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?

[Consocius]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]

The terms are never alone, but they are contingent on the context. The context of those words of Paul, that is, the context of the word "love" is contingent on the ideas of love to God, and love of God, and love towards the neighbour. The greek term of Paul is ἡ ἀγάπη. That term is often used in the expression of the love to God. And that love is also inseparable from the love to the neigbour, as the commandments of the Decalogue refer to both God and to the neigbour.

In that regard, you can see that the term "love" is not simply any kind of love, so love not in some kind of sensual sense, or even only moral alone, but has the higher spiritually connotations.

One of the connotations is clear, because Paul says that the love does not do any harm to the neigbour, harm in greek here is κακός, which means "evil".

So, love does not do any evil. But the evil is not something merely subjective, or civil or moral alone, but it is the complex of it beginning with how the evil is defined in accordance with the Word, thus, has reference to the commandments, which say what are the evils, which are to be shunned.

Thus, the above idea of love is connected with the idea of love to God and to the neigbour, and with avoidance of everything evil that is specified in the ten commandments.

Now, the phrase of Paul speaks about the neighbour, but that is also not the occasional term, but it is also deeply rooted in the terminology of the Sacred Scripture, and that idea has to do not only with the neigbour, but even the Lord Himself as the neigbour in the highest degree. Thus, love does not do anything evil to anyone, including God Himself, thus does not break the commandments, and it actually, as to the first of love, consists in not doing the evils outlined in the Commandments.

So, as you see, the difference of this term and the related actions between any other moral teachings is infinite, for one is related to the Infinite Divine Truth, and the other relates only to the one dimension of the human activity, not even looking to the eternal life, but only to the external life in this world.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Consocius in post #2]

So, as you see, the difference of this term and the related actions between any other moral teachings is infinite, for one is related to the Infinite Divine Truth, and the other relates only to the one dimension of the human activity, not even looking to the eternal life, but only to the external life in this world.

But Wiccans regard this world as sacred and spiritual and hold that temporal actions have spiritual consequences.

[Jester]

"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?

Taking these two comments in isolation, I'd say that loving someone is more morally commendable than avoiding doing harm to that person.

Are you making the claim that avoiding harm to a person is the entirety of loving that person?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #4]

Taking these two comments in isolation, I'd say that loving someone is more morally commendable than avoiding doing harm to that person.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
(Matthew 7:12)

The exact same principle, expressed in the same religion, without mention of love.

Are you making the claim that avoiding harm to a person is the entirety of loving that person?

Are you making the claim that Wiccans don't love?

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #5]

Taking these two comments in isolation, I'd say that loving someone is more morally commendable than avoiding doing harm to that person.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
(Matthew 7:12)

The exact same principle, expressed in the same religion, without mention of love.

The fact that the term "love" is not mentioned directly is not to the point. We'd need to show that it is not part of the background assumption of this verse. Matthew 22:37-40 seems relevant here.

We'd also need to show that this isn't simply a case of confusing necessary and sufficient causes. Even if it could be established that this principle can be followed without love, that would not mean that it is possible to love a person without doing these things.

Are you making the claim that avoiding harm to a person is the entirety of loving that person?

Are you making the claim that Wiccans don't love?

Not in the slightest. Now, are you making the claim that avoiding harm to a person is the entirety of loving that person?
If not, then the initial texts you presented are not equivalent. This remains true quite apart from how loving any particular group is.

[Mr E]

Google once had a tagline, “Don't be evil”

This phrase was a key part of its corporate code of conduct, symbolizing its commitment to ethical and transparent business practices.

More recently, they replaced it with “Do the right thing.”

In reality, it should be "Do all the wrong things the right way."

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #6]

The fact that the term "love" is not mentioned directly is not to the point. We'd need to show that it is not part of the background assumption of this verse.

Then the fact that the term "love" is not mentioned directly in the Wiccan Rede is not to the point either.


Are you making the claim that Wiccans don't love?

Not in the slightest. Now, are you making the claim that avoiding harm to a person is the entirety of loving that person?

Not in the slightest.

Is Romans 13:10 making that claim? It associates nothing with love beyond doing no harm.

If not, then the initial texts you presented are not equivalent.

We'd need to show that it is not part of the background assumption of this verse. Matthew 22:37-40 seems relevant here.

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.

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #8]

The fact that the term "love" is not mentioned directly is not to the point. We'd need to show that it is not part of the background assumption of this verse.

Then the fact that the term "love" is not mentioned directly in the Wiccan Rede is not to the point either.

I suppose it would be the case, save that the passage I was discussing wasn't part of the original question. If you want to bring in outside passages for context, then we're no longer discussing passages on their own, but in context.

The initial question was: "How is the Wiccan Rede any less moral?"

The fact that one spoke only of not doing harm, while the other mentioned being loving was a clear difference.

Or are you claiming that there is some context I'm missing about that particular rede?
If so, please let me know what it is.

Now, are you making the claim that avoiding harm to a person is the entirety of loving that person?

Not in the slightest.

In that case, then you clearly understand the difference between the two texts. I'm not sure why we're refusing to acknowledge that they are not equivalent.

Is Romans 13:10 making that claim? It associates nothing with love beyond doing no harm.

If you agree that there is more to loving others than doing harm, as you seem to have acknowledged just above, then the mention of love in that text is clearly bringing in that association via the word "love".

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.

I'm trying to think of any situation in which I'd read a text under the assumption that anything which is not explicitly mentioned in that particular paragraph should be assumed to be absent from the definition of a word. I doubt I could comprehend the most basic of children's books if I took that approach.

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)?
That seems perfectly plausible to me, but you seem to be demanding that this cannot possibly be the case. What is the case in support of that demand?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #9]

The initial question was: "How is the Wiccan Rede any less moral?"

The fact that one spoke only of not doing harm, while the other mentioned being loving was a clear difference.

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

"Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfillment of the law."


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.

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?