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 #20]

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

Then you seem to understand little about organized religions.

Rather than simply making an unsupported claim about how religions work, please make an actual case.

On what grounds do you assert that a religious command is automatically a matter of compulsion?
Specifically, explain how the passage from Corinthians attempting compulsion. Please support that claim with arguments and evidence.

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?

In the sense that he would have been angry from a distance?
Who cares? That isn't compulsion.

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 hesitate to assume that you are just flatly asserting, without evidence, that Wiccans are superior people. That would be both prejudicial and poor reasoning.

But it is difficult to find a more charitable read here that makes a relevant point. The best I can do is to assume that this was cheek in place of an actual argument. If you really want to go down that road, please present the actual empirical data for the claim that Wiccans are morally superior to Christians.

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?

I was actually referring to love in the other direction. Particularly very early on, parents often love their children out of a sense of duty—before the child has done anything to earn that love. After years of intentionally cultivating love for their children, parents sincerely love them, but it often begins with a commitment.

It seems perfectly reasonable that this is the general sort of thing Paul was exhorting people to do in all their relationships. At least, we've seen no argument against this understanding of the text.

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.

I don't remember claiming that anyone should dictate anything. That is not how moral codes work: they are always voluntary.
I begin to suspect that you are confusing "moral" with "legal".

In the case of Paul's comment, he is clearly concerned about the formation of virtue, and is imploring his audience to actually love one another, rather than work through a dry checklist of rules. That is, he is writing like a religious/spiritual leader, not a legal authority (which certainly does lean on coercion).

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.

If you aren't saying that it is automatically a bad thing, then I don't see any force behind the objection to Paul's exhortations to love others.
Those were based entirely in the idea that this was automatically a bad thing.

Really, it seems like the entire line of reasoning has fallen apart.
It has been agreed that loving others is better than simply avoiding harm.
It has been agreed that exhortations to love others can be a good thing.
No case has been made that anything more than that was being done in the quoted passage from Corinthians.

It seems fairly clear that we have our answer to the original question: the "lacking" piece was the exhortation to love others.

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.

The passage you quoted was from one of Paul's letters. If he wasn't assuming that ability, then there no real objection to his moral teaching here.

I don't see any reason to continue to press this line of attack without any case to support it.

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

If one understands ancient near eastern covenant formulae, this is clearly an exhortation, not a coercion. But, if you are claiming otherwise, please actually make the case.

Not even a god can coerce love.

I completely agree. Now, what is the case that the text is an attempt to coerce love?

Specifically, how do you know that Paul is claiming the authority to insist that his followers produce love, fully formed, on demand?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #21]

On what grounds do you assert that a religious command is automatically a matter of compulsion?

If it weren't a matter of compulsion, it wouldn't be a command.

In the sense that he would have been angry from a distance?
Who cares? That isn't compulsion.

Compulsion doesn't have to be physical. It can be----and often is----psychological.

I hesitate to assume that you are just flatly asserting, without evidence, that Wiccans are superior people. That would be both prejudicial and poor reasoning.

I'm not at all asserting that Wiccans are superior people. I suggest that they don't need much urging to love because their belief is rooted in an interconnectedness of all things. That makes love part of the makeup of the universe, not something which has to be injected into it from a "higher" source.

And I daresay they don't regard the mention of love in their Rede as extending only to the Rede itself.

I was actually referring to love in the other direction. Particularly very early on, parents often love their children out of a sense of duty—before the child has done anything to earn that love.

Love isn't earned. If it were, it would be barter.

I don't remember claiming that anyone should dictate anything. That is not how moral codes work: they are always voluntary.

Moral codes come with conditions, and typically with some measure of consequences for violation.

In the case of Paul's comment, he is clearly concerned about the formation of virtue, and is imploring his audience to actually love one another, rather than work through a dry checklist of rules. That is, he is writing like a religious/spiritual leader, not a legal authority (which certainly does lean on coercion).

....as long as women keep their heads covered during prayer but men don't (1 Corinthians 11:4-5) and let the men do all the preaching (14:34), and the men don't wear their hair long (v. 14) etc....(Those are the kinds of things with which Wiccans get to "do what thou wilt" because it harms none.)

