How is it lacking?

[Athetotheist]

"An it harm none, do what ye will"
---the Wiccan Rede

"Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law."
(Romans 13:10)

How is the Wiccan Rede any less moral?

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #10]

The one mentions doing no harm. The other states that love fulfills the law because it does no harm.

Agreed, but nowhere does Romans 13:10 say that "fulfilling the law" exhausts the meaning of the word "love". So long as we don't assume that it does, then the two texts quoted in the OP aren't equivalent.
This is doubly true in that, elsewhere, Paul is emphatic that loving others is not synonymous with fulfilling the law.
And it is triply true in that we have already agreed that there is more to loving a person than avoiding harming that person.

If Matthew 22:37-40 associates more with love than just doing no harm, then it and Romans 13:10 are not equivalent since both claim to fulfill the law.

This is clearly a form of the identity fallacy (P implies Q. Therefore, P is nothing but Q).
From the claim that love fulfills the law, it does not follow that love is nothing but "the fulfilling of the law". Thus, when Paul claims that love fulfills the law, he is not claiming that it does nothing else. This should be obvious—as the other things it does are the only reason even to mention the word "love" in the first place.

We've already agreed that loving a person is not equivalent to avoiding harm to that person. I'm not sure why we're trying to read a passage which mentions loving a person as if this were not the case.

All this is to say that the two original passages are not equivalent. But, what would be far more significant is a text in the Wiccan Rede which clarifies that love is also a moral requirement within its teachings. That would definitely be important context. Frankly, that would completely change my position on this topic.
Are you aware of such a text?

How is it that you are so confident that the use of the word "love" wasn't there for the purpose of bringing in those associations (particularly after agreeing that it has those associations)?

You introduced Matthew 22:37-40 for context. Why did you feel that necessary?

I thought it made explicit what was clearly implicit in Romans 13:10. In a debate, I find that explicit statements from a text are harder for my interlocutors to reject. This does nothing to support the conclusion that love reduces to "do no harm". Quite the opposite, actually.

Also, how is it that you are so confident that the use of the word "love" wasn't there for the purpose of bringing in those associations (particularly after agreeing that it has those associations)?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #11]

The one mentions doing no harm. The other states that love fulfills the law because it does no harm.

elsewhere, Paul is emphatic that loving others is not synonymous with fulfilling the law.

That indicates that Paul's statements on fulfilling the law are not "equivalent".

From the claim that love fulfills the law, it does not follow that love is nothing but "the fulfilling of the law". Thus, when Paul claims that love fulfills the law, he is not claiming that it does nothing else.

If love is the fulfillment of the law, as Romans 13:10 says, then

1. that which fulfills the law is not less than love, and

2. there can be nothing more than love, since there can be nothing more than that which fulfills the law.

All this is to say that the two original passages are not equivalent. But, what would be far more significant is a text in the Wiccan Rede which clarifies that love is also a moral requirement within its teachings. That would definitely be important context. Frankly, that would completely change my position on this topic.
Are you aware of such a text?

"Bide the Wiccan Law ye must,
In perfect love and perfect trust.
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill:
An' ye harm none, do what ye will.

What ye send forth comes back to thee
So ever mind the law of three.
Follow this with mind and heart,
Merry ye meet, and merry ye part."

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #12]

The one mentions doing no harm. The other states that love fulfills the law because it does no harm.

Yes, and if one understands even the basics of love, or the theology of Paul, these are not equivalent.

That indicates that Paul's statements on fulfilling the law are not "equivalent".

Quite the opposite. He defines the term elsewhere, and uses it here. It indicates that the definition should affect the statement.

From the claim that love fulfills the law, it does not follow that love is nothing but "the fulfilling of the law". Thus, when Paul claims that love fulfills the law, he is not claiming that it does nothing else.

If love is the fulfillment of the law, as Romans 13:10 says, then

1. that which fulfills the law is not less than love, and

2. there can be nothing more than love, since there can be nothing more than that which fulfills the law.

