From: Shabaa Area: MagickNet To: MacFinn 19 Jan 97 22:38:36 Subject: Re: Worlock? UpdReq > Question: why would you call yourself something scornful, a Benidict > Arnold? > Warlock from wearlog, "an oathbreaker, a traitor". That is the only > meaning of the word, and it is not a ref. to a type of magician (contrary > to the Hollywood film industry). The only meaning of the word by possibly wiccan standards or even webster but I tend not so much to base words entirely on someone elses definitions but on my own "feelings" particularly spiritual or religious ones in nature. Although the above definitions may be accurate technically, they do not really portray what I define the word as. I can though freely admit that I am neither totally bad nor am I good but both. I suppose one might make a comparision, had one rather be a BAD wiccan or a GOOD warlock. Neither is completely appealing but the implications are obvious :-) > I would take it as a personal insult if someone called me a Warlock. I am certainly glad I did not call you one then!<> > IF you haven't taken any oath to be broken you are not a warlock. I was not aware that was the ONLY standard by which one could be considered such.... > Likewise, Magick is neither black or white, Magick -is-. A 'dark' brother > is one who allows his will to be subverted by another person or > organisation; one who is not true to themself. Don't take this personally as I really do not know how to put it any other way and it is not directed persey to, or at, you, but directed more to the words themselves and their meanings as stated. By who or what standard(s) is this statement based.... Wiccan's or the brother's? If Wiccan, I may understand, and if by the brother I would find it even easier to understand but if the brother did not agree then I would say that it would not apply in his case and therefore to HIM would be considered invalid and he would be considered an exception to a standard. Shabaa 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shabaa Area: MagickNet To: Balanone 19 Jan 97 22:50:46 Subject: Re: Worlock? UpdReq > On Jan 15, 1997, > Shabaa wrote to Balanone > re: Re: Worlock? > B> * Reply to a message in wicca, posted in Magicknet since it's not > B> on-topic in the WICCA echo, also sent to Shabaa netmail in case she > B> doesn't get the Magicknet echo. Shabaa -- I can pull in just about > any > B> PODS echo which would be appropriate for this discussion, if you > don't > B> receive Magicknet. Or we can discuss it in Netmail if that's an > option > B> for you. > S> > S> No problem on posting in this echo instead of Wicca, but out of > S> curiosity, what part was inappropriate. I think I was just agreeing > S> with a prior post? > Oh, your post was completely on topic. It was /my/ post, my question > concerning your use of the term Worlock, which was off-topic. (I've > never known a Wiccan to use the term Warlock to refer to hirself, much > less Worlock.) Thanks for clearing that up.. I WAS concerned. > S> Btw, I'm not a she I'm a he. (hehehe) > That's the third time I've guessed wrong this month! I think I better > start flipping coins or reading Tarot cards instead of just guessing > based on my own leanings. (For some reason, first names and aliases > with "sh" in them speak to me of the feminine; my apologies to Sherman.) Hehehe To thine OWN self be true.... Not neccesarily to my gender!<> (Oooops more off topic.... My bad) > B> You use the term "Worlocks" above. Is this an intentional spelling, > or > B> is it a misspelling of "Warlocks?" I know several darkside pagans > also, > B> and while several call themselves Warlocks, none uses the Worlock > B> spelling. > S> Typo. I do it a lot when concentrating on something other than > S> spelling and I rarely run my spell checker unfortunetly :) I consider > S> myself a Warlock, only because I don't completely agree with ALL > S> wiccan beliefs. However, I don't neccesarily agree with ALL of the > S> darkside teaching either so I guess I'm a middle of the road type or > S> even worse as stated by some, A Clinton type waffler hehe. > I see, so you're a Warlock who doesn't inhale? :-) Basically, as stated in a post to McFinn I said I at this point appear to be either a bad Wiccan Witch or a Good Warlock and to me niether is very appealing. (Hmmmm the "Force" does NOT seem to be with