If you aren't saying that it is automatically a bad thing, then I don't see any force behind the objection to Paul's exhortations to love others.
Those were based entirely in the idea that this was automatically a bad thing.

I don't remember saying that exhorting others to love was "automatically bad".

The passage you quoted was from one of Paul's letters. If he wasn't assuming that ability, then there no real objection to his moral teaching here.

He doesn't have to be assuming it in order to be advocating it.


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

If one understands ancient near eastern covenant formulae, this is clearly an exhortation, not a coercion. But, if you are claiming otherwise, please actually make the case.

If one understands the Bible, one understands that this is a command. In fact, one understands that it is the highest and foremost command in the Bible. As for it not being coersion, read chapter 28 of Deuteronomy from verse 15 on for the laundry list of horrors promised those who disobey that command.


Not even a god can coerce love.

I completely agree. Now, what is the case that the text is an attempt to coerce love?

Specifically, how do you know that Paul is claiming the authority to insist that his followers produce love, fully formed, on demand?

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema"
(1Corinthians 16:22)

Paul believes in a god who commands people to produce love, fully formed, on demand.

Paul claims to be an apostle of that god.
(2 Corinthians 12:11)


"This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down."
(2 Corinthians 13:10)

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. The gospel I preach didn't come from any human. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
(Galatians 1:11-12)

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #22]

If it weren't a matter of compulsion, it wouldn't be a command.

A lot of commands don't involve coercion. Most work is at-will. That is, the boss's commands do not involve compulsion in anything like the relevant sense.
The same is true of religious commands; they are exhortations. Paul was in no position to force his original readers to obey him.

In the sense that he would have been angry from a distance?
Who cares? That isn't compulsion.

Compulsion doesn't have to be physical. It can be----and often is--—psychological.

No case has been made that Paul was using any kind of psychological terrorism on the recipients of his letter. That strikes me as wild speculation at best. A parent telling his/her children to love each other is not committing psychological abuse—and Paul is doing nothing more severe in this case.
Also, outside of cases of severely inhibited people, compulsion is physical. Mafioso are not allowed to plead coercion in court on the grounds that the mob boss commanded them to kill a person. Anyone who can't dismiss an abusive claim from a letter is not being coerced.

But this assumes that the claim was abusive. It was good advice. We really seem to be reaching for absolutely anything that casts an exhortation to love one another in a negative light—as opposed to considering the idea that people should be taught to love one another.

I'm not at all asserting that Wiccans are superior people. I suggest that they don't need much urging to love because their belief is rooted in an interconnectedness of all things.

Then I'd simply ask for some evidence. I don't see either a reason to think that Wiccan beliefs make people more likely to love one another or any empirical data showing that they are more likely.

That makes love part of the makeup of the universe, not something which has to be injected into it from a "higher" source.

This is no different from Christian theology, which also teaches that love is foundational to the universe.
In these terms, Wicca should be contrasted, not with Christianity, but with secular views—which teach that love is not remotely foundational to the universe, and don't necessarily even teach that people ought to be loving.

And I daresay they don't regard the mention of love in their Rede as extending only to the Rede itself.

If that is your claim, please present a case.

I was actually referring to love in the other direction. Particularly very early on, parents often love their children out of a sense of duty—before the child has done anything to earn that love.

Love isn't earned. If it were, it would be barter.

Are you claiming that no loving relationship has ever started because a parent felt a sense of duty to love his or her child?
If so, please present the empirical case for that.

I don't remember claiming that anyone should dictate anything. That is not how moral codes work: they are always voluntary.

Moral codes come with conditions, and typically with some measure of consequences for violation.

In the pertinent case, the violation would (at worst) result in leaving the religion. That is both reasonable and not coercive. "Practice this religion, or else you aren't practicing this religion" is not an uncalled for punishment.

In the case of Paul's comment, he is clearly concerned about the formation of virtue, and is imploring his audience to actually love one another, rather than work through a dry checklist of rules. That is, he is writing like a religious/spiritual leader, not a legal authority (which certainly does lean on coercion).

