Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board
Voicelessness and Emotional Survival => Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board => Topic started by: Jaded911 on May 23, 2005, 04:16:30 AM
-
I was thinking about unconditional love the other day and a thought came to mind. Everyone has their faults and accepting someones flaws is part of giving unconditional love. I wondered to myself at what point should a person withdraw their gift of unconditional love to someone.
I kinda wondered if perhaps that was part of the reason I held onto my dysfunctional relationship with my N. I kept thinking that even though it was alot to cope with, I felt that if I would leave the relationship I was nothing less then a hypocrit.
I guess I just needed to realize that unconditional love does not in any way mean you should be a whipping post. Love isnt supposed to hurt. Love is supposte to be a 50/50 deal....right? I felt that most of my relationship with him was me giving 90% compared to his weak attempt at 10%.
Anyone ever thought about unconditional love and felt that at times this causes you to be an enabler? I think I need to work on my boundaries and I need to realize when my boundaries have been crossed and I need to stick up for myself by gosh. I felt alot of confussion over my boundaries during my relationship with him. I gave him the power to keep crossing my boundaries. Nobody should have to settle for that kind of treatment. I wondered why I felt I should have to tolerate that crap?
-
Hiya Jaded911,
Unconditional love is a tricky one. Accepting flaws is a part of it, because no one is perfect.
Perhaps you held on to your relationship for the simple reason that you loved your ex? And hoped that things would change/ get better? If someone is hurting you then you need to get away from that person. IMO we tolerate a lot in relationships because we don't know better, or because we believe somewhere that we don't deserve better.
I really hope that you feel better soon, and wish I had more insight to offer. I am not a Christian, but 1st Corinthians 13 has always been a source of inspiration to me in difficult moments.
Stay strong,
2cents
-
I was thinking about unconditional love the other day and a thought came to mind. Everyone has their faults and accepting someones flaws is part of giving unconditional love. I wondered to myself at what point should a person withdraw their gift of unconditional love to someone..............
Anyone ever thought about unconditional love and felt that at times this causes you to be an enabler? I think I need to work on my boundaries and I need to realize when my boundaries have been crossed and I need to stick up for myself by gosh. I felt alot of confussion over my boundaries during my relationship with him. I gave him the power to keep crossing my boundaries. Nobody should have to settle for that kind of treatment. I wondered why I felt I should have to tolerate that crap?
Yes, yes, and yes. Agree, agree, agree.
Jaded, you're resonating with me.
I guess I've come to conclusion that my gift (I like how you expressed that) of unconditional love is not going to be allowed (by me) to be abused... anymore!
It will be appreciated or I'll move it (and me) along to more appreciative souls. And if more appreciative souls don't appear, then :roll: so be it. Such is life.
But I've decided that I will no longer waste it... or me. I'm finding that there are actually are appreciative souls out there, and I just never that realised before. I know from therapy that I was locked into an abuse cycle. I've learned that I was pre-programmed for abuse and emotional neglect. And exactly the 90/10 style relationships you describe.
Even when I finally realised this, it really didn't help matters much. I just had this new realisation, but with no tools.
Then I made decisions, and certain things happened, and bad stuff changed. And with that new understanding I've experimented in new relationships. I've learned to force myself to set boundaries that others from good parenting already know. I've learned to be firm, and I'm finding that the world is somehow better to me and for me for it. Well, so far anyway. And thanks for the new thread and the opportunity to express and think out loud.
Cripes! :shock:
-
I think we would need to decide exactly what unconditional love is, and who is appropriate to receive it. The best candidate I can think of is a newborn baby, who needs nurture and love, and doesn't particularly need discipline or boundaries (contrary to the parental beliefs of the 50s, which many of us were nurtured into.)
But even a year or so later, to use the same behaviour would be harmful to a child. There have to be rules about what is acceptable for everyone's comfort, and what is not, and the child ideally should learn these rules without incurring damage in the process. In these circumstances, the love remains, but the conditions have certainly changed. A parent might not regard it as a withdrawal of love if a child is corrected, but I imagine a child would.
