Sorry QQ. I'm pretty bored tonight. I'll keep my smartass comments to myself... maybe. 
Why isn't unconditional love enough?
- Thread starter Onefinity
- Start date
superluminal said:
They had to explain things this way so that people 5000 years could understand it. Humans have emotions, they get angry, they feel sad, they speak...
The initiates knew that people wouldn't understand if they told about natural phenomenon without converting them into something which they feel more familiar with.
So when they teached them, they had to create interresting, colorful, figures - gods - to which they gave different characteristics. Even though these teachings of natural laws and aspects of human psyche were transformed into figures, much like the humans themselves, the truth still remained in them. This way, people understood many natural phenomenon and inner psychological things subconsciously, and today, people no longer need to speak in "parables" when they talk with each other.
Unconditional love?
UNCONDITIONAL LOVE?!!!!
Describe one instance of “unconditional love” and I will offer a reply.
Not even your hypothetical God could offer such a thing.
His love comes with rules and expectations and demands and threats.
What about a mother's love for her child?
Is that “unconditional”?! Is it?
Think….Is it?
What about your love?
Is that without promised rewards or expectations, is that without conditions?
Think.
“Unconditional love”?!
Is that one of things like ‘justice’ which no one can offer an adequate description or definition of?
Is that one of your myths that degrades the very concept it espouses and worships?
You know what diminishes the value of something most of all?
When it is worshiped and raised on a pedestal, like your hypothetical unconditioned and unconditional love?
The sooner you realize what ‘love’ means and what conditions follow it and ensure it and maintain it, the sooner you will appreciate it for what it is and learn to enjoy it without becoming its victim.
UNCONDITIONAL LOVE?!!!!
Describe one instance of “unconditional love” and I will offer a reply.
Not even your hypothetical God could offer such a thing.
His love comes with rules and expectations and demands and threats.
What about a mother's love for her child?
Is that “unconditional”?! Is it?
Think….Is it?
What about your love?
Is that without promised rewards or expectations, is that without conditions?
Think.
“Unconditional love”?!
Is that one of things like ‘justice’ which no one can offer an adequate description or definition of?
Is that one of your myths that degrades the very concept it espouses and worships?
You know what diminishes the value of something most of all?
When it is worshiped and raised on a pedestal, like your hypothetical unconditioned and unconditional love?
The sooner you realize what ‘love’ means and what conditions follow it and ensure it and maintain it, the sooner you will appreciate it for what it is and learn to enjoy it without becoming its victim.
Last edited:
see the problem i have with this is, what is true for you is not true for me. yet yourself and many christians will say that it is true for everyone. i dont feel threatend by your belief, i know that you believing i condem myself to the fire, does not mean i will go the fire by my own choice. my truth is there is no fire, there is no condemnation, we are our own saviour, salvation comes in this lifetime not afterdeath and everyone is that child of god.
When you demand unconditional love, and think that it's one of the most moral things possible, you're actually destroying morality. Morality demands that you differentiate right from wrong, <I>and</I> that you act upon it. Unconditional love , as well as mercy, throws away hte need for morality- and hence, justice.
Interesting thoughts, care to elaborate?Rosnet said:
water said:
1. The source. No, not the Bible. Just the source. The source of things. The source of life.
2. When I used the word "enlighten," I did not mean "enlighten me" as in lift me out of some darkness. I meant enlighten me as to the concept of salvation and why or how that became part of the message of Jesus Christ. Enlighten me as to the concept, not the reality. I feel I have a good grasp of the latter. I just don't quite get the insistence of most Christians on the notion of salvation "from above."
Now, at this time, I can't really say that my question has been answered. Something, I gather, related to the notion that we are born bad. Not only imperfect (which, to me, is part of perfection) but actually born bad, and that we somehow need to get "fixed" before a "life after death." And that there is a particularly privileged way of getting fixed before life after death, and that is by "submitting" (act of submission) oneself to a being who - in spite of the powerful message of humility and unconditional love - is in a position of savior. Now, to me, that is a serious caricature of the basic message. How do I know this? It seems obvious to me.
But I guess there is no "answer" to this question. It is what you find to be true. I mean, really, even if the Pope were a part of Sciforums, he would say the same thing you did, and I would say the same thing I did. I would tell the Pope - "Papo, you are a knowledgeable and good man. You are a living cultural legacy. But you are not closer to God than mio. And you are not further away from God than mio. He/she/it is firmly rooted in all our hearts, no?"