....as long as women keep their heads covered during prayer but men don't (1 Corinthians 11:4-5) and let the men do all the preaching (14:34), and the men don't wear their hair long (v. 14) etc....(Those are the kinds of things with which Wiccans get to "do what thou wilt" because it harms none.)

Whatever one thinks about Paul's opinion on dress codes, it was the exhortation to love one another that we were discussing.

If you aren't saying that it is automatically a bad thing, then I don't see any force behind the objection to Paul's exhortations to love others.
Those were based entirely in the idea that this was automatically a bad thing.

I don't remember saying that exhorting others to love was "automatically bad".

Yes, and that means that there is nothing automatically bad here. Paul is exhorting people to love one another. This is a good thing.

The passage you quoted was from one of Paul's letters. If he wasn't assuming that ability, then there no real objection to his moral teaching here.

He doesn't have to be assuming it in order to be advocating it.

You'll need to support the claim that Paul is advocating the idea that people should be forced to produce love, fully formed, on command.
If that's where we're going, I need to see a case that this is what Paul is advocating.

It is definitely not obvious from the text that this is what is happening. If it were, I'd wonder why you insisted earlier that Paul was merely telling people not to harm one another.

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

I don't see any part of this text which reads "...and produce this love, fully formed, on demand, or there will be no forgiveness for you."
As such, I need to see a stronger case than this quotation alone.

If one understands the Bible, one understands that this is a command.

Commands are given every day from legitimate authorities. No one demands that this is always coercive.

(H)ow do you know that Paul is claiming the authority to insist that his followers produce love, fully formed, on demand?

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema"
(1Corinthians 16:22)

I see nothing about "fully formed" or "on demand" here. At worst, this is "If someone refuses to practice the basics of our religion, that person isn't welcome in our religious group". As if to rebut this exact line of argument, Paul has just finished mentioning forgiveness for people that are trying.

"This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority—the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down."

I'm looking for the point where that authority extends to the ability to force people to produce love, fully formed, on demand.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. The gospel I preach didn't come from any human. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

The same goes here.

Yes, if we read wild demands into texts which don't actually make them, then even an exhortation to love one another can look like a bad thing. But absolutely any moral code could be made to look bad if we took this approach.

Thus, this is less an argument against anything Paul wrote than an all-purpose technique for attacking any view one wishes to discredit.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #23]

A lot of commands don't involve coercion. Most work is at-will. That is, the boss's commands do not involve compulsion in anything like the relevant sense.
The same is true of religious commands; they are exhortations. Paul was in no position to force his original readers to obey him.

The gods of organized religions tend to be regarded more as kings than as just bosses.


That makes love part of the makeup of the universe, not something which has to be injected into it from a "higher" source.

This is no different from Christian theology, which also teaches that love is foundational to the universe.

Christian theology holds that the source of love is a single patriarchal deity who is above and distinct from the universe.


And I daresay they don't regard the mention of love in their Rede as extending only to the Rede itself.

If that is your claim, please present a case.

I don't have to present a case that they don't. You have to present a case that they do----if that is, after all, what you're claiming.

Are you claiming that no loving relationship has ever started because a parent felt a sense of duty to love his or her child?
If so, please present the empirical case for that.

I would say that a parent's sense of duty proceeds from parental love, and that love is never absent from that sense of duty [at least not in a good parent]..


Moral codes come with conditions, and typically with some measure of consequences for violation.

In the pertinent case, the violation would (at worst) result in leaving the religion. That is both reasonable and not coercive. "Practice this religion, or else you aren't practicing this religion" is not an uncalled for punishment.

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
(Hebrews 6:4-8)

To me, this comes off as more than just "Practice this religion, or else you aren't practicing this religion".

(You may argue that Paul didn't write the letter to the Hebrews, but if you're going to throw the letter out on that basis you may as well throw out what Paul did write.)


....as long as women keep their heads covered during prayer but men don't (1 Corinthians 11:4-5) and let the men do all the preaching (14:34), and the men don't wear their hair long (v. 14) etc....(Those are the kinds of things with which Wiccans get to "do what thou wilt" because it harms none.)

Whatever one thinks about Paul's opinion on dress codes, it was the exhortation to love one another that we were discussing.