This is the claim that Paul is here teaching that there is nothing more to love than the fulfillment of the law.
One needn’t agree with anything Paul says to understand that this is a straw man view of his actual claims. It’s almost the opposite of his general message.

All this is to say that the two original passages are not equivalent. But, what would be far more significant is a text in the Wiccan Rede which clarifies that love is also a moral requirement within its teachings. That would definitely be important context. Frankly, that would completely change my position on this topic.
Are you aware of such a text?

"Bide the Wiccan Law ye must,
In perfect love and perfect trust.
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill:
An' ye harm none, do what ye will.

What ye send forth comes back to thee
So ever mind the law of three.
Follow this with mind and heart,
Merry ye meet, and merry ye part."

This is much closer to a real case that these ideas are equivalent. Thank you.

To respond, if any Wiccans want to read this passage as the command to love others, I am pleased, but that is not what it says. It’s commanding the reader to love the Wiccan law, not humans.

This starts to feel to me like a case of modern people (whether we’re personally Christian or not) being so saturated in Christian moral teaching that we read it into every view. Most religions have no command to love others. Whether or not they should is a separate question, but Wicca is like the majority of religions in this respect.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #13]

The one mentions doing no harm. The other states that love fulfills the law because it does no harm.

Yes, and if one understands even the basics of love, or the theology of Paul, these are not equivalent.

If one understands those same basics of love, one understands that in the context of Matthew 22:37-40, Romans 13:10 is lacking ("implicit" is a euphemism).


If love is the fulfillment of the law, as Romans 13:10 says, then

1. that which fulfills the law is not less than love, and

2. there can be nothing more than love, since there can be nothing more than that which fulfills the law.

This is the claim that Paul is here teaching that there is nothing more to love than the fulfillment of the law.
One needn’t agree with anything Paul says to understand that this is a straw man view of his actual claims. It’s almost the opposite of his general message.

If his " general message" were consistent, he wouldn't have to add to it.

To respond, if any Wiccans want to read this passage as the command to love others, I am pleased, but that is not what it says. It’s commanding the reader to love the Wiccan law, not humans.

You're presuming to know the meaning of the Wiccan Rede better than do the Wiccans who developed it?

Loving a law itself looks like this:

"Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long."
(Psalm 119:97)

The Wiccan Rede exhorts readers to keep it "in perfect love". You're accusing the Wiccans who composed their Rede of loving no more than their law.

Most religions have no command to love others. Whether or not they should is a separate question, but Wicca is like the majority of religions in this respect.

Every major religion has a version of the "Golden Rule", which is what this is about.

"And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
(Micah 6:8)

Does Micah 6:8 command you to love being merciful but not to love humans?

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #14]

Yes, and if one understands even the basics of love, or the theology of Paul, these are not equivalent.

If one understands those same basics of love, one understands that in the context of Matthew 22:37-40, Romans 13:10 is lacking ("implicit" is a euphemism).

I don't see how. Paul defines the term elsewhere and uses it here. Simply because he doesn't define the term in this exact sentence is not to say that its meaning suddenly disappears.

This is the claim that Paul is here teaching that there is nothing more to love than the fulfillment of the law.
One needn’t agree with anything Paul says to understand that this is a straw man view of his actual claims. It’s almost the opposite of his general message.

If his " general message" were consistent, he wouldn't have to add to it.

Are you claiming that any consistent message would never need to be elaborated upon or clarified?
Paul is adding a clarification here. I don't see how that is a problem.
But, if you maintain that his message is deeply inconsistent, how do you claim to be so certain of what he means here?

To respond, if any Wiccans want to read this passage as the command to love others, I am pleased, but that is not what it says. It’s commanding the reader to love the Wiccan law, not humans.

You're presuming to know the meaning of the Wiccan Rede better than do the Wiccans who developed it?