Long ago at college, I was told by a Christian friend, "You are more Christian than most Christians." A couple of years later, while visiting Pakistan with friends from there, one of them said "You are more Muslim than most Muslims." Now, I don't claim that they were correct. However, it may help to make my point clearer.
Quantum Quack said:
Most certainly.
Morality is your judgement of right and wrong, and your willingness to act upon it. If you love unconditionally, if you love your child's murderer as much as you loved your child, you are mocking morality. If you show him mercy, and refrain from punishing him, you are mocking justice. These two (morality and justce) are bound to each other inseparably. If a man violates morality, he deserves to be punished. But how can you punish him if you love him? No, this is not hte same as punishing your child for his mistakes. In that case, your purpose is to teach him. You don't punish your son because you hate him. You do it in order to teach him that what he did was wrong. But the reason ew punish criminals is not the same as this. We don't intend to teach them. Punishment is hardly any way to teach grown ups. The basic reason crimes are punished is to warn people not to do them in the first place. A dead man doesn't get his life back when his murderer is punished. But hte murderer isn't punished so that he may learn anything. What <I>can</I> a man learn after you put him in an electric chair? The primary reason is as stated above- to scare people away from doing wrong. But after the crime is commited, it doesn't do any good to the victim to have the criminal suffer. So, if the murderer asks you this, do you let him go off? No you don't, because this has to be specified in the first place. Along with stating the laws and punishments, a strict adherence to carrying them out has to be specified. Otherwise, they lose their value. If you let off someone at least once, you have shown that there is a chance of escape. And this destroys the usefulness of laws.
How does this apply to our discussion? I was merely making clear, the difference between punishing your child and punishing a criminal. Punishing your child is an act invloving the morality issue. Punishing a criminal is an act of defense.
If you uphold morality, and then grant love to everyone who violates it, you are refusing to act upon your judgement. If <I>you</I> yourself violate your ethics, should love yourself the same as always? Then what is the meaning of being moral. If nothing at all changes, then there is no meaning to being moral or immoral.
Well, before proceeding further, answer this;
What difference does it make when morality is violated?
Rosnet said:
Well first of all thank you for taking the time to put that together for me/us.
Although I can see yu point I wonder whether Justice is really about punishment at all.
Perspective 1:
Incarceration is not for the non-benefit of the criminal it is for the benefiit of society so that they can exist with out the contriviances of the criminal. A sort of quaranteen, isolate the person from the society he has rejected by his actions against that society.
A bit like making two fighting children to go to their separate bedrooms so that they can think about their actions and in the mean time alow the parents and other siblings some peace.
Perspective 2:
Incarcerate or execute the criminal as a form of punishment, added icing on the cake of misery.
I tend to think that the justice system is not about punishment but about securing the safety of society from persons who reject that society. And in this sense I see no breach of morality if unconditional love is part of the picture......The main reasonign is that evne though that person may have committed hideous crimes he is also like every one else a product of his environment. That environment is far from perfect and so to are the outcomes of that environment.
To love humanity unconditionally is to accept that imperfection as part of it's evolution and allow it to evolve as it must do.
If one loves the human condition unconditionally then that neccessarilly includes the Hitlers and other monsters of the world because they too are a part of that "moral" evolution.
To hate the criminal is to hate humanity for all it's failings thus hating yourself for being a part of that failing....
Yorda,
No, just because God says something does not mean humans will immediately obey. We have our free will! And laxness!
Alas, new times are coming.
* * *
Quantum Quack,
Loved your thoughts, put them into my Practical Handibook.
Exactly!
This part I don't agree with. Why forgive someone something he hasn't done?!
I do not think this is the same as "forgiving" God as you mentioned above.
And I think forgiving planet Earth for an earthquake is patronizing.
I agree. Except for the last sentence -- I'd say "You wouldn't know Gods love no matter how hard you try to know His love simply because love cannot be recognized under those conditions."
No, just because God says something does not mean humans will immediately obey. We have our free will! And laxness!
Alas, new times are coming.
* * *
Quantum Quack,
Loved your thoughts, put them into my Practical Handibook.
Exactly!
This part I don't agree with. Why forgive someone something he hasn't done?!
I do not think this is the same as "forgiving" God as you mentioned above.
And I think forgiving planet Earth for an earthquake is patronizing.