When someone uses terms like "dishonor" and "disgrace" in assigning a dress code, the implication is that they're fairly serious about it.


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

I don't see any part of this text which reads "...and produce this love, fully formed, on demand

You don't see those words, but that's exactly what the text is demanding.


If one understands the Bible, one understands that this is a command.

Commands are given every day from legitimate authorities. No one demands that this is always coercive.

No command is ever given as, "I hereby order you to do this.....if you feel like it."


"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema"
(1Corinthians 16:22)

I see nothing about "fully formed" or "on demand" here.

Again----you don't see the words "fully formed" or "on demand", but that's just arguing from semantics.

I'm looking for the point where that authority extends to the ability to force people to produce love, fully formed, on demand.

You're still equating ecclesiastical authority with physical prowess.

Yes, if we read wild demands into texts which don't actually make them, then even an exhortation to love one another can look like a bad thing. But absolutely any moral code could be made to look bad if we took this approach.

Thus, this is less an argument against anything Paul wrote than an all-purpose technique for attacking any view one wishes to discredit.

Did you look at the latter part of Deuteronomy 28, as I suggested?

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #24]

A lot of commands don't involve coercion. Most work is at-will. That is, the boss's commands do not involve compulsion in anything like the relevant sense.

The gods of organized religions tend to be regarded more as kings than as just bosses.

That only matters to people who actually freely join the religion. Coercion requires forcing people to join.

This is no different from Christian theology, which also teaches that love is foundational to the universe.

Christian theology holds that the source of love is a single patriarchal deity who is above and distinct from the universe.

It also holds that love is both the reason for the universe and that existence is by its nature directed toward love.
This is very different from secular approaches.

And I daresay they don't regard the mention of love in their Rede as extending only to the Rede itself.

If that is your claim, please present a case.

I don't have to present a case that they don't. You have to present a case that they do----if that is, after all, what you're claiming.

I did present a case. I pointed out that the Rede does not exhort people to love one another, but merely to love Wiccan law.
You agreed with that. You've been basing much of your argument on that (claiming that commands to love are bad).
But, here, you're suddenly claiming that this text is more properly read as a command to love one another. I'm asking why the change, and why we should believe that, in spite of the fact that this isn't what the text says.

Are you claiming that no loving relationship has ever started because a parent felt a sense of duty to love his or her child?
If so, please present the empirical case for that.

I would say that a parent's sense of duty proceeds from parental love, and that love is never absent from that sense of duty [at least not in a good parent].

You are free to claim that, but that is not a case, empirical or otherwise.

Specifically, could you claim what you mean by "parental love". On the first day a child is born, if a father experiences no particular rush of love or emotion, what is the case that he should not make a commitment to cultivate love for his child?

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
(Hebrews 6:4-8)

To me, this comes off as more than just "Practice this religion, or else you aren't practicing this religion".

It definitely isn't coercion. It's clearly "follow the basic rules of the religion, or we'll kick you out of our religion club".

When someone uses terms like "dishonor" and "disgrace" in assigning a dress code, the implication is that they're fairly serious about it.

Yes. His feelings about dress codes are strong, but that is not to the point we were discussing.

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

I don't see any part of this text which reads "...and produce this love, fully formed, on demand

You don't see those words, but that's exactly what the text is demanding.

I genuinely don't see where. It looks more like a standard call to moral perfection that exists in all moral codes (though they differ strongly in their ideals). It is neither coercive nor a prescription about how this is to be achieved. Simply claiming otherwise doesn't add that into the text.

Commands are given every day from legitimate authorities. No one demands that this is always coercive.

No command is ever given as, "I hereby order you to do this.....if you feel like it."

I agree.
But, unless you are claiming that every command ever given is coercive, I don't see your point.

"If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema"
(1Corinthians 16:22)

I see nothing about "fully formed" or "on demand" here.

Again----you don't see the words "fully formed" or "on demand", but that's just arguing from semantics.

No, I really don't see the idea of that there. The text doesn't specify either of the things you seem to be reading into it.

I'm looking for the point where that authority extends to the ability to force people to produce love, fully formed, on demand.

You're still equating ecclesiastical authority with physical prowess.

