Thread: Unconditional Love

Could we also say there is unconditional happiness or anger? No, these are more basic feelings and people do not get happy and stay happy because it is unconditional...

and

... unless they OD on prozac 24/7.

Isn't that a condition.

>Your perogative, of course. You're wrong, incidentally.

well were all certainly entitled to our opinions arn't we... you heartless bastard.

I have hitherto remained objective, or relatively so, in my comments - which I have spent a good deal of time composing, placing an emphasis on fact and reason rather than unsupported opinion. Unfortunately, nobody seems to care about what one says unless one makes unsupportably decisive and/or personal statements on unsolvably controversial issues. As such, I shall respond in kind.

[sarcasm]
[insulting]
>>The emotion we call love has everything to do with procreation of the species and therefore sex.
I pity your (future?) marriage, when you get past the age of 50 or so. You'll get divorced, or have her murdered, and then marry an 18-year-old gold-digger who'll spend your money and then dump you. You're screwed, 'cuz you're an @55h0l3 who only cares about sex.

>>only help others because it feels good or because it looks good (something to that effect)
Yes, and the good feeling - more often than not - is only present because they love the person they are helping. Especially if the person is ungrateful. You're an @55h0l3 who doesn't understand the concept of compassion.

You're all @55h0l3s.

But I love you all anyway You're just poor misguided children who have never truly been loved, and therefore cannot fathom the meaning of true love.
[/insulting]

This thread is about nowhat, is going nowhere in nowhen, will enlighten nowho, has nowhy, and I don't nohow it hasn't degenerated into a flame war yet.
[/sarcasm]

Lalala, ok I'm going. Be back in a year to see how things are progressing, cya all later.

I don't feel like quoting, because this is just going to be a long quote train, so I'll respond to ideas:

»love == sex
I'm ignoring that because it's just plain stupid... I think Hunter2 said it best... please don't marry anybody until you realize you're wrong. and for the sake of humanity, please make sure you don't get somebody pregnant...

»I could name something she would do that you would leave her for
try me... so far I've been through mental instability, self-destructive behavior due to self-image problems, her going to a school where she gets hit on at least twice a day, a guy that jumped on her and tried raping her, a guy that masturbated and came on her, her past history of b/f's that she can't even recall, except for shady facts like that she once had 6 at the same time, none of which knew about eachother, etc. all with the same girl... and I still love her more than ever... and I tell her constantly that I don't mind if she cheats on me because I know how wild she was in her past... I would just like her to tell me if/when she does... and even if she hid it from me and I found out some other way, I would still love her... sure it would bother me, but I would still love her.

»people do things because their greedy
sure, if you think doing something to get the warm fuzzy feeling is greedy, then I guess so.

»god,jesus,bible,etc.
who cares. just like on the subject of love, there is no right or wrong. you believe what you believe, and though you may be able to kill for your beliefs, it doesn't make anybody else wrong, no matter how much you may want them to be... or if you 'know' how wrong they are, do yourself a favor, don't worry about it... they'll find out in the end anyway, right?

I used to think along the lines of "people forgot what love is", until I thought about it, and realized that love can't be defined.

Originally Posted by major_small

»love == sex
I'm ignoring that because it's just plain stupid... I think Hunter2 said it best... please don't marry anybody until you realize you're wrong. and for the sake of humanity, please make sure you don't get somebody pregnant....

Too late. I'm 44 years old, happily married with 2 kids. Not sure of your point?

I love my wife, my wife loves me. We have 2 children who we both love dearly. You see the commeon thread here? Procreation, continuation of the species? Pretty tricky (tell me how if you find out) without sex.

I just get fed up with this poetic fluffy notion of love for its own sake. Recognise it for what it is - a desire to procreate. Nothing wrong with that!

Originally Posted by no-one

>Your perogative, of course. You're wrong, incidentally.

well were all certainly entitled to our opinions arn't we... you heartless bastard.

Wow. I'm impressed. You think you know me on the basis of 2 internet posts.

Originally Posted by Hunter2

[insulting]
>>The emotion we call love has everything to do with procreation of the species and therefore sex.
I pity your (future?) marriage, when you get past the age of 50 or so. You'll get divorced, or have her murdered, and then marry an 18-year-old gold-digger who'll spend your money and then dump you. You're screwed, 'cuz you're an @55h0l3 who only cares about sex.

Ooh, missed this nugget. Show me the part again where I insulted you or called you names. While you're there, show me the part where I said all I care about is sex.

My (16 year old) marriage is fine, thank you. Not sure why you pity it? Don't like to think of people past 50 having sex or something maybe.

I'll say it again, for the hard of understanding. I love my wife. The reason I love her is that as a species our continued existence depends on it. Which part of that is complicated?