I didn't think so. I thought I was disagreeing with you about it. Are you claiming to speak for the Wiccans who developed the Rede?

Even if you are a Wiccan in some capacity, I'm still confused. Looking over this blog, you seem perfectly comfortable disagreeing with Christians about how the Bible is to be interpreted. How is this any different?

The Wiccan Rede exhorts readers to keep it "in perfect love". You're accusing the Wiccans who composed their Rede of loving no more than their law.

I did no such thing. I was very clear that I was speaking about the text—and Wicca as an idea. I specifically made a point to distinguish Wiccans from that.

Moral outrage aside, that is what the text says. It exhorts the reader to bide the Wiccan law in perfect love. It says nothing about loving persons.

Most religions have no command to love others. Whether or not they should is a separate question, but Wicca is like the majority of religions in this respect.

Every major religion has a version of the "Golden Rule", which is what this is about.

The five major world religions all have some teaching to that effect. In the name of brevity, I'll not discuss that because I didn't specify those religions. I referred to most religions. The vast majority of small and ancient religions have no such teaching.

But, if you are bothered by the fact that Wicca lacks a command to love others (or an equivalent to the Golden Rule), that is a complaint of Wicca, not Christianity.

"And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
(Micah 6:8)

Does Micah 6:8 command you to love being merciful but not to love humans?

It clearly lacks a command to love humans.
If all we had of Jewish and Christian scriptures was this passage, I wouldn't be arguing that either religion commands that people love one another.

Of course, we do have more than that, and Micah 6:8 makes no claim to be an exhaustive list of what "the Lord require(s) of you". For other commands, we'd have to look to the rest of the Bible.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #15]

But, if you are bothered by the fact that Wicca lacks a command to love others (or an equivalent to the Golden Rule), that is a complaint of Wicca, not Christianity.

I composed a lengthy, multi-point reply to this previous post but I scrapped it, because a lesson I once picked up came back to me and made me realize something.

A belief which does not have an explicit command to love others can be morally superior to one which does, because love which is true and genuine cannot be forced. It can't be commanded, demanded or summoned under compulsion. Obedience can be commanded, respect [at least for authority] can be demanded, but love coerced through either promise or threat is not going to be real.

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love."
(1 John 4:18)

If the one who fears is not perfected in love, it's because the one who fears is not being loved perfectly. The dominant partner in an abusive relationship demands love, and demanding love is as unhealthy as it is futile.

For love to be real, it has to grow on its own. It has to be organic. It can't be faked, and no fake can measure up to the real thing.

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #16]

A belief which does not have an explicit command to love others can be morally superior to one which does, because love which is true and genuine cannot be forced. It can't be commanded, demanded or summoned under compulsion. Obedience can be commanded, respect [at least for authority] can be demanded, but love coerced through either promise or threat is not going to be real.

Internal morals can't be developed through the threat of force, if that is what you mean.
But moral codes can certainly include the injunction to love one another. Most would say that those codes which teach people to love one another are superior to those that don't.

This has nothing to do with compulsion.

For love to be real, it has to grow on its own. It has to be organic. It can't be faked, and no fake can measure up to the real thing.

I agree.
But I have no idea how we get from that to the conclusion that there is nothing good about exhorting people to love one another.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #17]

Internal morals can't be developed through the threat of force, if that is what you mean.

I mean, love cannot be coerced.

But moral codes can certainly include the injunction to love one another. Most would say that those codes which teach people to love one another are superior to those that don't.

This has nothing to do with compulsion.

This isn't about people being taught to love. It's about people being commanded to love, and that has absolutely everything to do with compulsion.


For love to be real, it has to grow on its own. It has to be organic. It can't be faked, and no fake can measure up to the real thing.

I agree.
But I have no idea how we get from that to the conclusion that there is nothing good about exhorting people to love one another.

If by "exhorting" you mean encouraging people to love, there's certainly good in that. But love mandated by fiat is an inadequate, inferior love. Anyone who is told, "I love you because I'm told to love you" is going to know that they're not genuinely loved. Even "I love you because I'm supposed to love you" is deficient.

