wiccan rede....and three fold law...

[Barrackubus]

In the religion of wicca and the understanding of universal law, who made these 'laws' doctrine and upon what science are they considered truth??

 

[Storm]

Can you provide science for any point of theology, ever?

 

[Barrackubus]

Crowley stated in every single issue of the Equinox, that the aim was religion, the method is science. Science plays a role in the belief structure of some practitioners. And also given the idea that magick.is science and art lends some creedence to the question posted.

 

[Storm]

So... you can't?

 

[Barrackubus]

Nope because I am not a wiccan....never understood or could believe the Xtian based dogma...just trying to.grasp.it from their perspective....

 

[Storm]

OK. Allow me to point out that Crowley wasn't Wiccan.

 

[McBell]

Nope because I am not a wiccan....never understood or could believe the Xtian based dogma...just trying to.grasp.it from their perspective....

so it is your belief that only Wiccan's can provide science for any point of theology?

 

[Barrackubus]

so it is your belief that only Wiccan's can provide science for any point of theology?

No.....I'm not saying that at all. I'm just wondering how they as Wiccans validate the doctrines of the threefold law and the rede. It can't just be a matter of blind faith,even the wiccans don't accept blind faith, at least I would hope not since I stopped studying their doctrine.

And I know Crowley wasn't a Wiccan, he was Thelemite, but he lends some very valuable insights to the spiritual sciences.

 

[Storm]

Theology is not in/validated by science, making your "question" an unreasonable demand.

Crowley has no authority in Wicca, and is not even universally respected, making your citation of his opinions completely fallacious.

 

[Quintessence]

"Validation" makes me think of science experiments and standards that would be improper to use for many theological questions. Your example of the Rede earlier, Barrackubus, is a stance on ethics. You don't "validate" ethics; you either hold to them or you don't. They're social constructs that are agreed upon by those who hold to them. Such social constructs endure likely because they are useful to those who hold to them. You keep to certain traditions because they work and because they are useful. That utility is usually backed by direct, personal experience. You could call that a "validation" but that is too technical of a term for my liking.

Given the vast majority of Neopagans (Wiccan or otherwise) are first-generation, blind faith is rare. They came to the path because it spoke to them and they agree with its precepts. As for the historical origin of certain "rules" within the system, that's a different discussion entirely. Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of answering those kinds of questions.

 

[Barrackubus]

Crowley has no authority in Wicca, and is not even universally respected, making your citation of his opinions completely fallacious.

I wasn't recomending Crowley had any authority in Wicca.....
And this discussion isn't about whether or not you feel he was or was not universally respected, although opinions vary and depending on who you ask. If you ask ten occultist one question, you'll get ten different answers. And since it is commonly accepted that the religion of universal law reign supreme in the lives of some of our magickal.practitioners, I was hoping to stick to the original question....
What universal laws prove the rede or the law of three??

 

[Storm]

I wasn't recomending Crowley had any authority in Wicca.....

You kinda were. Crowley is about as relevant in the Wiccan DIR as some random nun.

And this discussion isn't about whether or not you feel he was or was not universally respected, although opinions vary and depending on who you ask.

Uh huh. And if opinions vary, that means they're not universal.

If you ask ten occultist one question, you'll get ten different answers.

Wicca is not 'occultism.' Used specifically, that word describes a different movement, and used vaguely includes several non-Wiccan groups.

And since it is commonly accepted that the religion of universal law reign supreme in the lives of some of our magickal.practitioners, I was hoping to stick to the original question....

Yeah... what, precisely is "the religion of universal law?" Your opinion?

What universal laws prove the rede or the law of three??

Dude. When someone refuses to answer a trick question, calls you on the fact that the premise is invalid, and refuses to answer... repetition really doesn't help your case.

 

[Quintessence]

So... my answer to the question doesn't count?

 

[Storm]

Of course not. You didn't post a lame attempt at scientific abuse for him to debunk.

 

[Barrackubus]

"Validation" makes me think of science experiments and standards that would be improper to use for many theological questions. Your example of the Rede earlier, Barrackubus, is a stance on ethics. You don't "validate" ethics; you either hold to them or you don't. They're social constructs that are agreed upon by those who hold to them. Such social constructs endure likely because they are useful to those who hold to them. You keep to certain traditions because they work and because they are useful. That utility is usually backed by direct, personal experience. You could call that a "validation" but that is too technical of a term for my liking.

