The Myth of Unconditional Love (page 2)

outoftheorg

I agree with amazing.

For example I have a set of fraternal twins,"not identical" one is calm reasonable and a pleasure to be around. The other is obnoxious drinks too much, abuses drugs and people, to the point that I will not have him in my life. But I still love them both. I saw obnoxious recently and he tried to not be a jerk. He did not succeed very well. But I still hugged him and told him I was proud of his efforts to behave himself and not start a fight. Which he usually does. If something happens to him I will be as devastated as I would if it was the other twin.

I do hate some of his actions but I still love him.

amac

Amazing,

That was a very nice post, but I do disagree.

Rather, the argument that love cannot be unconditional is a MYTH.

The love you described for your children does have a condition. The condition needed for the extent of love you described is them being your offspring. If that biological tie did not exist (coupled with the fact that you have poured your life into raising them), then I would imagine your love might be different. And about your wife, that too has conditions. The major condition would be reciprocation. What if your wife just detested and hated you? What if she hated you so much (please do not take offense) that she was admittedly unfaithfull, even right before your eyes? Do you think you would continue to love her in the same fashion? Or do you think there is a possibility that you would leave the relationship and learn to stop loving her and maybe even love someone else? It would be easy to answer this with "Yes, I would still have love for her in my heart" but we are talking about the expression or showing of unconditional love. I think the act of showing love is always conditional (we can say we love everyone unconditionally, but showing it is different.)

I think the reason why this topic pops up is because of the claim that JW's love is competely conditional. I agree with this, but I also think that so is everyone else's. The JW's may have a higher level of conditions than others, but I think that would be expected from a group that also enforces stricter morals than most.

JanH

Amazing,

I beg to differ, I agree that "unconditional love" is a total myth, unless you define it to also include the mushy nostalgia over lost love. I JW will argue that shunning a DFd person is an act of "love" but the shunned does not feel it. Love is as love does.

If a spouse or an offspring behaves in an extremely evil manner (murder, torture, child abuse, etc) and you turn him or her into the authorities to suffer the rest of the life in jail, it is not an act of love. The nostalgia and sadness felt is not love.

Besides, before this actually happens to you, how could you know that you would still love them?

- Jan

SixofNine

If something happens to him I will be as devastated as I would if it was the other twin.

Reading the story of your twins, Outoftheorg, I have to say I find that hard to believe. I can't imagine a situation like that where, long term, the loss of the less-jerky relative wouldn't tug at your heart more. But that is just me.

expatbrit

I think that perceptions of "love" are largely delusional. Love is an emotion, and like any other emotion is merely chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain. These are caused by stimuli. Therefore whether or not we consciously set conditions to love makes no difference, the conditions exist by default. If the stimuli change to a require degree, so will the reaction produced.

Also love, like every other human behaviour, is based upon self-interest. For instance, a mother loves her offspring, mainly because they continue her genetic code in the species, but also because her offspring in the main give her pleasurable stimuli. It is in her self-interest to feel love for them.

If the stimuli change to a marked degree, say for instance if the offspring embark upon a sustained course of creating misery, hardship and danger to the mother, then the reaction will also change. At a certain point, the factor of genetic continuation will no longer be a weighty enough factor in the mother's perceived self-interest. At that point, "love" will change to indifference or even hatred. The changed stimuli produce a changed reaction.

The unconditional love delusion is thus an offshoot of the greater delusion that humans are anything more than sophisticated organic machines.

Expatbrit

Edited by - expatbrit on 25 July 2002 13:5:35

SixofNine

Oh Expat, you're ssooo romantic! *bats eyelashes*

expatbrit

Careful with the stimuli, Six!

Expatbrit

ItsJustlittleoldme

The love you described for your children does have a condition. The condition needed for the extent of love you described is them being your offspring. If that biological tie did not exist (coupled with the fact that you have poured your life into raising them), then I would imagine your love might be different

Oh, I don't know about that one either..

I have a cousin and her husband that when they originally were married were told they couldn't concieve.. So, they adopted a boy... About 8 years later, they had their own children (2 of their own and the adopted boy)...

