The Myth of Unconditional Love

by Oroborus21 21 Replies latest jw friends

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Oroborus21, I contend that the concept of unconditional love was conceived long before 1960.

    For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

    Romans 8:38-39 ASV

    Oroborus you stated It is the myth of unconditional love that has kept too many women in relationships with men who are abusing them. I suggest, instead, that a misunderstanding of forgiveness keeps some women with their abusers. OK, maybe in a roundabout way:

    Abuser A: If you LOVED me you would FORGIVE me!

    Some here seem to be suggesting that unconditional love requires blind, thoughtless acceptance of all the actions of a loved one,

    Silly Parent B: I love my son. He could not have hurt that girl.

    And that unconditional love cannot impose any short-term pain or suffering on a loved one.

    Silly Parent C I know my adorable little munchkin is biting your child, but I just love her so!

    Also, the love must always be perceived as such by the one being loved.

    Silly Child D (possibly also Abuser A): If you LOVED me, you would help me break out of jail

    I agree with JanH that Love is as love does. From a childs point of view, for instance, this is the only love that matters.

    Silly Parent E I love you kiddies, but mommy has to go find herself now.

    But I maintain that it is love to turn in a spouse or an offspring who behaves in an extremely evil manner. I have allowed my children to face the full penalty of the law, when they were deserving of it. That is because, as a nurturing parent, I am more interested in the long term health and maturity of my child. This is a greater love than the examples of silly parenting above. In my opinion, unconditional love does not equal blinder love.

    If love is merely electrical impulses caused by stimuli, as expatbrit maintains, how do we explain people who sacrificed their entire lives for the good of the human race? Was it merely an extension of the biological urge to procreate and maintain the human species? I am thinking of some of my heroes; Florence Nightingale, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Theresa. If the actions of my heroes was merely biology, then yahoo for biology, and clone these guys! But my gut tells me cloning wouldnt work. What these people learned about love and self-sacrifice did not come from biology, but a deep soul searching and a lifetime of choosing integrity over the easy path.

    For scarcely for the just man will one die, for perhaps for the good man some one might also dare to die. Romans 5:7 Darby

  • detective
    detective

    Amac,
    You're right I probably did veer off track a bit. I guess I'm trying convey a point outside of the "conditional love" argument alone. The argument itself is pretty well-worn, despite the fact that it's still an interesting debate.

    Instead, I'm interested in why witnesses continually make this argument.
    Why hang so much on this particular argument? Why is it so important to them that a person accept this whole conditional love theory? What purpose could that serve? Hmmmmmmmm... I wonder.

    p.s. maybe at some point we'll talk about why I believe their over-regulation of their membership does a huge disservice to the concept of keeping up high moral standards, but that's a thread for another day...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit