Is "unconditional love" a myth?? (page 10)

hillary_step

LT,

The "limit" you speak of is a hypothetical "condition". Yes?
Or are you going to argue that there are absolutely no cases where a mother's love has transcended the abominable acts of her child?

My argument is that there is always a limit to a persons love for another, and that there should be. Whether this be in the family situation or not - and if we accpet the principle of unconditional love we must also apply it to every other person within our sphere of influence, or else it then becomes a conditional love. Do you think for example, that it is healthy for a mother to love the son mentioned above without limit? He who sodomized her seven year old grandchild and then murdered the other one?

The whole situation is not to do with love, so much as the limit of love. Unconditional love implies *no* limit. I do not see that as possible in the sane person and if people strive to reach this lofty, mythological ideal, it can only bring them harm.

Best regards - HS

hillary_step

Jeannie,

tr.v. a·mused, a·mus·ing, a·mus·es

To occupy in an agreeable, pleasing, or entertaining fashion.
To cause to laugh or smile by giving pleasure: I was not amused by his jokes.

Not in derision as you seem to have misunderstood.

HS

LittleToe

HS:

...if we accept the principle of unconditional love we must also apply it to every other person within our sphere of influence...

Why?
Why can't we choose who we do and don't grant it to (I'm obviously talking of the exclusive kind, here)?

I do understand that "exclusivity" is a condition in it's own right, but I'm stepping beyond that, as no-one "in their right mind" expects that to exist if they seriously look at it.

Who judges it wrong for a mother to love her child in this manner, even whilst she maybe detests the actions?

My argument is that there is always a limit to a persons love for another...

I'll stand corrected, but surely that is actually the supposition upon which your argument rests?

jeanniebeanz

Hillary,

Well, I've re-read all your comments to see if I missed something, but it looks like you are sticking by the dictionary definition of unconditional love and not the traditional understanding of the term. That explains the disconnect.

I believe that a belief in unconditional love is part of what makes the human family work so it is not surprising that most people here who support the idea refer to family. Without this strong family tie that has been described traditionally as unconditional love, who would really want uncle Harry who is a mooch and a bad dresser hanging about at the family reunion? Or what adult nearing retirement age would want sister Sara who has five kids in tow has been married four times and is now wanting to move back home 'temporarily' until she gets on her feet again would allow her to do so? Or what about the guy whose been kind of a jerk his entire life, but now has cancer and will need day and night care for the next two years while he dies? In the name of this myth of unconditional love, or familial love, the family will normally step up and take care of these people who would be allowed to just wander off and die were they in the animal kingdom. The belief in unconditional love is near and dear to people who have families especially because it helps them to continue to function as a basic operating unit of society in spite of their discomfort with those whom they would not chose to be with themselves. When asked of us in the name of love, difficult tasks are easier to accept.

Rather than being a destructive belief, and even if it is a myth by the dictionary definition, this type of love is something that binds us to others in a beneficial way to our families and people who we welcome into our families. I think that most here would agree that, logically, there is a limit to this "unconditional" love somewhere and that line is different for everyone. However, for some there is literally no limit there. Whether or not that is due to illness, there is no proof of that even if it is a bit obsessive.

People generally use the term "unconditional love" to mean the absolute most love that a person can have and don't stick to the dictionary definition of the word unconditional. I can understand how the use of the term would be frustrating to someone with an ivy league degree who does not associate with 'normal' people, or to a member of the academic world. However, I do not believe that everyone uses language the same way and that's okay. It must be extremely frustrating to an English major though...

Jean

new boy

There is no heaven for good people and hell for the bad ones

God does't think the way people do. We have made God in our image, not in his, we have made God too human, with love and hate.

He/Her Loves EVERYONE------------------Yes unconditionally!!!

This will blow your mind, Hillary --------------------------------and YES even the people who make bad and poor choices. Even the people who have hurt us. NOTHING YOU can do would ever turn God's love away from you or anyone else, it just can not be done.

However, no one gets away with anything. Thats way there is "Karma"

If you sow pain in this life, you will reap it in the next ----------------------there is a perfect justice system -------------------its in Karma!!

NB

hillary_step

Jeannie,

Thanks for your post, you make some interesting points.

Well, I've re-read all your comments to see if I missed something, but it looks like you are sticking by the dictionary definition of unconditional love and not the traditional understanding of the term.

Before we go on, perhaps you might define what you mean by 'tradional understanding of the term'.

People generally use the term "unconditional love" to mean the absolute most love that a person can have and don't stick to the dictionary definition of the word unconditional.

Jeannie, this implies a condition. It can no longer be described as 'unconditional'

Best regards - HS

LittleToe

Ooooh, Jeanie!!!
Nicely put.

It's probably a bit too touchy-feely for some, but I LIKE it!!!

Are we facing the usual divide between those who prefer objective and those who prefer subjective realities, I wonder?

jeanniebeanz

Not in derision as you seem to have misunderstood.

No problem.

However, this does illustrate my point on the use of language. In my life experience, when someone says they are amused by the sincere efforts of others to explain themselves, it has definitely been meant in an extremely derogatory way. A definite, "I'm more intelligent than you so I'll tolerate your ramblings, but you are stupid and uneducated so my opinion stands." (Not that that is how you meant to sound since you have clearly indicated otherwise, thank you.)

Misunderstandings in this particular form of communication are difficult to avoid since you cannot see and hear the person speaking and that is where most of our clues on meaning are found. Emoticons help, but don't always cut it. Throw in cultural and language differences and sometimes our best efforts as sincere communication can be misunderstood.

This happened to Country Woman in another thread. Thank goodness most people here are reasonable and allowed her to explain her meaning. Though, some went off like a bomb...

Jean

hillary_step

Mommy, will you always love me?

Of course John, I will love you whatever you might do.

Mommy, what if I tell you that I have just put the cat into the blender?

Well John, I might not like what you have done, but I would try to understand and love you just the same.

Mommy, what if I grow up and become a JW?

Well son, I might not like your choices but I will respect them.

Mommy, what if when I was all grown up I sodomized your grandchild and murdered the other one.

John, I am sure you could never do that, but if you did I would hate what you had done, but you are still my son and I would still love you.

Mommy, what if I became a Republican and drove an SUV.

Don't push your luck you little bastard.

LittleToe

ROFL

Have a good one pal

Slainte

Is "unconditional love" a myth??

Share this