Unconditional Love-How would you describe it?

by rip van winkle 239 Replies latest members private

still thinking

ST said:
Do I regret that? NO. was that showing unconditional love for another human? Yes.
And also said:
By the way...placing anothers welfare above my own has nothing to do with unconditonal love and that is NOT what I did. I did not place his welfare above my own. My welfare was first and formost to me.
Just realizing you're changing your claims in the space of two posts. You DID claim that your action as an action of "unconditional love", when I pointed out that it wasn't.
I have not changed any claim...I have said from the beginning that putting anothers welfare above your own is not unconditional love...first you must love yourself. And I do not regret what I did...because I took care of my self first.
It is you who are confusing what I said. Showing love unconditionally has nothing to do with not caring for yourself.
Are you confusing unconditional love with Marytrdom? I am not a martyr.
still thinking

Don't strawman me, RVW. I NEVER equated "love" with mental illness. Go back and check, and you'll NEVER find it, because I actually understand WHY modern psychology has long-since abandoned the idea of UNCONDITIONAL LOVE, which is a sign of mental instability (read Love's Executioner, where an older woman engaged in obsession and stalking behavior, followed by episodes of profounde depression and grief for decades after a one-time sexual encounter).
This example of the woman being depressed you have pointed out before...and no one is denying that she is unstable. She is obsessive...that is not unconditional love and I can't for the life of me figure out why you keep posting that as an example. Obsessive behaviour is not even remotely love. If this is what they base their assessment on I question their assessment and motive.
still thinking

if FIRST and FOREMOST you are committed to loving yourself first, then THAT becomes top priority over all other relationships with all others. That self-UL INSTANTLY becomes a CONDITION of all other subsequent relationships, and there will be times when you come to a "me vs you" situation
Yes, loving yourself first means that if it becomes a me vs you situation I will choose me....but as I pointed out in my relationship with my alcoholic partner...I chose me, but that did not stop me loving him, my love for him was unconditional I accepted him for who he was at the time, but choose not to live with the behaviour. He has since stopped drinking, and has been sober for a few years now and our relationship is good. I don't love him any differently now than I did then. I put no conditions on my love...but I do put conditions on behaviour I am not willing to accept.
talesin

KS - Not condescending. But choose to think what you will, and ignore the replies I made (backed up with bona fide facts) to your statements. It matters not to me. I've seen and felt enough pain and bitterness to be able to recognize it in others, and meant what I said. Been there, healed from it, and am now able to exercise love without putting conditions on it. I wish you well.
Mamochan - from my own personal experiences, and work with rape victims as well, I echo your comments.
King Solomon

ST said:
Yes, loving yourself first means that if it becomes a me vs you situation I will choose me....
And THAT is an expression of a reasonable limit (a condition) of love: most people won't continue being with/around people who strip them down, rob them of the self-worth, dignity, and self-respect, or watch the one they love engage in self-destructive behavior that also threatens those who simply watch it transpire, or even share in it. Meth/crack epidemics have proven how quickly people get consumed by powerful forces beyond their control...
Maybe you're saying that you'd still love the person even if they were out of your life? Fine, but realize that the unconditional love you feel is likely that for the memories that you have, and grief comes from the realization that those days are past, and unlikely to exist again.
And consider that the idea of being able to love someone who is no longer a part of your life is EXACTLY the same justification that JWs placate themselves with after shunning loved ones, telling themelves that missing out on sharing experiences with their kids (births, deaths, celebrations, shared pain) is somehow an EXPRESSION of love.
I just don't buy into that line of rationalization when a JW uses it, or anyone else: words not expressed might've just as well never been thought in the first place. That line of thinking borders on asking theoretical questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping", or asking "if a tree falls in the forest" type questions. Missed possibilities will ALWAYS remain just that: missed opportunities. Possibilities that never became realities. As the Bible says (rightly), faith without works is dead. The same applies to love: it doesn't exist in a vacuum for long, without suffocating from a lack of oxygen.
but as I pointed out in my relationship with my alcoholic partner...I chose me, but that did not stop me loving him, my love for him was unconditional I accepted him for who he was at the time, but choose not to live with the behaviour.
Most people cannot (and probably shouldn't) detach someone's behavior from the person: people engage in actions. Again, that's an idea I suspect you're carrying from the JW days, as it's the same rationale used to justify shunning ("we don't hate YOU, just your actions"). The difference is, you used it to justify NOT shunning him for his alcoholism (which arguably IS a disease, hence a different matter entirely: alcoholism can be treated, whereas "apostate" cannot). It sounds like it worked out well in the end (as you reported he's not drinking anymore), but as you admit, that approach may not work for everyone.
It sounds like he "blinked" and straightened up and sought the help he needed, so you didn't have to test the limits of your "UL" for him. Many women DO find their limit, as abuse shelters are filled with women who've HAD to do so to protect themselves and their children: I've known many women who were abused by their spouses, and it's an ugly, soul-destroying scenario for them until they make it to the "other side".
Many women often have to overcome their own hopes in the redeeming power of "UL" (as reflected in the whole "love conquers all" nonsense, or the idea that if only they love the other person hard enough, that will make the other person change and love them back). That often means they will often suffer in silence for years before waking up to the TRUTH about the myth of UL.
Bonnie Raitt said it better than I can, in musical form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SIfLzccbc
still thinking