We humans are born with a natural capacity to love. It's presumptuous of any authority to claim the power to evoke love on demand. That simply isn't the way love works.

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #18]

I mean, love cannot be coerced.

Agreed.

But moral codes can certainly include the injunction to love one another. Most would say that those codes which teach people to love one another are superior to those that don't.

This has nothing to do with compulsion.

This isn't about people being taught to love. It's about people being commanded to love, and that has absolutely everything to do with compulsion.

I fail to see how a religious command is automatically a matter of compulsion.
Are you claiming that the initial recipients of Paul's letters were not free to disregard his statements or leave the church?

For love to be real, it has to grow on its own. It has to be organic. It can't be faked, and no fake can measure up to the real thing.

I agree.
But I have no idea how we get from that to the conclusion that there is nothing good about exhorting people to love one another.

If by "exhorting" you mean encouraging people to love, there's certainly good in that. But love mandated by fiat is an inadequate, inferior love. Anyone who is told, "I love you because I'm told to love you" is going to know that they're not genuinely loved. Even "I love you because I'm supposed to love you" is deficient.

First, yes, I meant encouraging. Paul's letters encourage people to love one another in a way that the Wiccan Rede does not.
Second, I'm not sure that loving someone out of a sense of duty is inferior to not loving that person at all. Many very deeply loving relationships, in fact, begin out of a sense of obligation. This is a very typical pattern in parent/child relationships, for instance. It is likely that this is exactly the sort of thing Paul has in mind.
Many, if not most, moral commands take this approach. Are we rejecting any moral code which commands things like honesty, courage, or integrity on the grounds that these internal virtues cannot be coerced? That seems strange.

Given all this, how do we know that an injunction to love, even if less valuable than purely spontaneous love, is automatically a bad thing?

We humans are born with a natural capacity to love. It's presumptuous of any authority to claim the power to evoke love on demand. That simply isn't the way love works.

Humans definitely have the capacity to love, and this is a good thing. I think we agree that humans don't do it enough—hence why exhortations to love one another (particularly from trusted authorities) might be a good idea.
To agree with this, I'd need to see the place at which Paul is claiming the power to evoke love on demand. Perhaps he's simply asking people to intentionally cultivate love in their relationships.

Could you explain how you know that Paul is assuming the ability to coerce his readers into producing love, fully formed, on demand?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #19]

I fail to see how a religious command is automatically a matter of compulsion.

Then you seem to understand little about organized religions.

Are you claiming that the initial recipients of Paul's letters were not free to disregard his statements or leave the church?

Sure, they were free to. But are you claiming that Paul wouldn't have taken issue with that?

Paul's letters encourage people to love one another in a way that the Wiccan Rede does not.

Maybe Wiccans don't need that much urging.

I'm not sure that loving someone out of a sense of duty is inferior to not loving that person at all. Many very deeply loving relationships, in fact, begin out of a sense of obligation. This is a very typical pattern in parent/child relationships, for instance.

You don't think that parents [at least good parents] love their children right off the bat? You think that parents have to explicitly tell their children, "Love us," before they will?

Many, if not most, moral commands take this approach. Are we rejecting any moral code which commands things like honesty, courage, or integrity on the grounds that these internal virtues cannot be coerced?

Honesty is a practice rather than an emotional state, so it can be required. Courage is more slippery since it involves fear, which is an emotional state. Someone can dictate how you respond to a circumstance, but no one can dictate how you feel about it.

Given all this, how do we know that an injunction to love, even if less valuable than purely spontaneous love, is automatically a bad thing?

I haven't said that it's "automatically" a bad thing. It just doesn't work.

Could you explain how you know that Paul is assuming the ability to coerce his readers into producing love, fully formed, on demand?

This isn't just about Paul. It goes all the way to the top.

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

Not even a god can coerce love.