Love has nothing to do with debt. It doesn't arise from any social contract or obligation or promise. It is often asymmetric, sometimes one-sided, but always unconditional. Otherwise it's not love

Love is ultimately one of the most flawed concepts of debt and false "promises", if it was originally created by divine inspiration as theologians of both western and eastern religions postulate, I would submit that it is a proof of a fallable divine; God can be wrong, because his love is limited by conditions of his rules. However, if the idea is man made, then it is more so a delusion of emotional transactions with results that may be unattainable, a false "promise" as well.

A debt in love may be given freely and taken the same, but it has an inherent transactional value of emotions. You want to acquire affections for affections; even if it is one sided, you are giving under an assumption, a dream, or a hope for potential rewards. It's a flawed concept, because the "promise" of reciprosity may never occur at the same level or at all. 

Love if it equates to a physical debt is like an ARM variable rate mortgage (might be subrprime ), you may assume that you can have your dream home if you put in an "x" amount into it, but there is no certainty that your efforts will return results as a fact that so many people lose their homes each year in the US and around the world. Love without conditions is a fantasy that romance writers fall into; there are always conditions to love as there are in life. Conditions may change to prevent love from flourishing or they may improve or deteriorate to allow it to flourish in new directions.

Essentially, I want to question humanity itself and its inherent flawed value system both in terms of physical value and intrinsic value.

Love has nothing to do with debt. It doesn't arise from any social contract or obligation or promise. It is often asymmetric, sometimes one-sided, but always unconditional. Otherwise it's not love

"...and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors..."

From time to time, it's healthy to reset the scales, but those who hold the note rarely do so willingly.

"...and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors..."

 

From time to time, it's healthy to reset the scales, but those who hold the note rarely do so willingly.

To forgive a debt is the only solution and absolution to obligations we have discovered right now, but it must be mutually accepted, which mankind has not ben able to achieve in recent history.

by the way, forgiveness  in love is incredibly difficult to do; the emotional value that is put in makes it more likely that hate would be the result, because resentment builds on all the slights that occur throughout a relationship. A person may claim to forgive, but emotionally, they have not accepted it as absolution, only a tenative compromise. (Just as a person can only afford so much during each variable mortgage rate adjustment, you will eventually reach a point where it is unaffordable. )

That's part of what I am warning about; forgiveness is not a half measure to maintain a status quo (like the current rules in forebearances and deferrals), it is imperfect as a solution to our value system. As a species we stopped short in exploring how we value each other and the world, when we thought we had the answer in forgiveness to balance out the scales of debt and obligation.