Most people cannot detach someone's behavior from them: people engage in actions. Again, that's an idea I suspect you're carrying from the JW days, as it's again the same rationale used to justify shunning; difference is, you used it to justify NOT shunning his alcoholism. It sounds like it worked out well in the end (as you report he's not drinking anymore), but as you admit, that approach may not work for everyone.
Do you need to relate everything to JW's and shunning?
This 'behaviour' was not learnt by attending a kingdom hall...it was realised after a long process of alcohol abuse councelling for friends and family of alcoholics. It was learnt by attending support groups, Alanon and individual councelling.
It was there that I learnt how to seperate my feelings about the person with the actions they made and look at the actions for what they were.
You are making assumptions about something you appear to know nothing about.
I did not take this action to stop him drinking. I accepted it was his right to drink himself to death if that was his choice. I also accepted my right to not have to live with that behaviour. It wasn't about trying to alter someones behaviour. It was acceptance of the fact that I do not have that power over another human being. Nor do I want it. I only have power over my own decisions.
My love for him remained intact. My respect for him remained intact. I loved him unconditionally...and as it turns out he loved me the same way. Lucky me, it might have ended up differently. But it didn't.
still thinking

Many women often have to overcome their own hopes in the redeeming power of "UL" (as reflected in the whole "love conquers all" nonsense, or the idea that if only they love the other person hard enough, that will make the other person change and love them back). That often means they will often suffer in silence for years before waking up to the TRUTH about the myth of UL.
You are still equating co dependency with unconditional love. They are not the same.
King Solomon

ST said:
I did not take this action to stop him drinking. I accepted it was his right to drink himself to death if that was his choice. I also accepted my right to not have to live with that behaviour. It wasn't about trying to alter someones behaviour. It was acceptance of the fact that I do not have that power over another human being. Nor do I want it. I only have power over my own decisions.
Maybe you missed the fact that JWs primarily shun DFed members out of THEIR self-protection, but simply rationalize the behavior as being done the name of "love"? JWs shun for the unstated (but well-known) reason that THEY'D lose the prospect of eternal life in the New System, missing their opportunity to pet lions, etc, if they associate with DFed people.
JWs also realize that "Worldly" people are allowed to accept of reject their message, but will have to face the music of their decision: JWs know they can no more control others, just as you do. The very existence of very site is proof of THAT.
JWs also will say they understand that no member should be forced to choose between family and religion, and that's true. What they fail to mention is that other JWs don't have to associate with DFed members, so it's not the MEMBER who makes the choice between family and religion, but OTHERS who don't break rank with the WTBTS policy. It's cold-hearted, and very deceptive in that it fails to disclose the full truth about DFing.
I actually would respect the JW appraoch if they just came out and said they're just as self-centered as the "Worldly" people they look down their noses at, rather than needing to resort to claiming they do their preaching work out of "selfless love for their fellow man" (what BS!). Just like you, JWs and other Xians are BIG proponents of the concept of selfless and/or UL. Can't you just FEEL the love? It's a primary weapon of manipulation of ALL religions, offering a love far greater than any: the LOVE of God and Jesus.
I tend to distrust anyone who claims to not be motivated primarily out of their OWN self-interest, when even so-called altruistic behaviors have been shown to have an evolutionary advantage to some organisms. An inevitable consequence of being an atheist is to question all the baggage of superstitions that's been carried for 1000's of years, and ideations such as UL deserve to be scrutized. Sorry if challenging that with evidence offends your personal beliefs...
You are still equating co dependency with unconditional love. They are not the same.
Sorry, but I did nothing of the sort.
Although the two concepts ARE closely-related (e.g. those holding to a belief in UL are more likely to become co-dependents who end up in relationships with narcissists, who seemingly locate them like magnets, and exploit their traits, it is not inevitable). Someone who holds a belief in UL is LIKELY to become a co-dependent, but it's not inevitable that they WILL end up in co-dependent relationships.
Wikipedia explains it:
Narcissists, with their ability to "get others to buy into their vision and help them make it a reality," are natural magnets for the " 'co-dependent' ... [with] the tendency to put others' need before their own". [ 9 ] Sam Vaknin considered that codependents, as "the Watsons of this world, 'provide the narcissist with an obsequious, unthreatening audience ... the perfect backdrop. ' " [ 10 ] Among the reciprocally locking interactions of the pair, are the way "the narcissist has an overpowering need to feel important and special, and the co-dependent has a strong need to help others feel that way. ... The narcissist overdoes self-caring and demands it from others, while the co-dependent underdoes or may even do almost no self-caring." [ 11 ]
still thinking

Oh, by the way. Thanks for the Bonnie Raitt song...I love Bonnie Raitt. I haven't heard that song for ages.
King Solomon

Oh, by the way. Thanks for the Bonnie Raitt song...I love Bonnie Raitt. I haven't heard that song for ages.
You're welcome: I take it as her way of expressing the personal limits we all experience in being unable to control others, regardless of how much we love them...

Unconditional Love-How would you describe it?

Share this