Unconditional Love-How would you describe it? (page 10)

rip van winkle

Tal- Glad I could be of assistance. Finally, someone other than myself is amused

So if a person you love is holding a gun to your head, threatening to kill you IF you don't do something they demand (a condition), you're STILL going to love them? Their harmful and threatening actions don't overstep YOUR conditions for giving love?

WOW, that's a classic example of Stockholm Syndrome, a psychological phenomena which is a maladaptive form of "love" that ALL JWs are familiar with (whether they realize it or not). Anyone who "loves" under those conditions is an unconditional fool, and likely will end up as a murder victim of an abusive spouse who doesn't reciprocate their "love".

Unconditional love is a romantic fantasy, an ideal that makes for wonderful movies, but isn't attainable. It's just another disconnect between the fantasy love offered by Xians who say God's love is unconditional, when it turns out there ARE BIG strings attached (just not disclosed up-front). It doesn't help that marriage vows ("for better or worse" bit) and romance novels encourage the fantasy of unconditional love.

It's ironic that some on JWN are arguing vehemently for it's existence and prevalence, when many here have been condemned by JWs as not worthy of God's love. Maybe that's why some want to believe the fantasy: to compensate for JWs rejection, seeking it directly from the source as it were?

Don't get me wrong: it's healthy to have the DESIRE to experience unconditional love, or to seek relationships with those who are likely to give and receive love with few strings attached, but it's setting expectations WAY TOO HIGH; people are likely to be disappointed if it's not achieved. It's one of those life situations where you may NOT want to test the limits of other's love (as an answer to a question that you really don't want to know).

The good news is that MOST people would claim to want to give/get love unconditionally, and the DESIRE to know unconditional love is a worthy goal to have (esp if it pertains to love of one's children, family, etc), as long as people realize not to be too disappointed if they don't attain it....

ziddina

THANK you, King Solomon....

At least a few people have "gotten" it.

rip van winkle

Oh, that's the KSol I've grown accustomed to -where've ya been?

I will read in it's entirety tomorrow and reply to you and others I haven't gotten back to, yet. I know for sure the Ambien has kicked in! Good nite!!!

Phizzy

Thank you King Solomon, surely you have been blessed with the gift of wisdom, I have been struggling in my mind with the concept of unconditional love since this thread's inception.

Well put Sir !

Now, what do I do with these two women claiming the same baby ??

King Solomon

00dad offers some good examples of JW's conditions of love, eg

"I will love you IF you get a haircut/shave,

march about in field service,

worship the same God,

don't celebrate Xmas,

don't do something to get DF/DA, etc.

All are good examples of conditions of love favored amongst JWs. Even there, JWs tell themselves they still LOVE the person, just not the BEHAVIOR; in essence they're saying it's not YOU we don't love, it's what you DO that we hate.

M'kay, they can rationalize all day long if they want, but it doesn't change the fact that it's shunning (the most cruel, powerful form of abuse they can use and remain on this side of jail bars). It also doesn't mean we need to accept their lame excuse: love not expressed (without works) is dead (see what I did there, replacing 'faith' with the word 'love' ?). :)

At our core, we all can and SHOULD operate in our own best-interests: that's not being selfish, it's being realistic that each of us are trapped inside our own 'vessels'. All love SHOULD be enclosed within healthy BOUNDARIES, yet the presence of boundaries implies CONDITIONS; the concepts of "boundaries" and "unconditional love" are incompatible, mutually-exclusive.

Now, we can broaden the range of conditions of JW love to include those elements that most (if not ALL) people would reasonably include, eg

"I will love you IF:

you don't physically or emotionally abuse me,

provide a loving, non-toxic environment."

No one should tolerate the "love" of those who doesn't provide those (if only as a basic human right, much less high-minded "love"), and that's where a lack of personal boundaries and a strong basic ego means some WILL allow themselves to be used as door-mats, justifying it in their own minds as their "unconditional love" for the other. Go to any shelter for abused women, and you'll hear alot of that type of rationale. The old saying about needing to love yourself before you can love another applies...