me....) > Since there are quite a few Wiccan trads, some of which explore the > darker side of Wicca, you might be able to find some that mesh well with > your own desires. How broadly have you looked? It is more likely from > my experience that others with similar tendencies will be found as > solitaries, though (otherwise I might be able to point you to such a > trad -- but I don't have any contacts of that sort at this time). Not broadly enough I'm afraid.... Finding Wiccans is easy but finding darker sided ones is nearly impossible.... I do NOT prefer Satanism at this time. And the NA culture really has no place for me either :-) Solitaire seems my ONLY approach at this time although I have a few Wiccan friends who I confide in when I feel the need for outside guidance in my search for a correct path for me as far as Wiccan beliefs. Now if I could just find that missing "something".... I do get great pleasure from many things the Wiccan Way offers, but there is something missing in it or me and I don't know what! > The important thing is, you're looking seriously at your Path, and > choosing your own Way. That's the best way to pursue your future. Yeah and tripping on EVERY single pebble that gets under my feet on the way! *chortle* > May you live long and prosper. And so to you Jim, oh! sorry Seriously may you as well Balanone. Shabaa > Balanone > PP > FidoNet: Balanone at 1:203/2019 > PODS: Balanone at 93:9902/2019 > Internet: Balanone@tefnut.gigo.com > ... Study Demonology with an enemy this Sunday! > ___ TagDude 0.87 [Unregistered] with 11949 taglines. > --- timEd/386 1.10+ > * Origin: Balance in Opposition - Opposition in Balance (93:9902/2019) > SEEN-BY: 93/0 9000/0 1 2 3 9001/0 9002/0 9004/0 9008/0 9010/0 9030/0 > SEEN-BY: 9040/0 9060/0 9070/0 9080/0 4 9081/0 9082/0 9083/0 9084/0 > SEEN-BY: 9085/0 9087/0 9088/0 9089/0 9100/0 3 5 8 9176/0 9180/1 3 > SEEN-BY: 9180/4 8 9 14 9185/0 9187/0 9189/0 9190/0 9200/0 9300/0 9400/0 > SEEN-BY: 9600/0 6 9603/0 9605/0 9607/0 9610/0 9620/0 9630/0 9650/0 > SEEN-BY: 9680/0 9700/0 9800/0 9900/0 4 5 9901/0 9902/5 2019 > 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718 From: Shabaa Area: MagickNet To: Khephera 20 Jan 97 01:05:02 Subject: Re: Worlock? UpdReq > On Jan 17 15:45 97, MacFinn of 93:9040/20 wrote: > Now- I'm the first to speak against the use of the term Warlock. It is > popularly known to be "Oathbreaker"- except out of Hollywood. And, > eleven times out of ten, anyone using that name is just someone who has > been playing AD&D too long. I don't DO AD&D <> sorry. > However, as a point of history, I have once seen an argument that Warlock > MOST anciently meant much the same as Wicce, Magus, Wizard, etc: ie, a > Spiritual and Wise person. It was later given it's bad connotations much > as the word "Witch" was. > I am not certain if this is true- but the argument I saw for it was > convincing. I wish I could remember where I saw it... I too have seen it but can't find it either.... I've seen it in print SOMEWHERE.... I'm not truely a Warlock per sey :-) via HIS definition but I have been learning more towards the darker side of magic.... This should clear up any mis-understandings... besides, I don't CARE WHAT you call me... just call me! *chortel* > M> I would take it as a personal insult if someone called me a Warlock. > I wouldn't. Again- most people using it are just ignorant. What insults > me is their thinking they are partakers of the Mysteries when they are > not. I've worked hard for my Path. Belive me... I am working VERY hard for mine.... it has been filled with MANY forks and turns and I'm sure the rest will as well.... > M> IF you haven't taken any oath to be broken you are not a warlock. > M> Likewise, Magick is neither black or white, Magick -is-. A 'dark' > brother is > M> one who allows his will to be subverted by another person or > organisation; > M> one who is not true to themself. > Now with this I TOTALLY disagree. I myself can be considered (in some > aspects of my Trad) to be a Dark Pagan. Lilith is one of my Patrons, for > example. I am very much aligned left-handed (so to speak). Everything > has it's "Dark Side", and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with > allowing your Will to be subverted. Thanks.... put nicely... Shabaa 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718