I had thought that was what you were doing. Ecclesiastical authority is much more limited than physical force. I'd agree that there was coercion here if physical force were being used.

Did you look at the latter part of Deuteronomy 28, as I suggested?

Yes. I've always taken that to be a series of warnings, rather than threats, but I'm not sure that this is relevant.

First, because this is only speaking to people who actively accept the religion. Paul had no power to coerce people who rejected it—meaning he had no real power to coerce.
Second, because this doesn't clarify the "fully formed" and "on demand" additions we're trying to read into the text. It's perfectly consistent with choosing to cultivate love in one's self.
Third, because loving one another is good advice. All this reads like it is some scandal that a religion would expect people to be loving, and that it is somehow virtuous to tell people that they needn't bother about loving one another. That is precisely backward.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #25]

The gods of organized religions tend to be regarded more as kings than as just bosses.

That only matters to people who actually freely join the religion. Coercion requires forcing people to join.

Not when they're born into it.

It also holds that love is both the reason for the universe and that existence is by its nature directed toward love.
This is very different from secular approaches.

And that rejection of its theology is sinful.
This is very different from Pagan approaches.

I did present a case. I pointed out that the Rede does not exhort people to love one another, but merely to love Wiccan law.
You agreed with that. You've been basing much of your argument on that (claiming that commands to love are bad).
But, here, you're suddenly claiming that this text is more properly read as a command to love one another. I'm asking why the change, and why we should believe that, in spite of the fact that this isn't what the text says.

I've been claiming that commands to love are inferior, and that those who issue such commands can do so for harmful reasons.

could you claim what you mean by "parental love". On the first day a child is born, if a father experiences no particular rush of love or emotion, what is the case that he should not make a commitment to cultivate love for his child?

Could you explain what you mean by "cultivate love"? Are you suggesting that parents have to make a conscious effort to love their children?

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.
(Hebrews 6:4-8)

To me, this comes off as more than just "Practice this religion, or else you aren't practicing this religion".

It definitely isn't coercion. It's clearly "follow the basic rules of the religion, or we'll kick you out of our religion club".

It definitely is coercion, of the psychological variety. The way it's written can keep people too terrified to leave.


When someone uses terms like "dishonor" and "disgrace" in assigning a dress code, the implication is that they're fairly serious about it.

Yes. His feelings about dress codes are strong, but that is not to the point we were discussing.

It is in the sense that's it's a further attempt at behavioral control.


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

I don't see any part of this text which reads "...and produce this love, fully formed, on demand

You don't see those words, but that's exactly what the text is demanding.

I genuinely don't see where. It looks more like a standard call to moral perfection that exists in all moral codes (though they differ strongly in their ideals). It is neither coercive nor a prescription about how this is to be achieved. Simply claiming otherwise doesn't add that into the text.

That's just it----the text can't be read in a vacuum. It has to be read in the context of the threat of dire consequences which comes with it.


No command is ever given as, "I hereby order you to do this.....if you feel like it."

I agree.
But, unless you are claiming that every command ever given is coercive, I don't see your point.

Every command is coercive by nature. It's an attempt to impose one's will on another.


You're still equating ecclesiastical authority with physical prowess.

I had thought that was what you were doing. Ecclesiastical authority is much more limited than physical force. I'd agree that there was coercion here if physical force were being used.

Psychological coercion is what's used when physical force can't be.


Did you look at the latter part of Deuteronomy 28, as I suggested?

Yes. I've always taken that to be a series of warnings, rather than threats

Predicting what might happen is giving a warning. Predicting what you will make happen is making a threat.

All this reads like it is some scandal that a religion would expect people to be loving

Expectation is one thing; compulsion is another.

and that it is somehow virtuous to tell people that they needn't bother about loving one another.

Is that what you're accusing Wicca of doing?

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #26]

Greetings to you!

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.

That only matters to people who actually freely join the religion. Coercion requires forcing people to join.

Not when they're born into it.

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

It also holds that love is both the reason for the universe and that existence is by its nature directed toward love.
This is very different from secular approaches.

And that rejection of its theology is sinful.

That is paralleled in all worldviews.

