful? There are really only three possibilities You can do nothing, you can do exactly the right amount, or you can do whatever you please. (just like you can eat too little, just the right amount, or too much - there aren't really any other possibilities.)

Of those three choices, 'do nothing' isn't truly possible. If you choose to do nothing, you've actually done something - chosen inactivity. You've still made a choice, acted, and not truly done 'nothing', and in many cases, doing nothing is more harmful than acting.

The last option - do whatever you wish - just doesn't make sense. If that were true, the rede would be unnecessary, as it would amount to "If it harms none, do as you wish; if it harms some, do as you wish." The rede would be reduced to "Whatever".

The only option that makes sense is that you must do what is necessary. If it is moving, don't paint it white. The only thing that makes sense is that the whole rede, both the spoken half (if it sin't moving, paint it) and the unspoken (therefore, if it is moving, don't) becomes, as someone mentioned: If it harms none, do what you will; if it harms some, do as you must. It is the only thing that makes sense.

[ShadowcatX]

Grey Bird, IMO you're right, but your analysis is flawed.

Your do nothing option, isn't cancelled out by simply saying "Doing nothing is still doing something, so it doesn't exist." Doing nothing means doing nothing directly related to the problem or question your facing. Therefore Nothing should be an option, not a rule. The rest stands true.

To everyone else:
Darkness does not equal negativity or evil. There are as many positive and good things in the dark as there are in the light.

The Wiccan Rede is "An it harm none, do as thou wilt." Not "An it harm nothing . . ." There is a difference.

[MagickalHack]

May I . . .

I believe that the true heart of energy is undifferentiated. Beyond Good and Evil. Yet it can manifest as good or evil. Good and Evil are not two separate things and never shall the twain meet. They are interlocked in a dance. In fact one becomes the other in a cycle and this is just the movement of the energy. The Chinese have a story to express this point . . .
A peasant farmer had a horse which one day ran away. His neighbours came running. 'O you unfortunate man, what an evil turn of events. What are you going to do?' Being a wise man, he looked on it with equanimity and said, 'good fortune ill fortune, It's all one.'
Would you know it, but the next day the horse, which was a mare on heat returned and trailing behind it was a horny stallion. His neighbours came running. 'O you fortunate man, if your horse hadn't run off you wouldn't have two horses today. What a lucky turn of events.' Again, being a wise man, he looked on it with equanimity and said, 'good fortune ill fortune, It's all one.'
Well, the next day as his son was trying to tame the wild stallion, the stallion threw him and he landed and broke his foot. His neighbours came running. 'O, you are an unfortunate man afterall. If your horse hadn't run off, and come back with the stallion, your son would still be whole, now who will help you work the land. This is certainly very unfortunate. Grave grave, oooh soooo grave.' Being a wise man, he looked on it with equanimity and said, 'good fortune ill fortune, It's all one.'
As fate would have it, the next day the emperors army came into the village to recruit all the able bodied young men to fight in the long and distant war. They took all his neighbours sons but left his due to his broken foot. His neighbours came running . . . . . .

And so life continues. My understanding of embracing good and evil is not that we must go around doing as much evil as we do good, but that we must understand that in the process of existence nothing is really good or evil, but as Shakespeare said, only thinking makes it so. So by embracing I understand that we must take things with equanimity, accepting all. That's why I try not to curse things that seem negative in my life, but embrace it in the belief that every cloud does have a silver lining. By rejecting any part of my experience, I am also rejecting the blessings that it brings with it and I know from my experience that good and evil come so intimately wrapped up in each other. Okay, it's easier said than done, but that's what I aspire to.
And lastly, Between Intent and Outcome there is the mischief maker at the crossroads. How often have I tried to help out and only messed someone up. How many times have I had wicked intentions and actually ended up helping my victim. Ultimately, I can only be true to what is in my heart and act accordingly, what the end results of my actions will be, I cannot tell.

Good and evil are man made concepts, and thus they are subjective. A terrorist believes what they do is right, and good. While on the flip side of that coin, the people hit by that terrorists attack believe whole heartedly that it was an evil act.

Think of it this way, Had Germany succeeded in WW2, we'd be concidering them the good guys; yet if you ask 85% [my estimate] of the people today, they were evil.

As far as your results becoming reversed, there are other variables other than inent that you have to look for, not to mention that [in the case of doing something negative but having a positive outcome] the results of your working may not be finished yet.

[Kodi]

i embrace both.
you can't have one without the other.

balance.:)

[aluokaloo]

of course you can, it's all about balance right? Everytime you get angry, that is negative energy, negative doesn't automatically mean bad or evil, i's just a denser form of energy altogether. Try looking into Out of the Shadows an expolration of dark paganism and magick by John J. Coughlin