Given the vast majority of Neopagans (Wiccan or otherwise) are first-generation, blind faith is rare. They came to the path because it spoke to them and they agree with its precepts. As for the historical origin of certain "rules" within the system, that's a different discussion entirely. Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of answering those kinds of questions.

Yes your answer was very helpful, so it is to be understood that the keeping of the rede is a matter of ethical choice versus any.universal laws that may or may not be in exsistence that may prove it to be truth.or not.
Ethics is something of a personal choice rather than a denominational doctrine, and wiccans has the rede incorporated into their doctrine and belief system.

It isn't I didn't feel your answer was not helpful, I didn't immediately recognize what you were saying, because some other poster was taking it another direction that I wasn't able to see. In my studies of the magickal arts and universal law, I was reviewing some of the wiccan doctrines and just came up with a different set of questions....thank you..
So does.that also mean that the law of three is also a matter of ethics???

And as far as Crowley being universally respected, I would be hard pressed to find those that don't value some of what he said. His knowledge and teaching has had an impact upon those of us that seek the other path. Clearly, I don't understand why someone would make this arguement, specifically when he is number 47 on last centuries top one hundred most influential people..

 

[Quintessence]

Something that I think is worth mentioning is that a term like "universal law" is going to grate against the ears of most Neopagans (of which Wiccans are a subset). That kind of absolutism and dogmatism is generally absent in Neopaganism. They don't make claims about things being some sort of "universal law," probably because the religion developed in a post-modern culture that recognizes truths as relative rather than absolute. It's a little different if we're talking hard science, but for any kind of metaphysical topic, Neopaganism just isn't that rigidly dogmatic in how it thinks about things. Each person is responsible for the beliefs they adopt, so the reasons they adopt them are likewise very personal. As said, you hold to the belief or you don't, and you have reasons for doing so that work for you; they need not work for someone else and there certainly isn't a claim that they're some sort of grandiose "universal law."

The Threefold Law (also known as the Law of Return) is also related to ethics, yes. Some won't treat it that way, but honestly, it's basically a concept saying that if you do a certain type of spell you're going to get back what you send out. That has ethical implications, no buts about it. If you treat people like ****, they're probably going to treat you like ****; if you treat them well, they'll probably treat you well. Actions have consequences. Common sense, really, though like most common sense, it does not hold true under all circumstances (hence it isn't really a law in the sense we would mean in science).

 

[Barrackubus]

The interesting thing is that the rede doesn't give any implication as to how a practitioner is to react in those moments where undue harm has been done to them, a situation as to where another individual and malicious intent has caused harm to the witch. In those situations, how then would the.law.of return be represented?
The law of return by divine justice is also a universal law that states that fairly and equally harmful intent can be sent back to those who have caused you collateral damage with malicious intent....

 

[Storm]

And as far as Crowley being universally respected, I would be hard pressed to find those that don't value some of what he said. His knowledge and teaching has had an impact upon those of us that seek the other path. Clearly, I don't understand why someone would make this arguement, specifically when he is number 47 on last centuries top one hundred most influential people..

I don't. See? Not that hard at all.

You do realize that "influential" does not necessarily imply 'beneficially,' correct? I mean, one can't really deny that Hitler had a profound influence on the world, orders of magnitude beyond Crowley.

And finally, there's more than one list of 'top hundred influential people.' Every single one of them is an opinion piece reflecting the author(s) more than any impact on history. Who wrote yours?

 

[Barrackubus]

O.K. However much I value and respect opinions, they are just that opinions. Each of us take and recieve teaching from the sources that appeal to our liking. I find value in all teachers of the occult that I myself am appealed to. And being a Thelemite, I am very appreciative of the works Crowley presented yet also understanding that there are others who may not feel the same way.
However it is known the creator of wicca Gardener was a member of Crowley's O.T.O.. So even though some maynot value Crowley and his works it certianly shows Gardener did at one time in his early.life.

 

[Storm]

That's true. Of course, Wicca is not necessarily Gardnerian these days, so that doesn't mean much, either.