Unconditional love.....

[Anonymous]

Unconditional love:

To continue loving no matter what.
No conditions.

Staying?

Maybe not.

Continuing to love, after going = unconditional love is still possible, imo.

Love:  Caring, wishing well, hoping the best for, praying for, forgiving.
Unconditional: No matter what the person did.  Loving not the behaviour, but, the person.

Love without forgiving = impossible, for me.

A couple near here are married 75 years and were interviewed recently.
Their advice re. maintaining a happy marriage for so long:

"Laugh often and forgive always".

Ofcourse, I doubt either of them are axe murderers.
More likely they are just human and probably humane with eachother most of the time.

[mum]

Okay, I thought someone already said this, but alas, I cannot find it, so apologies if it's been said:

LOVE is simple.
Conditions put upon love, are complicated.....and not love.

All conditional love is something else....it's not love, it's a variation, a twist, love itself is pure and simple.  Add stuff, spice it up if you want, but then it isn't love.

[Portia]

Good morning (?) UHOH FAV TOPIC Guest

I read all your post and liked it. About the post: june 8th 2004, I like to say thanks every time I use an old post, so, as I read it and found it (ain’t that search useful? ) – thanks to Ellie for posting that and just in case, she said she found it at this website: http://www.iloveulove.com  I’m just repeating the website, I’m not recommending or otherwise.

I found this got through to me too, thank you:

Tolerating unacceptable behavior only keeps the offender stuck doing the same broken thing. He/She may not change if you put your foot down, but you will no longer be holding them back by collaborating. Mistakes are forgivable and tolerable. Patterns are forgivable, but not always tolerable.

 I wish I didn't have to learn this but better late than never.

[Anonymous]

LOVE is simple.
Conditions put upon love, are complicated.....and not love.

All conditional love is something else....it's not love, it's a variation, a twist, love itself is pure and simple.  Add stuff, spice it up if you want, but then it isn't love.

I like this concept...

But in "People of the Lie", Scott Peck points out that an "insistence on affirmation independent of all findings" isn't love, it's the very thing that evil demands in order to be enabled.

How do we know when we are being loving, then, and when we are being enablers? It's constant hard work. You have to be paying attention all the doggone time.

I do think that every living thing deserves fundamental respect. But I also think that a part of that respect is the obligation to recognize and, if necessary and where possible, constrain evil.

Hard, hard work. So often we duck the question either by deciding that evil simply doesn't exist (which neatly excuses us from ever having to deal with it) or by deciding that it does, and that it's anything that keeps us from getting our way (which neatly co-opts us into its service).

Ns think we're evil when we say No to them...

And how much harder it is to recognize, confront, and restrain our own enabling or damaging (thus evil-enabling) tendencies... without despairing or condemning ourselves

[Portia]

I’m getting my head around this:

I do think that every living thing deserves fundamental respect. But I also think that a part of that respect is the obligation to recognize and, if necessary and where possible, constrain evil.

Hard, hard work. So often we duck the question either by deciding that evil simply doesn't exist (which neatly excuses us from ever having to deal with it) or by deciding that it does, and that it's anything that keeps us from getting our way (which neatly co-opts us into its service).

I like thinking about this stuff. But this is difficult. I think I’d like examples. To talk about ‘evil’ doesn’t help me. I don’t think that evil exists. I think people (and only people, no animals, not natural disasters) do evil things. Evil is only a human concept after all.  I don’t think the people that do evil things are inherently evil in themselves.

(1) This is a bad man (he has an inherent character flaw which means he is at his core, bad).
(2) This man has done lots of bad things (but he didn’t always do bad things and maybe he won’t do bad things again, maybe he can learn).

(1) is a closed case, no hope, no learning. (2) contains hope for change and learning (all round).

When I say that evil doesn’t exist, it does not excuse me from having to deal with evil actions. It doesn’t work like that.

Who decides what are evil acts? I think of abuse of children – anything done to a child which meets an adults’ needs and not the child’s.

But sometime abuse is pragmatic – killing children in times of food shortage to make tribe survival more likely. But abuse which is for an adult’s individual needs? Maybe we can start there with a definition of an evil act?

Perhaps an evil act is one which meets an individual’s needs, but at the same time harms someone else. In which case we’re all evil in the ‘civilised western world’, because we’re allowing people to die while we live. I choose to consume. Am I evil?

it's anything that keeps us from getting our way (which neatly co-opts us into its service).

Not necessarily because surely getting our way could be helping to feed all the people in the world? Or being allowed to live unselfishly, looking after needy people? (Mother Teresa was getting her way, kind of thing).

Tricky stuff.

[Anonymous]

How do we know when we are being loving, then, and when we are being enablers? It's constant hard work. You have to be paying attention all the doggone time.

If you are clear about your boundaries, then it's not that difficult.
 

I do think that every living thing deserves fundamental respect. But I also think that a part of that respect is the obligation to recognize and, if necessary and where possible, constrain evil.

I am not thinking about constraining evil every day, I must admit.

Ns think we're evil when we say No to them...

If they want to believe we're evil for thwarting them, that's their privilege and problem. Ignore them.

And how much harder it is to recognize, confront, and restrain our own enabling or damaging (thus evil-enabling) tendencies... without despairing or condemning ourselves

To me, evil is pretty dire stuff. If you're talking about people getting angry, enraged, being immature, that (to me) isn't evil. It's just dysfunctional. Maybe I'm not understanding.

bunny

[Anonymous]

[quote="Anonymous
If you are clear about your boundaries, then it's not that difficult.[/quote]

Are we all really clear about all of our boundaries? If so, why is human interaction still so fraught with misunderstandings and human-caused unnecessary pain?

I am not thinking about constraining evil every day, I must admit.

That's all right, neither am I. But... do you ever think about it? When, if so?

If they want to believe we're evil for thwarting them, that's their privilege and problem. Ignore them.

Difficult for the Warsaw Ghetto resister to ignore the SS official who is about to shoot him in the nape of the neck, or to convince himself that this is just the official's problem...

To me, evil is pretty dire stuff. If you're talking about people getting angry, enraged, being immature, that (to me) isn't evil. It's just dysfunctional. Maybe I'm not understanding.

It is indeed dire, when fully manifest. But it starts out small. And grows. There was a long, long period of increasing prejudice and discrimination before the Wannsee Conference, and a long period of escalating disenfranchisement and displacement before the extermination camps were built. They didn't spring up overnight, like mushrooms; and neither does any other full-blown evil. It's incremental.

But the prejudice and discrimination that were the starting point... were they evil? Or only dysfunctional? Was it evil to deliberately foment ethnic hatred for political purposes, because of anger and rage associated with the end of WW I and subsequent economic impact on Germany? Or was this only dysfunctional? At what point does something cross the line from dysfunction and become evil?

I would argue that this line is crossed whenever the thought or act of harming someone (or damaging something) evokes pleasure or satisfaction in the actor or thinker. By which reasoning every one of us is certainly capable of evil, and every one of us would have at least some responsibility to constrain our selves.

I've chosen the Holocaust as example because hopefully nobody here will argue in its favor... this, at least, we can agree on as an example of evil. I hope.

[Anonymous]

Are we all really clear about all of our boundaries? If so, why is human interaction still so fraught with misunderstandings and human-caused unnecessary pain?

All you can do is be clear about your own boundaries. That helps everyone. I can't speak for the entire populace.

That's all right, neither am I. But... do you ever think about it? When, if so?

I think about it when I read the news. However I cannot solve the world's problems.

Difficult for the Warsaw Ghetto resister to ignore the SS official who is about to shoot him in the nape of the neck, or to convince himself that this is just the official's problem...

I was responding to an example about an N not liking the word 'no'. I didn't realize you were referring to WWII.

It is indeed dire, when fully manifest. But it starts out small. And grows. There was a long, long period of increasing prejudice and discrimination before the Wannsee Conference, and a long period of escalating disenfranchisement and displacement before the extermination camps were built. They didn't spring up overnight, like mushrooms; and neither does any other full-blown evil. It's incremental.

Okay.

I would argue that this line is crossed whenever the thought or act of harming someone (or damaging something) evokes pleasure or satisfaction in the actor or thinker. By which reasoning every one of us is certainly capable of evil, and every one of us would have at least some responsibility to constrain our selves.

Okay. So what evil are you dealing with or constraining?

I've chosen the Holocaust as example because hopefully nobody here will argue in its favor... this, at least, we can agree on as an example of evil. I hope.

