The Myth of Unconditional Love

by frankiespeakin 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jeanniebeanz

  a dog can just love you for no reason at all.

  So true. I think that out of all the family members impacted by my 'leaving', the dog was the most hurt at the time. He was the only family member that showed true unconditional love. It did not matter if I bought him Eukanauba or 'store brand', drove an old Nova or a brand new Mustang, let the cat sit in my lap and blew up and brought competition home three times in the form of newborn puppies (my kids, lol). He just loved me as he found me and did not expect anything in return.

  I miss the dog.

  Jeannie
• 

  FMZ

  Not a problem, happy to help a new member of JWD!

  Oh, and how do you like my new avatar?

  FMZ
• 

  Xena

  Oh, and how do you like my new avatar?

  If this is an example of unconditional love I think I will pass

  Now stop hyjacking this thread!!!
• 

  Xena

  I've been thinking some more on this subject. (I'm glad you brought it up, it's been on my mind recently and this had made me consolidate my thoughts to a degree)

  I guess my problem with the term "unconditional love" is that there are so many shades of love. What does unconditional love mean? That the love will stay consistantly at one level or that there will always be some type of love to a degree?

  Using my daughter as an example. When she was born I loved her...as she grew and developed that love changed and deepened as I grew to appreciate the person she is...now suppose she does something really bad...like kill someone maliously...then I imagine my love would change...possibly even lessen. The kernal of love that I originally had for my daughter would still be there, I just don't see how it couldn't but the essense of the love would be changed as would my behavior toward her most likely. So is my love conditional??
• 

  FreePeace

  Here is something I wrote several years ago just after I left the bOrg.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Free,

  I liked your conclusion:

  The only logical conclusion, then, is that unconditional love, free will and moral excellence, simply cannot coexist and remain inherently intact. A much more plausible concept is "conditional unconditional love," that is to say, that there is a scale of acceptable behavior and within that range, "unconditional love" can govern.

  That's a clever way to put it.
• 

  bebu

  Free, I think that there was one problem with your essay. You defined a lot of terms, but you did not define 'love'. This is pretty important because of the many definitions of love out there.

  It is possible to act harshly toward a child, for example, and still be acting with unconditional love. Many parents have learned that tough love is the route they must choose in order to do what is in their child's best interest. Of course, it is not the route they would wish to have to choose; most parents want to have only positive exchanges with their kids. But if a son or daughter is exceptionally rebellious, then parents have to commit to a course that is difficult to them. To do less would be less than love.

  Likewise, a society could be expressing love toward an individual in a certain fashion by restricting them. It really does not follow that love means never disciplining anyone, whether in private families or in society.

  The kind of love I think we are really talking about is obviously much, much more than an emotion. I love my children; I have great moments of love for them, of cour but I do not emotionally swell over with love for them 24 hours a day. If I did, I would not be able to function in a normal life! However, their well-being is one of my biggest commitments, and I must work to keep their well-being above my desire for my own comfort. (In fact, I find this to be the biggest battle.)

  So I believe the deepest love, which can be unconditional (and here I mean not conditioned upon our own feelings), is something like a determination to want the very best--the ultimate best--for another, and if in our power to act toward that... then we act. For example, if someone we love becomes evil, it is still possible to love such a person (even a Hitler!) by simply desiring and hoping (even praying) for the very best kind of good for the person. ...The way I see it, the very best good would be that s/he recognizes how evil s/he is, repents of it, and then turns him/herself over to the police.

  bebu
• 

  FMZ

  Thanks Bebu, that post was refreshing, I agree totally.

  FMZ
• 

  fairchild

  because a dog can just love you for no reason at all.

  Yes indeed. Please let me add my cat to the list as well.
• 

  Narkissos

  First, "love" is a word.

  Whatever continuity or discontinuity we choose to find between its "acceptations" or "shades of meaning" (such as in, "I am in love," "I love my dog," "I love my children," "love your neighbour," "love your enemies," "unconditional love") is in our eyes.

  I feel that any meaningful use of the term "love" implies both a drive to, or longing for, oneness and an experience of separateness; in a sense, love is the happy or painful tension between the two. You may well posit (as JT or poppers seem to do) that oneness is the truth and separateness is an illusion (or the opposite), but you still need both to feel what we usually call "love". Remove separateness, capitalise "Love," and it becomes semantically empty, just interchangeable with "Being", "All", "It" or even "God" (the capital letter kills the meaning; absolutisation kills the concept).

  One slightly different approach might help to sense the paradoxes or apories of love: instead of "unconditional" I would ask whether there is such a thing as "disinterested love".