I did present a case. I pointed out that the Rede does not exhort people to love one another, but merely to love Wiccan law.
You agreed with that. You've been basing much of your argument on that (claiming that commands to love are bad).
But, here, you're suddenly claiming that this text is more properly read as a command to love one another. I'm asking why the change, and why we should believe that, in spite of the fact that this isn't what the text says.

I've been claiming that commands to love are inferior, and that those who issue such commands can do so for harmful reasons.

I agree that you've been claiming this, but I've not seen a case.

Also, are you claiming that people who reject your view here are making a bad call and harming people? That would be parallel to the idea that rejecting a religion's theology is sinful.

could you clarify what you mean by "parental love". On the first day a child is born, if a father experiences no particular rush of love or emotion, what is the case that he should not make a commitment to cultivate love for his child?

Could you explain what you mean by "cultivate love"? Are you suggesting that parents have to make a conscious effort to love their children?

To cultivate love, one chooses to take an active interest in a person, and decide to help that person—even if one isn't spontaneously motivated to do it. One also watches one's own thoughts, choosing to shut down those which are too negative or selfish while allowing positive thoughts about that person to flow freely. These kind of decisions typically lead to a genuine love for that person. They can also enhance or deepen love that is already there.
And, yes, I'm saying that parents at least sometimes start this way with a newborn. I've been told that directly by several very good parents. Those I know who have refused to do this tend to have a more conditional love for their children.

This is clearly what Paul is telling his readers to do with one another.

It definitely isn't coercion. It's clearly "follow the basic rules of the religion, or we'll kick you out of our religion club".

It definitely is coercion, of the psychological variety. The way it's written can keep people too terrified to leave.

Warnings are not coercion. Else, your statements to me about accepting commands to love others would be an attempt to psychologically coerce me into your position.

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

I don't see any part of this text which reads "...and produce this love, fully formed, on demand

You don't see those words, but that's exactly what the text is demanding.

I genuinely don't see where. It looks more like a standard call to moral perfection that exists in all moral codes (though they differ strongly in their ideals). It is neither coercive nor a prescription about how this is to be achieved. Simply claiming otherwise doesn't add that into the text.

That's just it----the text can't be read in a vacuum. It has to be read in the context of the threat of dire consequences which comes with it.

In that case, it seems you agree that this text isn't demanding that love needs to be produced fully formed on demand. If you think that is in the context, please show me that context.

But, unless you are claiming that every command ever given is coercive, I don't see your point.

Every command is coercive by nature. It's an attempt to impose one's will on another.

That seems a wild overstatement at best.
I also fail to see how you think human society will function if all commands were to be eliminated. Could you describe how jobs and parenting would work?

Last, that would include the Wiccan text you've been defending. It contains the command to avoid harming others. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, but you are now arguing that it is coercive.

Ecclesiastical authority is much more limited than physical force. I'd agree that there was coercion here if physical force were being used.

Psychological coercion is what's used when physical force can't be.

This takes coercion as a given. To avoid a circulus in probando fallacy, you'll first need to show that there's any coercion here.

Predicting what might happen is giving a warning. Predicting what you will make happen is making a threat.

I have yet to see where Paul was predicting what he would make happen. Could you show me a passage where he does so?

All this reads like it is some scandal that a religion would expect people to be loving

Expectation is one thing; compulsion is another.

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.

and that it is somehow virtuous to tell people that they needn't bother about loving one another.

Is that what you're accusing Wicca of doing?

No. I was pointing out that this is what you are recommending that all religions do.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Jester in post #27]

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.

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

That only matters to people who actually freely join the religion. Coercion requires forcing people to join.

Not when they're born into it.

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.

It also holds that love is both the reason for the universe and that existence is by its nature directed toward love.
This is very different from secular approaches.

And that rejection of its theology is sinful.

That is paralleled in all worldviews.

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've been claiming that commands to love are inferior, and that those who issue such commands can do so for harmful reasons.

I agree that you've been claiming this, but I've not seen a case.

I've provided explanations and examples.

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 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.

Also, are you claiming that people who reject your view here are making a bad call and harming people?