I agree. Except for the last sentence -- I'd say "You wouldn't know Gods love no matter how hard you try to know His love simply because love cannot be recognized under those conditions."
Lori_7,
It makes sense from the perspective of God's omniscience. God knew Esau would act in dismal ways, this is why He hated him.
* * *
ellion,
So? Take it from here. Think it through. What is the corollarium of "Truth is what is true for me"?
Christians have a belief where other people are included, in particular ways.
You have such a belief -- where other people are included -- as well, only that yours is far less explicit than theirs.
But how do you know that? Has God testified to you that everyone is a child of God?
See, I'm afraid that the god you employ is merely a philosophical and moral construct, something that equalizes all people in a certain way, as that equality is otherwise impossible to achieve.
Also, if you claim universal salvation, then this means there is no criteria for it, which means it is all arbitrary. This makes the concept of a creator god superflouous or a mere farce.
(Keep in mind that many Christian churches believe that one is saved already in this life, after one has accepted Jesus as his Saviour. So salvation isn't necessarily something that comes after death.)
* * *
Rosnet,
Most definitely so.
But it all depends on how unconditional love is bound into a system of beliefs, values and preferences.
To just say "love unconditionally" is a simplicism, and a dangerous one -- as you have explained.
Love doesn't exist on its own, like a thing one could take off the shelf and give it to someone. Love exists only within a relationship.
A relationship is based on the decision to have that relationship. Two parties agree to pursue a common goal, and that they both contribute to this relationship.
However, people often take that decision for granted, or refuse to make it and let the other person bear the whole weight of the relationship (this goes both for personal as well as legal relationships).
Once the decision for a relationship has been made, unconditional love can be exercised. If one of the parties declares disinterest in the relationship, they have thereby declared disinterest in the unconditional love they can get in it (even though the renegate might not want to admit that), and have thus resigned from the relationship.
Unconditional love has the prerequisite of there being a space (a relationship) where unconditional love can take place.
Humans can possess a certain attitude of unconditionality (like having compassion with *anyone's* suffering; many people can at least initially empathize with someone who suffers, regardless who this person is), but this has to do with their personal characteristics, with who they are -- and not with what they are actually doing.
Being willing to love unconditionally does not equal loving unconditionally.
* * *
Onefinity,
Are you claiming God has given you a personal revelation, other than that found in the holy texts?
Note that, for example, the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Thus it is not true that
There are people who are without the Spirit. Not everyone has equal and direct acces to the source.
Have you studied the Bible?
So you are saying that the truth is relative and arbitrary, and thus, eventually, there is no truth. Why then ask any questions at all?
This is a very disputable point.
There are people who reject God. Then there are God's *adopted* or *chosen* children. "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 22:14) -- I wouldn't dare say that God is "firmly rooted in all our hearts". God is "firmly rooted" only in the hearts of His chosen children, or anything.
I can understand that very well, and I had been in a similar position. Yet this is nothing to take pride in or be complacent with. Your beliefs are so general that they may fit, at least superficially, with a few religions. But when put to the test, when consistency is sought -- your beliefs don't hold water, other than being your personal theology.
* * *
Rosnet,
But this is too relativistic. A murderer, a serial killer also has a morality where he judges between (what he thinks) right and wrong, and is acting upon that judgment.
Morality only makes sense if there is an obligatory moral code to which all members of society must adhere. This means that this moral code would have to be defined -- or we're stuck in relativism.
And this is where the simplistic understanding of unconditional love shows its flaws.
Ton continue my train of thought from my reply to your previous post:
The murderer has, by his act, declared that he does not want your love, and therefore, all you are obligated to give him is a fair trial by law.
The problem with punishment is that it is, so often, seen as violent vengeance (both by the punisher as well as the punished), as an emotional reaction to a violation.
A punishment is only meaningful (for all involved) if it is carried out with discipline and in accordance with previously set laws.
To carry out punishment this way, the discernment that only love can give is necessary.
Human justice is never just. You can see people get away with crimes all the time. The way human justice is carried out, is essentially a farce.
* * *
Quantum Quack,
But this eventually means to allow it to evolve into murderers! Whom nobody punishes!
Are you suggesting to embrace what one's judgment rejects?
It makes sense from the perspective of God's omniscience. God knew Esau would act in dismal ways, this is why He hated him.
* * *
ellion,
So? Take it from here. Think it through. What is the corollarium of "Truth is what is true for me"?
Christians have a belief where other people are included, in particular ways.
You have such a belief -- where other people are included -- as well, only that yours is far less explicit than theirs.
But how do you know that? Has God testified to you that everyone is a child of God?
See, I'm afraid that the god you employ is merely a philosophical and moral construct, something that equalizes all people in a certain way, as that equality is otherwise impossible to achieve.
Also, if you claim universal salvation, then this means there is no criteria for it, which means it is all arbitrary. This makes the concept of a creator god superflouous or a mere farce.
(Keep in mind that many Christian churches believe that one is saved already in this life, after one has accepted Jesus as his Saviour. So salvation isn't necessarily something that comes after death.)
* * *
Rosnet,
Most definitely so.
But it all depends on how unconditional love is bound into a system of beliefs, values and preferences.
To just say "love unconditionally" is a simplicism, and a dangerous one -- as you have explained.
Love doesn't exist on its own, like a thing one could take off the shelf and give it to someone. Love exists only within a relationship.
A relationship is based on the decision to have that relationship. Two parties agree to pursue a common goal, and that they both contribute to this relationship.
However, people often take that decision for granted, or refuse to make it and let the other person bear the whole weight of the relationship (this goes both for personal as well as legal relationships).
Once the decision for a relationship has been made, unconditional love can be exercised. If one of the parties declares disinterest in the relationship, they have thereby declared disinterest in the unconditional love they can get in it (even though the renegate might not want to admit that), and have thus resigned from the relationship.
Unconditional love has the prerequisite of there being a space (a relationship) where unconditional love can take place.
Humans can possess a certain attitude of unconditionality (like having compassion with *anyone's* suffering; many people can at least initially empathize with someone who suffers, regardless who this person is), but this has to do with their personal characteristics, with who they are -- and not with what they are actually doing.
Being willing to love unconditionally does not equal loving unconditionally.
* * *
Onefinity,
Are you claiming God has given you a personal revelation, other than that found in the holy texts?
Note that, for example, the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Thus it is not true that
There are people who are without the Spirit. Not everyone has equal and direct acces to the source.
Have you studied the Bible?
So you are saying that the truth is relative and arbitrary, and thus, eventually, there is no truth. Why then ask any questions at all?
This is a very disputable point.
There are people who reject God. Then there are God's *adopted* or *chosen* children. "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Matt. 22:14) -- I wouldn't dare say that God is "firmly rooted in all our hearts". God is "firmly rooted" only in the hearts of His chosen children, or anything.
I can understand that very well, and I had been in a similar position. Yet this is nothing to take pride in or be complacent with. Your beliefs are so general that they may fit, at least superficially, with a few religions. But when put to the test, when consistency is sought -- your beliefs don't hold water, other than being your personal theology.
* * *
Rosnet,
But this is too relativistic. A murderer, a serial killer also has a morality where he judges between (what he thinks) right and wrong, and is acting upon that judgment.
Morality only makes sense if there is an obligatory moral code to which all members of society must adhere. This means that this moral code would have to be defined -- or we're stuck in relativism.
And this is where the simplistic understanding of unconditional love shows its flaws.
Ton continue my train of thought from my reply to your previous post:
The murderer has, by his act, declared that he does not want your love, and therefore, all you are obligated to give him is a fair trial by law.
The problem with punishment is that it is, so often, seen as violent vengeance (both by the punisher as well as the punished), as an emotional reaction to a violation.
A punishment is only meaningful (for all involved) if it is carried out with discipline and in accordance with previously set laws.
To carry out punishment this way, the discernment that only love can give is necessary.
Human justice is never just. You can see people get away with crimes all the time. The way human justice is carried out, is essentially a farce.
* * *
Quantum Quack,
But this eventually means to allow it to evolve into murderers! Whom nobody punishes!
Are you suggesting to embrace what one's judgment rejects?
Water,
I think that you're on to something regarding omniscience, but not in regards to Esau's behavior so much, but his spirit. When I was thinking about this last night, I kept remembering the first time I "met" Jesus. Meaning, the first time I felt the presence and heard the voice of the Holy Spirit. I remember thinking that He was so familiar...that I knew Him already...I just couldn't remember. Then several months later, I saw the confirming scripture about "I knew you before I formed you in the womb". And I was like, "Yea, that's exactly how it's like." So maybe we've all already made a choice? Maybe our relationship with God is already determined, we just don't remember. Maybe God hated Esau from something that occurred 27 lifetimes ago, who knows. I get a bit confused when I consider the wheat and the tares and the harvest. Those that are meant to be saved will be, and those that aren't won't be. I always wondered why some people aren't seekers too. I want everyone to be a seeker and everyone to be saved...but that's not the way it is. Why, I don't know.
I think that you're on to something regarding omniscience, but not in regards to Esau's behavior so much, but his spirit. When I was thinking about this last night, I kept remembering the first time I "met" Jesus. Meaning, the first time I felt the presence and heard the voice of the Holy Spirit. I remember thinking that He was so familiar...that I knew Him already...I just couldn't remember. Then several months later, I saw the confirming scripture about "I knew you before I formed you in the womb". And I was like, "Yea, that's exactly how it's like." So maybe we've all already made a choice? Maybe our relationship with God is already determined, we just don't remember. Maybe God hated Esau from something that occurred 27 lifetimes ago, who knows. I get a bit confused when I consider the wheat and the tares and the harvest. Those that are meant to be saved will be, and those that aren't won't be. I always wondered why some people aren't seekers too. I want everyone to be a seeker and everyone to be saved...but that's not the way it is. Why, I don't know.
Onefinity,
Since you are not studying the Bible -- where do you get your understanding of Jesus from?
I find it unreasonable to talk about Jesus and ignoring the Bible.
Whom are you trying to relate to?
Also, if you're not studying other holy texts -- then where do you get your understanding of God and His relation to us from?
You have not formulated it thusly though.
You want a meta-religious approach?
But why would you want such a resonance?
Everything is personal in one way or another, every experience we make is personal.
But if a theology is not also inter-personal, then I see no reason talking about it.
If a theology is unique, made by one person, it is incommunicable -- and thus the actions you perform in the name of that theology are incomprehensible to others, and you also cannot provide an inter-personal justification for your actions.
A theology that is not also inter-personal is of value only for yourself, and for nobody else (except for those randomly benefitting from it).
Since you are not studying the Bible -- where do you get your understanding of Jesus from?
I find it unreasonable to talk about Jesus and ignoring the Bible.
Whom are you trying to relate to?
Also, if you're not studying other holy texts -- then where do you get your understanding of God and His relation to us from?
You have not formulated it thusly though.
You want a meta-religious approach?
But why would you want such a resonance?
Everything is personal in one way or another, every experience we make is personal.
But if a theology is not also inter-personal, then I see no reason talking about it.
If a theology is unique, made by one person, it is incommunicable -- and thus the actions you perform in the name of that theology are incomprehensible to others, and you also cannot provide an inter-personal justification for your actions.
A theology that is not also inter-personal is of value only for yourself, and for nobody else (except for those randomly benefitting from it).
that is the message i am sharing here. what is true for lori is true for lori, not true for me.water said:
this is true, but my "belief" allows truth to be personal. what is true for you may not (or may) be true for me.
what does it mean to know, if i told you my truth would you allow it to be true for me even if you could not believe it.
to answer you question yes, i know but it was not by a testimony from god, that is obviously an expectation of the god construct you employ.
dont be afraid! i do not employ god, not as a philosophy or a morality.
no criteria for salvation? no!
is salvation arbitary? yes!
is the creator god a farce! maybe maybe not! if you think this is my truth and it helps you relate to me then that is okay by me!
Last edited:
i have spent a lot of time around church and with christians and it was apparent that they do not actually know god to them even some elder members of the church god is just an unknowable concept. a moral and philosophical construct. some of christians i know do know god, and i know that they know god a different way to how i know god, and i have to allow them to know and relate to god their way it is their journey in his presence. theri journey is not my journey their truth is not my truth. i can not say to them you are going in the wrong direction. and what you aare seeing is not real. for them it the right direction and what they see is real. all i can do is share when our paths cross.water said:
ellion said:
I understand this. But you are basing your differentiation on the assumption that people are essentially different. I do not believe we are essentially different, and I believe truth exists.
Yes, I allow ("allow" -- strange choice of words) your truth to be true for you.
But I believe that the truth about God is such that it is true for all people. And this is so because of who God is -- the Creator.
Now, I am not saying that *my* understanding is the ultimate one and the right one. I am saying that an ultimate and right understanding is possible. That truth is not relativistic.
I was just trying to be thorough.