I don't think I would describe my relationship with my 12 year old as unconditional love either. She would like it to be :lol: but there are expectations of behaviour from her, and she knows it. Similarly, she can make requests of me, and if they are reasonable I will follow them. By now I hope she knows that it is not about losing my love, but rather about respecting one another as equally important and equally to be considered.
The idea that we have to offer other people our love unconditionally is a big mistake, imo. It assumes that other people are going to be generous enough to always put us and our needs before their own. But how many people can actually do that for us? In my experience very few. So perhaps the unconditional kind of love is what we need to reserve only for ourselves.
:?
-
Jaded,
Thank you for starting this thread. This is something I am grappling with in therapy right now.
I would disagree with October regarding the unconditional love of my children. I believe my love for them is unconditional (at least they have never done anything bad enough to test it), but certainly my total acceptance of their behaviors is not. I would not withhold my love because they did something that was against the rules. All children will break rules and test the limits. That is part of growing up and probably necessary to the maturing process. But they must be confident that despite my disapproval of what they did, I will continue to love them. I guess it all comes down to your own definition of unconditional.
The subject becomes more difficult when discussing a future love relationship. I think in that situation, unconditional love is something that is earned over a long period of time. For those of us who have been seriously injured by love partners, the rebuilding of trust, faith, and respect will take some time and quite honestly, may never fully be attained.
I am also finding that I must heal the deep injuries of my childhood in order to be healthy enough to allow a new relationship into my life. As I have said elsewhere, searching for the father (and IMO the unconditional love that was missing) I wish I'd had, is something that I continue to do.
Brigid
-
I think in adult relationships, unconditional love is more of an idea rather than a practice. Because relationships are based on conditions! It's really a contract between two people to behave a certain way, or else the structure will break down. Unconditional love is often exploited in relationships: "I can do whatever I want -- and if you loved me unconditionally you'd put up with it!"
Bottom line, you can love unconditionally as much as you want, but that doesn't mean you should tolerate, put up with, stay with, or be in a relationship with that person. They are two different things. One is a feeling of love that persists no matter what. The other is a pragmatic decision about how you want to live.
bunny
-
It seems to me 'love' needs to be defined first.
I have yet to see a better definition than CS Lewis's:
To love is to hope, wish or pray for the best for someone.
To not love is either to have no concern what happens to the person(apathy) or to actuallly hope, wish or pray harm toward the person(hate).
This definition of love seperates the sometimes selfish or otherwise uncharitable aspects of our desire to be loved from the object of our love.
It makes it possible to love someone who has hurt us, from afar. I can love my brother, who has done me great harm, because I hope and pray that he can change, while simultaneously despising his behavior and having no desire to be anywhere near him.
This definition also makes it possible to love anyone unconditionally.
It also helps us to understand that the act of disciplining our children is an act of unconditional love.
It also deprives Ns of the power to inflict guilt on us for opposing their misbehavior and seperating ourselves from them. If we seperate ourselves from an abuser or manipulater and see it as an act of love both towards them and ourselves then it is much more difficult to have guilt layed at our feet by the abuser, because the seperation is not selfishness; it is loving concern for all parties.
It also frees us to speak the truth. We can say quite clearly that a total and complete whack job is exactly that, while still hoping and praying the best for the poor soul.
There is no guilt in calling a spade a spade when your deepest wish is that the 'spade' would become a 'heart'.
Perhaps most importantly, this definition of love frees us to truly love unconditionally.
I believe it is the only definition that makes it possible to love our enemies.
mudpup
-
I agree bunny but I noticed my ex had an entire different definition of unconditional love. Actually he didn't have a definition for love period whether it be unconditional or not. Love to him was the other person being submissive while complying with his demands and needs.
Unconditional love to me is understanding that people make mistakes. To give someone unconditional love is to recognize the mistake but not to chastise them for it. A person who loves unconditionally would be supportive for the loved one so that they might gain something from their mistakes. To love someone without unconditional love would be to add insult to injury when the loved one makes a mistake.
Thinking of the N made me realize that there was never any unconditional from his side. At times if he would APPEAR to be empathetic or compassionate, it would only be temporary. The first chance he would get he would turn that around to be "I was there for you, you owe me something in return for me putting some time and effort into your F** ups". I soon learned that his empathy and his compassion was just a cycle he used to get ammunition to use the next time he had a N tantrum.
I have always loved my kids unconditionally. I am not saying I have totally agreed with everything they have done but I do not withhold or withdraw my love for them no matter what they have done. I have said to one of my daughters that I loved her more then life itself but I just didnt like her actions at the moment. My nonjundgmental approach to loving my kids was what I did not have as a child. I wanted to make sure my kids felt loved no matter what they did. At times I didnt know whether to slap them or hug them. You know what I mean? My son is a dare devil. He has had more bangs then evil Knievel. When he would do something which usually ended up him getting hurt, I wanted to grab him and beat his ars but you know, I always hugged him and told him I was so so glad he was ok but what the hell was he thinking. This is where the lectures or "freak out attacks" as they called them, would come in.
Love is something that doesnt come and go on a daily basis. I felt that if I did not comply with the N, he would yank his love as fast as he gave it. Why I settled for that behavior from a grown man while teaching my kids the total opposite is something that has really tugged at me.
-
Unconditional love is often exploited in relationships: "I can do whatever I want -- and if you loved me unconditionally you'd put up with it!"
bunny
:oops: :oops: :oops:
Sounds familiar. :?
-
It seems to me 'love' needs to be defined first.
I have yet to see a better definition than CS Lewis's:
To love is to hope, wish or pray for the best for someone.
To not love is either to have no concern what happens to the person(apathy) or to actuallly hope, wish or pray harm toward the person(hate).
mudpup
I agree with this. I would say that to put any qualifier with the word 'love' is not necessary. 'Conditional love' is therefore a contradiction in terms. Either it is love or it isn't. Same as people who differentiate between 'carnal' and 'spiritual' love. If it is carnal it is not love, imo, it is lust. Love is always spiritual, imo.
Scott Peck defines love as 'the willingness to extend oneself spiritually for the sake of the other', which sounds similar in intent to CS Lewis' wishing, hoping and praying. CS Lewis is better in that it can apply to nurturing oneself, rather than just other people.
Too many people, as Bunny says, use the expectation of 'unconditional love' as permission to treat other people like doormats, and this is where I would say I do not have unconditional love. Or rather, where I do I am trying to stop it happening. But I do have love. Too much, sometimes. :?
-
Jaded, I ditto mudpup and have an extension. I also think love is keeping the door open for someone who truly does repent their behavior and change, rather than writing them off forever. If we do that, then they really do have no reason to ever bother to change their behavior. If the door is open, it is up to them to make the needed changes to reconcile.
It sounds like maybe you are confusing unconditional love for a person with unconditional tolerance of their behavior. It sounds like that to me because I have done this a lot in the past. :evil: Darn co-dependency! You can love someone and still demand the best behavior. Good parents do this all the time with their children. Good parents do it because they love their children and know how to express these things as positives. Bad parents often don't really see their children and only react when their own buttons are pushed.
In general, I think the idea was supposed to be that we forgive each other our foibles on those rare (or not as rare) occasions where they bubble up in relationships. Some people make a habit of acting this way most of the time, though. That is not acceptable, unconditional love or not. 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. You can love throughout, even when you cannot be around the person because they are not safe.
-
I completely agree with what you are saying longtire. Accepting someones repeated "bad" behavior is only reinforcing their belief that it is acceptable to treat people that way.
I don't have any confusion about unconditional love and use me as a door mat. As I stated, unconditional love is loving someone during good times and bad no matter what situations might come in play. See where I lost myself with the N was when I allowed my boundaries to be pushed back inch by inch.
Between the beginning and the end of that relationship I became a different person. Unacceptable treatment became a weekly ordeal with him and by me moving my boundaries with this treatment I gave him the okie dokie to be a repeat offender. My lines became blurred at that point. Actually, to describe it I would have to say that I felt numb and confused about pretty much everything at that point.
I completely understood the difference between unconditional love and giving him a free pass to mistreat me. I just allowed my boundaries to be edged back by him. I guess I didn't think he would continue to shove the boundary lines back bit by bit. I believe one of his best weapons was trying to create a state of total confusion. I noticed this with his dealings with other people. I am not usually a tolerant person for this type of behavior. Why I continued to allow this is something that I need to work out in order to prevent this from ever happening again.
-
Jaded, I think we are on the same wavelength. There were some big warning signs in my situation that I simply had never been taught to look for. Still, I usually ended up pulling back my boundaries bit by bit looking for some way, anyway, to make the situation better. Of course, my W just moved on in each time complaining that I was still too selfish, disruptive, mentally ill, etc. I have had inklings of this since I moved out, but no real tests yet. I have been holding my boundaries pretty well so far, only 3 weeks, but that's already better than the years before.
-
I have been holding my boundaries pretty well so far, only 3 weeks, but that's already better than the years before.
Considering what you are dealing with, I would say three weeks is a real achievement, and a very long time. Sometimes those days go very slowly. Well done, Longtire!!!!
-
FIRST A SEARCH IN FORUM SHOWED UP ABOUT 88
OCCURENCES OF UNCONDTIONAL :)
AH BOUT UNDERSTANDING UNCONDITIONAL LOVE
AS CONNECTED TO
LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART SOUL MIND BODY
AND THAT WHICH IS LIKE UNTO IT
YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
AND RELATED TO THE GOLDEN RULE
OF DOING UNOT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DONE UNTO YOU
SAID IN ANOTHER MANNER I THINK
--CONSIDER THE NEEDS OF OTHERS BEFORE ONE'S OWN
AND WITH SPIRITUAL MATURITY IS DISCERNEMEN IFN THE OTHER
NEEDS REBUKE :)
ALLRIGHTY I DONE QUOTED AND PASTED BELOW SOME OF
WHAT SOME OTHERS SAID BOUT UNCONDITIONAL LOVE
AND I MIGHT MAKE COMMENTS IN CAPS INTERPERSED IN
THOSE QUOTES
BUT FIRST SOME OF MY THOUGHTS BOUT UNCONDITIONAL LOVE
AND BOUNDARIES
TO WAX METAPHYSICAL LIKE THOSE METAPHYSICAL POETS
OF 16TH CENTURY ENGLAND LIKE THOMAS TRAHERNE
THAT THE INFINITE IS ENABLED BY ABSOLUTE LAWS OF THE CREATOR
THAT TO FULLY BECOME ONE WITH THE INFINITE
REQUIRES TO BECOME VERY DEFINITE ABOUT WHAT THOSE LAWS
ARE AND TO ADHERE TO SUCH DEFINITE LAWS AND
THE DENYING SELF WHEN IT BENEFITS OTHERS
AND TO AVOID THAT WHICH IN DENYING SELF
ENABLES THEIR BAD BEHAVIOUR
WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THIS IS SPIRITUAL DISCERMENT
THAT CAN DIVIDE BETWEEN SOUL AND SPIRIT AS A SWORD
IN LUKE 17:3 JESUS SAYS
SOMETHING LIKE :)
IF YOUR BROTHER SINS AGAINST YOU,
REBUKE HIM,
AND WHEN HE REPENTS FORGIVE HIM..
I CANNOT TELL YOU HOW MUCH UNTOLD SUFFERING
THIS CAUSED ME AS A CHILD WHEN MY SISTERS
SAID THEY WERE NOT MY BROTHERS AND THUS
I HAD NO RIGHT TO REBUKE THEM..
JUST KIDDING THERE...
BUT I DID HAVE A NARCISSTIC MOM
..NO KIDDING...
ACTUALLY I THINK BROTHER OR MALE IN THE BIBLE
IS OFTEN SYMBOLIC OF THE CONSCIOUS MIND
THUS WHEN I WOULD SAY WHAT MIGHT BE MEANT
IS WHEN SOMEONE CONSCIOUSLY ABUSES YOU
AND MANIPULATES YOU IN WAYS HE WOULD NOT
WANT TO BE USED BUT FEELS HE CAN JUSTIFY IT
BY SOME INHERENT ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE
THAT COMES FROM ARTIFICIAL SELF JUSTIFICATION
AND USED IT FOR THEIR OWN SELF AGGRANDIZEMENT..
WELL THEN ....
...
HMMM I MIGHT NOW ..OR WAS GONNA DO WAS GO THRU
QUOTES BELOW AND MAKE COMMENTS IN CAPS
WHERE IN PART I MAKE COMMENTS TO WHAT I HAD SAID ABOVE
AND OTHER COMMENTS TO
AND THE RETURN HERE TO MAKE SOME MORE COMMENTS
IN THIS FLOW ...BUT TIME WAS RUNNING OUT AND NOW IS NOT
NOW NOW :) BUT NOW AND SO I AM GOING TO DO IT NOW
WOW THE WONDERS OF BEING SCHIZO.....SMARTS
OH OH BACK UP HERE I AM AFTER A FEW COMMENTS BELOW
IN CAPS INSERTED...
YES THE UNCONDITIONAL ASPECTS IS AS SUGGESTED BELOW
IN SOME OF THE QUOTES OF OTHERS ... I THINK OF IT IN THESE TERMS
THAT
Everyone has their faults and accepting someones flaws is part of giving unconditional love
I wondered to myself at what point should a person withdraw their gift of unconditional love to someoneXXX ACTUALLY ONE DOES NOT NEED TO WITHDRAW
UNCONDTIONAL LOVE AS SOME OF THE RESPONES IS THIS TOPIC BRING UP
I guess I just needed to realize that unconditional love does not in any way mean you should be a whipping post. Love isnt supposed to hurt.
...----one guest said ...
I guess I've come to conclusion that my gift (I like how you expressed that) of unconditional love is not going to be allowed (by me) to be abused... anymore!
XXXX ACTUALLY :) UNCONDITIONAL LOVE I THINK DOES ALLOW ITSELF TO BE ABUSED BUT WHEN WELL DISCERNED SUCH ABUSE ONE DOES IN DENYING SELF AND SUFFERING FOR OTHERS SAKE IN THE LONG RUN HAS THE POWER TO ENABLE THE GOOD POTENTIAL OF THE ONE SUFFERS FOR AND DOES NOT ENABLE THEIR BAD BEHAVIOUR THO THEIR INITIAL RESPONSE MIGHT BRING OUT DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOUR AND REACTION
another quest said./....oh guest who was bunny :)
I think in adult relationships, unconditional love is more of an idea rather than a practice. Because relationships are based on conditions!<~~~XXXXX I THINK IT IS NOT JUST AN IDEA BUT AN IDEAL THAT MIGHT NOT BE AS PERFECLTY IMPLEMENTED AS IT COULD BUT STILL CAN BE COUNTED AS WORKING TO SOME DEGREE IN THE POWER OF UNCONDITIONAL LOVE/// It's really a contract between two people to behave a certain way, or else the structure will break down.XXX WELL I DONT KNOPW IF U MEAN IT IS ALWAYS IN ADULTS SUCH A CONTRACT IT IS BETWEEN SPIRITUALLY MATURE ONES BUT ALSO THERE IS UNCONDTIONAL LOVE THAT A MATURE SPIRITUAL ADULT PERSONS PRACTICES WITHOUT A SUCH CONTRACT AS SUCH BETWEEN ANOTHER ADULT AT VARIOUS LEVELS OF LACK OF MATURITY THO IN A SENSE IT MIGHT BE REGARDED AS A CONTRACT BUT OF A DIFFERENT NATURE.......................................JUST HAVIN FUN WITH .......... THO ACTUALLY :)Unconditional love is often exploited in relationships: "I can do whatever I want -- and if you loved me unconditionally you'd put up with it!"
Bottom line, you can love unconditionally as much as you want, but that doesn't mean you should tolerate, put up with, stay with, or be in a relationship with that person. They are two different things. One is a feeling of love that persists no matter what. The other is a pragmatic decision about how you want to live.
sunshine22 says...
For me to love, is to commit myself, freely and without reservation. I am sincerely interested in your happiness and well being. Whatever your needs are, I will try to fulfill them and will bend in my values<~~I THINK I GET WHAT U MEAN BUT I DONT THINK IT IS PERHAPS AS CLEAR AS IT COULD BE... ACTUALLY ONE CAN DO THE ADJUSTING I THINK WITHOUT BENDING ONE'S OWN VALUES..SEE ABOVE AT BEGINNING OF THIS RESPONSE HOW THAT MIGHT BE ;)...AND ACTUALLY PROBABLY WHAT U SAY AFTER THIS HERE ..MIGHT ESSENTUALLY ..... SOOO LATER IN ANOTHER RESPONSE ..RESPONSE TO THE REST OF QUOTES PASTED HERE :) depending on the importance of your need. If you are lonely and need me, I will be there. If in that loneliness you need to talk, I will listen. If you need to listen, I will talk. If you need the strength of human touch, I will touch you. If you need to be held, I will hold you. I will lie naked in body with you if that be your need. If you need fulfillment of the flesh, I will give you that also, but only through my love.
I will try to be constant with you so that you will understand the core of my personality and from that understanding you can gain strength and security that I am acting as me. I may falter with my moods. I may project, at times, a strangeness that is alien to you which may bewilder or frighten you. There will be times when you question my motives. But because people are never constant and are as changeable as the seasons, I will try to build up within you a faith in my fundamental attitude and show you that my inconsistency is only for the moment and not a lasting part of me. I will show you love now. Each and every day, for each day is a lifetime. Every day we live, we learn more how to love. I will not defer my love nor neglect it, for if I wait until tomorrow, tomorrow never comes. It is like a cloud in the sky, passing by. They always do, you know!
The degree of love I give is determined by my own capability. My capability is determined by the environment of my past existence and my understanding of love, truth and God. My understanding is determined by my parents, friends, places I have lived and been. Each experience is fed into my mind from living.
I will give you as much love as I can. If you show me how to give more, then I will give more. I can only give as much as you need to receive or allow me to give. If you receive all I can give, then my love is endless and fulfilled. If you receive a portion (part) of my love, then I will give others the balance I am capable of giving. I must give all that I have, being what I am.
mudpuppy says...
To love is to hope, wish or pray for the best for someone.
To not love is either to have no concern what happens to the person(apathy) or to actuallly hope, wish or pray harm toward the person(hate).
This definition of love seperates the sometimes selfish or otherwise uncharitable aspects of our desire to be loved from the object of our love.
It makes it possible to love someone who has hurt us, from afar. I can love my brother, who has done me great harm, because I hope and pray that he can change, while simultaneously despising his behavior and having no desire to be anywhere near him.
This definition also makes it possible to love anyone unconditionally.
It also helps us to understand that the act of disciplining our children is an act of unconditional love.
ahhh jaded 911 says...
Unconditional love to me is understanding that people make mistakes. To give someone unconditional love is to recognize the mistake but not to chastise them for it. A person who loves unconditionally would be supportive for the loved one so that they might gain something from their mistakes. To love someone without unconditional love would be to add insult to injury when the loved one makes a mistake.
october says...
Scott Peck defines love as 'the willingness to extend oneself spiritually for the sake of the other', which sounds similar in intent to CS Lewis' wishing, hoping and praying. CS Lewis is better in that it can apply to nurturing oneself, rather than just other people.
longtire says...
Jaded, I ditto mudpup and have an extension. I also think love is keeping the door open for someone who truly does repent their behavior and change, rather than writing them off forever. If we do that, then they really do have no reason to ever bother to change their behavior. If the door is open, it is up to them to make the needed changes to reconcile.
It sounds like maybe you are confusing unconditional love for a person with unconditional tolerance of their behavior. It sounds like that to me because I have done this a lot in the past. Darn co-dependency! You can love someone and still demand the best behavior. Good parents do this all the time with their children. Good parents do it because they love their children and know how to express these things as positives. Bad parents often don't really see their children and only react when their own buttons are pushed.
In general, I think the idea was supposed to be that we forgive each other our foibles on those rare (or not as rare) occasions where they bubble up in relationships. Some people make a habit of acting this way most of the time, though. That is not acceptable, unconditional love or not. 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. You can love throughout, even when you cannot be around the person because they are not safe.
june 8th 2004 post
"Love without condition
I love you as you are, as you seek to find your own special way to relate to the world, or the way you feel that is right for you. It is important that you are the person you want to be and not someone that I or others think you should be."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
[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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 ...