Still thinking said:
It's interesting how people want to pull it apart, why is that? Don't they like the idea? or is it just that they have never experienced it so cannot grasp the concept?
Listen to yourself: do you realize that you could replace the word "love of Jesus" in there, and you'd be alot like someone on this board who says we just don't get it because we have never felt his love?
I said:
We don't consider people who are unconditionally ANYTHING (i.e. fill in the emotion, be it anger, fear, sadness, etc) to be healthy.
Still thinking said:
Who is WE? Who are they to judge? And why is it being compared to unconditional Anger, fear, sadness etc?
Why not compare it to unconditonal joy, bravery, happiness? Why the negatives?
Stop and think, and answer your own question:
Do you consider unconditional joy or happiness to be an appropriate emotion to experience and express after the tragic murder of a loved one?
Of course not: that's not the "normal" expected human reaction to such bad news, and if it was murder, showing joy would instantly make you prime suspect #1 in the Police Dept's eyes!
Humans are reactive animals, and in fact, ALL animals are reactive to varying degrees: expecting anything else is unrealistic, and dare I say, robotic? The same applies to all emotions: love is not and should not be exempt.
Talesin said:
It would be beneficial if you would address my point about Maslow, instead of obfuscating.
I was talking about M-A-S-L-O-W.
Uh, Maslow's hierarchy of needs for self-actualization and individual growth didn't talk about UL for OTHERS, but only oneself; besides 'safety' isn't 'love'. What's your point in dragging him into this, as if to make a point that even he didn't try to make?