I agree that the conditions of JW love are excessively narrow, but I won't go so far as to over-react and say that love SHOULD be unconditional. That's obviously not necessary: we can disagree with JWs on what ranges of actions constitutes unhealthy boundaries of love without saying that such boundaries and conditions need to be torn down completely... Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here (unless we intend to actually threaten to cut that baby in half: I'll show those two women what unconditional love looks like!).

BTW, animal shelters are filled with dogs that were never socialized properly when puppies, and are in essence unplaceable in adopt-a-pet programs, since they basically mistrust EVERY living creature they encounter, including humans, and will attack. They never learned to trust, so clearly there's an example of puppies not possessing "unconditional love" instinctively: love is a learned behavior. I say that, as dogs are often held as examples of those offering unconditional love, but it's overly broad to assume that it's a trait inherent to the species.

TD

At our core, we all can and SHOULD operate in our own best-interests: that's not being selfish, it's being realistic that each of us are trapped inside our own 'vessels'. All love SHOULD be enclosed within healthy BOUNDARIES, yet the presence of boundaries implies CONDITIONS; the concepts of "boundaries" and "unconditional love" are incompatible, mutually-exclusive.

Exactly! And those boundaries would vary greatly depending upon the type of a relationship under discussion. Parents should have unconditional love for a tiny baby, but that relationship is not a bond between two equals and consequently, goes primarily in one direction. (i.e. The relationship is lopsided.)

Most human relationships where strong love exists are bonds between peers. Marriage, for example is a complicated web of promises and obligations, both explicit and implicit. In may sound romantic to state that marital love is unconditional but that's no more a human reality than the notion that, "Love means never having to say you're sorry."

When a couple quit taking care of each other's emotional needs, the love starts to erode. And nothing can erode forever.

caliber

BTW, animal shelters are filled with dogs that were never socialized properly when puppies, and are in essence unplaceable in adopt-a-pet programs, since they basically mistrust EVERY living creature they encounter, including humans, and will attack. They never learned to trust, so clearly there's an example of puppies not possessing "unconditional love" instinctively: love is a learned behavior. I say that, as dogs are often held as examples of those offering unconditional love, but it's overly broad to assume that it's a trait inherent to the species.

"Unconditional love is much different than affection or protection. To love unconditionally, one must be able to comprehend the other, to see the strengths and faults of the other, and to fully accept and forgive the faults and love the other regardless. Animals do not have this capability"

But animals do mimicke this idea by default (cannot keep account of injury for the most part )...setting an example for us

Love -- not dim and blind but so far-seeing that it can glimpse around corners, around bends and twists and illusion; instead of overlooking faults love sees through them to the secret inside.”
? Vera Nazarian, Salt of the Air

***********************************************

But in humans is it that you create love by teaching it or simply are you aiding in creating a mental outlook by nurturing love or neglecting it ?

TD

But animals do mimicke this idea by default (cannot keep account of injury for the most part )...setting an example for us

Have you ever tried to rehabilitate an abused dog?

King Solomon

I didn't want to get into a discussion of the topic of the psychological development of animals, as it's over my head (and that's having studied animal behavior as part of the biology curriculum in undergrad). Such discussions are always beset by those who want to anthromorphize animals, in essence creating their behaviors in our image....

My point was just to say that even dogs (who are often claimed as examples of showing "unconditional love") have their limits: even if raised in a 'loving' environment, most dogs WILL snap and lash out if they are abused, if only purely out of operating on instinct.

And that's my point: Testing the boundaries of parental love is a common phase for many young adults, but most people are generally better off NOT probing the limits and boundaries of other's love for them, unless they're prepared to handle the answer they get....

BTW, here's an interesting article on what happened to Michael Vicks dogs:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/12/22/vick.dogs/index.html

Unconditional Love-How would you describe it?

Share this