Originally Posted by no-one

so to be clear are you making a distinction on types of love or is love just love? meaning that love of friends, children, family, pets, toys, etc... is of a sexual nature? possibly a prohibitive nature?

Grow up.

> this all stems from your inability to commit(Govt.)...

What the hell?

> wrong, the only requirement on that is faith

That's what I said. That's also a condition.

> One of the most plausible that I've heard

What makes that plausible, in your eyes? Not trolling, by the way - I'm just curious why you would choose that particular theory.

> Wow. I'm impressed. You think you know me on the basis of 2 internet posts.

He apparently knows I'm afraid of commitment based on... well, I've got no idea what, but he knows!

>
Wow. I'm impressed. You think you know me on the basis of 2 internet posts.
<

it was a joke? and what indicates i think i know you?

> The reason I love her is that as a species our continued existence depends on it. Which part of that is complicated?
<

wow she must be happy knowing that, or just as sick as you are... i mourn for your poor kids...

>
Grow up.
<

if love is just for sex then the point is valid and needs to be asked, im curious as to if you believe there are "different" forms of love and i wasnt trying to be a dick, thats why i said "possibly a prohibitive nature?", if there are different types then maybe not all love is for sex... hmmm

so you may grow up... and realize i was making a valid arguement.

>What the hell?

think back to the thread where i was posessed by the spirit of Dr.Phil... i have a very good memory sometimes... and other times not.

>That's what I said. That's also a condition.

no, no, it doesnt mean he wont love you anymore, it just that you have refused that love by refusing to believe in him and his word, he still loves you... duh.

>
stovellp's long post
<

... your logic is self distuctive... in order for you to be right YOU MUST add a conditional into your hypothetical, and there for even from the start it is invalid and non-objective... in that the love could have never been unconditional because it was based on her not EVER changing... which is stupid( because people are always changing)... and not unconditional... and yes i would love her if she ate my children... i would kill her... but i would still love her... what if she became even more of an angel, and wouldn't have sex with me?... i would still love her... la de da de da, hypotheticals are stupid, especially when they come from people who can't see it objectively because they have no understanding of the subject.

>follows football instead of soccer.

that's supposed to be a bad thing?

>
you can only unconditionally love someone if you do not love them for them or who they are, but simply love them because they are yours
<

if "amy" left me for another man while doing this, she isnt mine anymore, but i would still love her anyway... so again...

>
So I do believe this unconditional love does exist. But it's not something I would personally want to start a relationship with.
<

cause you have no idea what it is... or how it works at all.

Guess I'm back sooner than I expected.

>>Show me the part again where I insulted you or called you names.
Apparently you quite misinterpreted the [x] and [/x] tags. They are a common method of conveying sarcasm around here, indicating that everything stated between the [x] and [/x] is characterized by x. Accordingly:
>show me the part where I said all I care about is sex.
In light of my disclaimer, the context it was written in, and this new information, I imagine you now realize that my parting comment was intended to be exaggerated, insulting and irrelevant.

>>I'll say it again, for the hard of understanding. I love my wife. The reason I love her is that as a species our continued existence depends on it.
Once you've had children and raised them to independence, and you are beyond child-bearing age (not 50, if that's what you object to), what is the purpose of love then? You cannot reproduce, protect or otherwise aid your offspring, and in many cases will even become a financial burden to them. Sexual appeal will have faded long ago, and the common ground of raising children will no longer apply. What will keep you and your wife together? Self-survival will only hinder the species as a whole, as you are consuming resources that could go toward more people who are younger and more productive.

>>you can only unconditionally love someone if you do not love them for them or who they are, but simply love them because they are yours.
For a long and nerdy discussion of the bolded phrase, see one of my previous posts.

>>What makes that plausible, in your eyes? (...) I'm just curious why you would choose that particular theory.
As presented to me, it seems to satisfactorily answer most - if not all - of the questions raised by the more simplistic Heaven/Hell doctrine that you speak of, without raising any others that I can think of. The problem is, it is quite a bit longer and more complex to explain, and consequently my above summary is grossly over-simplified to the point of appearing as merely an unjustified opinion. I highly recommend that you skim through the book itself (it's a 113-page fantasy novel, actually somewhat entertaining), as that will give you a much better idea of what I'm talking about. It should be available from most local libraries.

Of course, that isn't to say that it's necessarily even remotely accurate, as is indicated in the preface to the novel itself - nobody really knows for sure what happens after death. It is, however, a theory that isn't as problematic as the traditional/stereotypical; my point in bringing it up is simply that one faulty theory does not invalidate everything related to it, much in the same way that the Bohr model is still in common use as a model for the atom.

Originally Posted by Hamlet

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Never mind.

I like what Hunter2 had to say a couple pages ago about, how, instead of all love being based on condition, some love is based on a fact: like being a mother.

The example of the electric circuit was cool hehe.
Well thought out answer.