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

To cultivate love, one chooses to take an active interest in a person, and decide to help that person—even if one isn't spontaneously motivated to do it. One also watches one's own thoughts, choosing to shut down those which are too negative or selfish while allowing positive thoughts about that person to flow freely. These kind of decisions typically lead to a genuine love for that person.

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

Warnings are not coercion. Else, your statements to me about accepting commands to love others would be an attempt to psychologically coerce me into your position.

Commands are more than mere warnings.

And I'm not commanding you to accept my position.


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

It looks more like a standard call to moral perfection that exists in all moral codes (though they differ strongly in their ideals). It is neither coercive nor a prescription about how this is to be achieved. Simply claiming otherwise doesn't add that into the text.

That's just it----the text can't be read in a vacuum. It has to be read in the context of the threat of dire consequences which comes with it.

In that case, it seems you agree that this text isn't demanding that love needs to be produced fully formed on demand. If you think that is in the context, please show me that context.

You said you already looked at Deuteronomy 28.

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


Every command is coercive by nature. It's an attempt to impose one's will on another.

That seems a wild overstatement at best.
I also fail to see how you think human society will function if all commands were to be eliminated. Could you describe how jobs and parenting would work?

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

Last, that would include the Wiccan text you've been defending. It contains the command to avoid harming others. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, but you are now arguing that it is coercive.

So now you're arguing that the Wiccan Rede and Romans 13:10 are equivalent.


Psychological coercion is what's used when physical force can't be.

This takes coercion as a given. To avoid a circulus in probando fallacy, you'll first need to show that there's any coercion here.

That's what I've been doing.


Predicting what might happen is giving a warning. Predicting what you will make happen is making a threat.

I have yet to see where Paul was predicting what he would make happen. Could you show me a passage where he does so?

Again, it goes beyond Paul. He claims to have authority, but he claims to be speaking for a higher authority.

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.

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

and that it is somehow virtuous to tell people that they needn't bother about loving one another.

Is that what you're accusing Wicca of doing?

No. I was pointing out that this is what you are recommending that all religions do.

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

[Jester]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #28]

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.

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"?

That only matters to people who actually freely join the religion. Coercion requires forcing people to join.

Not when they're born into it.

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.

It also holds that love is both the reason for the universe and that existence is by its nature directed toward love.
This is very different from secular approaches.

And that rejection of its theology is sinful.

That is paralleled in all worldviews.

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.

I've been claiming that commands to love are inferior, and that those who issue such commands can do so for harmful reasons.

This is a perfect example of what I've described just above. You are actively claiming that, if people reject your belief (that we should avoid the command to love others), harm will result. This is a clear parallel to the idea that a rejection of theology is sinful.

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.

The dominant partner in an abusive relationship demands love, and demanding love is as unhealthy as it is futile.

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.

Also, are you claiming that people who reject your view here are making a bad call and harming people?

Rather, 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?

To cultivate love, one chooses to take an active interest in a person, and decide to help that person—even if one isn't spontaneously motivated to do it. One also watches one's own thoughts, choosing to shut down those which are too negative or selfish while allowing positive thoughts about that person to flow freely. These kinds of decisions typically lead to a genuine love for that person.

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.

And I'm not commanding you to accept my position.

I agree, but you are claiming that my position is coercive and (consequently) destructive. Are you sure that couldn't be called a form of psychological coercion to get people to accept your view?

The point isn't that I believe that. The point is that any view can be called coercive if we take as broad a view as this argument against Paul requires.

In that case, it seems you agree that this text isn't demanding that love needs to be produced fully formed on demand. If you think that is in the context, please show me that context.

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).

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.

That seems a wild overstatement at best.
I also fail to see how you think human society will function if all commands were to be eliminated. Could you describe how jobs and parenting would work?

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.

Last, that would include the Wiccan text you've been defending. It contains the command to avoid harming others. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, but you are now arguing that it is coercive.

So now you're arguing that the Wiccan Rede and Romans 13:10 are equivalent.

Not remotely. I said that they both contain commands. I haven't claimed that there are no differences between the texts.

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.

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?

and that it is somehow virtuous to tell people that they needn't bother about loving one another.

Is that what you're accusing Wicca of doing?

No. I was pointing out that this is what you are recommending that all religions do.

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.

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

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.

[1213]

"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?

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