There is ABSOLUTELY NO difference in how they treat their 3 children!!! I've seen the same pride in their faces when their adopted child does good, the same hurt when he is sick/in pain, the same anguish when he does something really stupid...

The LOVE is the same, and is unconditional... And, since he is not their biological child, there goes your argument..

Oh, I also have 2 friends who have adopted children, and in both cases later on had their own children.. In all 3 cases, the children are treated identically, I've never once gotten the feeling that the adopted child (or children in the case of one couple) experiences any more or less 'conditons' on the parents, or even the siblings love, for one another....

If you want to state there is a conditon, the condition is they are a family.. Biological doesn't play a part, at least not what I've seen!

detective

I think the reason why this topic pops up is because of the claim that JW's love is competely conditional.

The argument that love is conditional is hardly unique to JWs. Frankly, nobody really gives a hoot what the witnesses claim anymore than they care about some wacky ufo cult's claims (that is, unless they have a direct link to the group in question).
This argument has long been bandied about by psychologists, religionists,philosophers and drunk college freshman endlessly.
It's the religionists who really put some polish on it, though. In the JW situation, that whole "love is conditional" argument that they cling to is quite perfect for them. It suits them to cling to a distant, cold score-keeping god. Do I really care if that's the god they want to worship? No. But it helps explain the distant, cold, score-keeping behavior the group encourages. "Look, Jehovahdaddy is really pretty petty and picky about who he loves and HOW he loves. He might love you, he might not. He's got oodles of rules, that lovin' daddy o' mine. And he's gonna hurt me bad if I don't follow them. So, when I behave like a cold, uncompassionate sonofab*tch, it's okay. I'm just doing what Jehovahdaddy does."

To me, it really isn't about whether or not love is conditional. I happen to think it is. What it's about is the ludicrous measures a group will go to defend their own twisted version of "love". It's a little sad that more JWs aren't suspicious when they see their group beating that whole "love is conditional" argument repeatedly into their heads. The more they accept and repeat that mantra, the easier it is for them to rationalize the horrific misuse of that concept that goes on in their group. Love might be conditional but the conditions they place upon members can be ridiculuos, unhealthy, unnatural and just plain abusive.

I go door to door pushing vitamins. I believe god loves healthy people and the only way for people to be healthy is to take my brand of vitamins. When I knock on your door, I'm hopeful that you might want to take my brand of vitamins. What's that you say? Not interested? Fine, you'll die an ugly death but have a good day. What's that you say my dear friend/son/daughter/brother/mother? You don't want to take these fine vitamins anymore? You don't want to push them door to door? Fine, you'll die an ugly death. Oh, and I forgot- I can no longer associate with you as you no longer appreciate the value of these vitamins. None of the above even begins to describe love. That JWs twist control issues into love is just plain foolish.

A good marketing scheme isn't love. But if you're crazy enough to confuse the two then I can see why you might cling to the "love is conditional" argument. It makes it slightly more palatable when you turn your back on people 'cause they don't want your vitamins (or your lovely little books).

I think that would be expected from a group that also enforces stricter morals than most.

Was this intentionally funny?

amac

The argument that love is conditional is hardly unique to JWs. Frankly, nobody really gives a hoot what the witnesses claim anymore than they care about some wacky ufo cult's claims (that is, unless they have a direct link to the group in question).

I didn't mean to imply that it is unique to JWs. Since this is a JW discussion board, I was merely trying to keep the topic in context.

To me, it really isn't about whether or not love is conditional.

Well that is what this thread is about, whether or not it exists. And in addition to my previous statements, I would like to add that I do think it does exist, but most likely found in delusional stalkers.

I think the rest of your reply has gone on a tangent. I agree with some of what you say, pertaining to the scheme that is set up. Their "marketing" is more driven by self perpetuation than a scheme driven by love. However, I don't think you can argue that many JWs personally are very loving and motivated by a love of God. Maybe they are "blinded by love?"

The Myth of Unconditional Love

Share this