It's also extreme. I don't think most people have to deal with this in daily life.

bunny

[hmmONEofFAVtopics]

perhaps what might help is
tho the the best and true love is unconditional
one does set conditions in terms of
what might best enable goodness
and  how one's reponse would not serve to enable
more bad behaviour
...
thus to best practice unconditional love
with proper discernment to understand the
complexities of anothers  needs might
better enable the best expression of unconditiona love:)

to paste from a may 25th 10:34pm pst
Love without forgiving = impossible, for me.
by a guest...
perhaps in some cases to always be ready to forgive
in the case of some sins and some sinners
but to give forgiveness in some cases
when they have not yet repented one
could be then guilty of enabling bad behaviour
... perhaps within the concept of in luke 17
where jesus says
if your brother sins against you rebuke him
and when he repents forgive him...

the nlt translation of taht is
I am warning you! If another believer sins, rebuke him; then if he repents, forgive him.
.. but does it also apply outside of christian believers..
i think it can

websters translation
Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother shall trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he shall repent forgive him.

and of course the vulgate
adtendite vobis si peccaverit frater tuus increpa illum et si paenitentiam egerit dimitte illi

and the greek
 prosecho heautou de ean sou adelphos...etc

and then the probable aramic  or hmm maybe hebrew ..hmmm

[Anonymous]

O.O.F.T., you've said a lot worth saying here. In the interest of ecumenical balance, let me add some Eastern thoughts.

Buddha said, “Not in the sky, not in the midst of  the sea, nor if we enter into the clefts of the mountains, is there known a spot in the  whole world where a man might be freed from an evil deed.”

He spoke of Karma here... but the essence of the concept of Karma is that actions have consequences in the spiritual, as well as the material, sense. There is thus a concept of retributive justice, and the sense that some things 'ought not to be done'.

Further, he advised certain seekers to trust their own reasoning and experience in discerning good from evil; "... when you yourselves know:  ‘These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise;  undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill’, abandon them.” (Anguttara-Nikaya  l,189)

So: love seems to call us to see honestly and face fearlessly... love (compassion) that says 'yea' to things that are bad, that lead to harm and ill, is not love. Whether those things are in our own desires and actions, or in the desires and actions of those we love... or even, sometimes, passing strangers. And stringent honesty would call us to set our own house in order first...

Which is what my Muslim friends refer to as the Greater Jihad. Muhammad, after a battle, reputedly said “We have returned from the lesser jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).” When asked “What is the greater jihad?,” he replied “It is the struggle against oneself.”

Pax-Shalom-Salaam

[P]

Thanks for the last two posts.

“It is the struggle against oneself.”  Indeed. All the time.

Some physical activity (gardening ) and difficult thinking make for a good Saturday for me. Thanks! portia

[hmmONEofFAVtopics]

Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 8:52 pm

O.O.F.T., you've said a lot worth saying here. In the interest of ecumenical balance, let me add some Eastern thoughts.

Buddha said, “Not in the sky, not in the midst of the sea, nor if we enter into the clefts of the mountains, is there known a spot in the whole world where a man might be freed from an evil deed.”

BOUT SOME ESSENTIAL TENDENCIES OF EASTERN AND WESTERN
THOUGHT...
OFT IN EASTERN THOUGHT THERE IS MORE OF A LEANING
TOWARDS ..DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD
HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU...WHICH AT TIMES METHINKS
LEANS A BIT TOO MUCH TOWARDS AN UNHEALTHY
PASSIVISIM
WHILE WESTERN THOUGHT LEANS MORE METHINKS TO
DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO
YOU...WHICH IS BETTER FOR ACTIVITING A BETTER DYNAMIC
FOR SELF REALIZATION THAN THAT EASTERN BIAS..
WHICH BUDDHISTICALLY HMMM THE SELF OR EGO IS
SOMETIMES VIEWED TOO MUCH AS SOMETHING
TO TOTALLY DESTROY AND ONE GOES TOO FAR
AND PERHAPS THROWS OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATHWATER
AND CAN MISS THE ESSENCE OF THE ETERNAL TRUE INDIVIDUAL
SELF IN PROPER RELATIONSHIP TO THE WHOLE...


now god is biased
very much so in some areas
say in that he prefers mercy to justice
but ifn one abuses the mercy
justice might be needed to best
effect what the soul needs ...