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?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #29]

To begin with the broad point: I maintain that the idea that all commands are coercive proves far too much. It would make human society incoherent, and I think there is good reason why every moral code (religious or secular) is essentially a series of commands.

Then you are equating the Wiccan Rede with Romans 13:10 [unless you're saying that the Rede isn't a "moral" code].


Even if any command isn't coercive, every command is intended to be.

I'm not sure how you can claim to know that, unless you are claiming special insight into everyone who's ever given a command.
Are you positive that no command ever had the intent "Follow this order, or you'll be kicked out of our club. I have no intention of forcing you to stay"?

If a commander follows that with, "Be on your way, and I hope all will be well with you", then that commander isn't behind Deuteronomy 28:15--->.

None of the recipients of Paul's letter were born into his church.

A good many have been since, and are expected to read the same words.

That is the accusation that later people used coercion—not that this verse is promoting coercion.
I tend to agree that at least some groups have done this, but I don't see what that has to do with the text.

Paul is promoting a belief into which coersion to love is built.


You really aren't that familiar with nontraditional theology, are you? Pagan religions don't hold to the same concept of "sin" that the Abrahamic religions do.

I'm familiar. To clarify, I was saying that all worldviews have some statement that there will be very negative consequences for dismissing its central claims. While a pagan statement to that effect will look very different from a parallel secular statement, and still different from the Judeo-Christian view, the general idea (that abandoning "our" view will cause you trouble) is universal.

As the statements themselves are quite different, so the degrees of trouble are as well (as far as I know, there's no eternal damnation said to await anyone who rejects a Pagan belief).


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.

If it is obvious that "they're not genuinely loved", then it should be obvious that this is not what Paul was saying.
Someone who cultivates love for someone (his child or whomever) won't say "I love you because I'm told to love you". That person will say "I love you because (...list of the good things that person has made a point of seeing in the loved person)".
Alternatively, there is the child who is told "I thought I'd love you, but I felt only nerves and exhaustion when you were born. So, I decided not to try to love you at all, and see if it happened spontaneously. It didn't, so I don't love you." I'm guessing that kid would very much prefer a parent who actively tries to see the good in him/her, and cultivate a loving relationship, even if it's not purely spontaneous.

It sounds to me like such a parent would end up saying, "I'm sorry----I know that you commanded me to love this child, but I just can't."

And how well would that go over in Christianity?

"If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing."
(1 Corinthians 13:3)

It would be unhealthy of a person to demand that someone love them. I'm not quite as convinced that it is unhealthy of a person to demand that someone love his/her own child (or one another generally). The latter (what Paul was actually doing) just seems like good advice to me.

It can be demanded that someone act in a loving fashion, but that isn't enough to evoke love.


I'm assuming that the position I'm taking is generally accepted.

I don't see that, but that was not the question. I'm not asking whether it is generally accepted.
Let's say that someone rejects your view. Would you say that this person is making a bad call and harming people?

I would say that person is thinking of love unrealistically.


So even cultivating love comes from within; no one has to be commanded to do so.

I'd say that a command to do what I've described here is a good idea. People who are taught to do this, it would stand to reason, might be more likely to do it.

I'd say that puts more emphasis on obeying the command to love than it puts on the one who is to be loved.

The point is that any view can be called coercive if we take as broad a view as this argument against Paul requires.

Any view can be called coercive, but it's a command behind it which makes it coercive.


You said you already looked at Deuteronomy 28.

I did. I seem to read it differently than you. But, mostly, I'm wondering why Deuteronomy 28 is the single text by which everything else should be understood. My understanding is that the later writings are largely there to provide clarification on the earlier ones (hence, passages like Matthew 22:37-40).

You can't remove Deut. 28 from its context, nor can you remove it from later writings as context.


The text doesn't say, "It would be nice if you worked on cultivating love". It says, "Thou shalt love". That is a command.

I agree. Our disagreement is over whether commands are automatically objectionable.

And I clarified my position that commands are not "automatically" objectionable. It's about whether or not a command is reasonable and realistic.


Bosses don't typically command you to love them. For that matter, neither do parents.

To clarify, are you still claiming that all commands are coercive, or is it just this command?
And by "this command", do you mean "love one another" or "love me"? Those seem very different.

Neither can evoke love on its own.

All moral codes, including your own, make demands of a person. If you are comfortable being coerced, in that strange sense of the word, there is nothing wrong with other views similarly making demands of their own adherents.

Again, there's the degree to which the demand is realistic to consider, as well as the intimidation factor involved with the demand being met.


Are you again arguing that the Rede and Romans 13 are equivalent?

No. Are you claiming not to have ever accepted a moral code?
Are you claiming that no good parent ever gave a moral command to his/her children? Are you recommending that the child immediately break off that relationship as coercive?

A parental command such as "Clean your room" or "Don't play in the street" is related to actions, not to feelings. Even a parental command to "Respect my authority" relates to action pertaining to obeying those other commands. But----again----love is an emotion, and no one can reasonably command anyone to feel a certain way.


There's a difference between saying that people shouldn't presume to demand love and saying that they "needn't bother" with love.

With respect to what you are saying about religions, it adds up to the same.

No, it doesn't.

Specifically, you are recommending that no religion ever command people to be loving.

I'm not "recommending" anything. I'm observing that commanding specific feelings is unrealistic.

That is, you are recommending that they include in their theology that people have no imperative to love. Or, in more informal terms: that they needn't bother about it.

Wrong again. There is nothing in a religion like Wicca which dismisses the importance of love. What you don't seem to understand is that there are religions which hold that human nature is essentially good [as in, no "original sin"], and that while humans are free to make bad choices, human nature always carries an innate ability to love which doesn't have to be commanded that anyone should "boast", as Paul of Tarsus would say.

Personally, I could never accept a moral code that didn't command people to love one another. That is a sure sign of an inadequate moral code.

While such a sign might be "sure" in your opinion, not everyone has to be as sure of it as you are.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #30]

If it is the same as said in the Bible, why have it instead of the Bible, unless it actually means something else?

It doesn't have the same internal inconsistencies to deal with.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #30]

If it is the same as said in the Bible, why have it instead of the Bible, unless it actually means something else?

It doesn't have the same internal inconsistencies to deal with.

I don't think there is internal inconsistencies in the Bible. But, if you think so, it also shows they are not really the same.