Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
Love is never unconditional.
-
Love is never unconditional.
The world has been escaping with a claim to general love, while failing in particular love. You know it when the Christmas cards say “Peace on Earth and Goodwill to Men” but we never achieve it. Gandhi was a prime example of someone claiming to love all and willing to sacrifice to prove it, yet agreeing to be poor is not the same as solving poverty.
It is not possible to love someone in a meaningful way who doesn’t love you. A noble and selfless love does not demand reciprocation, but without it is left holding empty air, and no relationship is achieved. An example is the limitation on the affection one can feel for animals. One finds this is unidirectional and there is no relationship in the understanding.
The ideal of unconditional love has its roots in parenthood, where the child is loved despite sometimes doing bad things, but where also it is essential that it sometimes does good things. If the child only does evil from day 1, then it is like Damien from “The Omen,” that no mother can truly love. Unconditional love is found to have conditions.
Jesus said to love one’s enemy, and Gandhi carried it to the extreme although it can be argued he was abusing emotion to force things his way. But in a world where every man is suspicious of and competitive with every other man, asking to love one’s enemy is tantamount to asking people to learn to accept real others, all of whom should have joy.
If humans want to learn to love better they should start asking how the angels love. Jesus asked people to love one another as He has loved them, and the angels must meet this standard. One notices right away it has to be an anti-body love, lodged in consideration of spirit and personal presence only. One notices that it must be a stable love, over eternity.
If love is only really possible between friends, it seems this is part of the native limitation humans should be striving to overcome. In other words they should be making an effort to become better companions to one another, especially if they are expecting to go to Heaven where it is the usual course. It becomes strange Jesus gave no such instructions.
I suppose there is a presumption in the human mind that they are already rising high enough to be beloved by God and to be qualified to have a relationship with Him. They also believe they are “checking” with God, finding reassurances through prayer. But if it is self-deception or delusion, God may find they’re always fundamentally against Him.
This would mean in man’s greatest moments, when he believes himself to be good, God would not agree His minimum standard of goodness is achieved. That standard would likely be to rejoice in the joy of another and to sorrow at his sorrows. If all could meet that heaven would descend on the planet for no more harm would arise from man to man.
-
2 Replies
-
In your post, you make a few claims, but I find two to be particularly problematic:
-
It is not possible to love someone in a meaningful way who does not love you back.
-
Unconditional love has conditions.
First, we know that unconditional love exists because God the father loves us unconditionally. This unconditional love does not require one to reciprocate it back, as is the case with God and his children. God still loves his children, even the ones who do not love him back. Here is why:
-
God is all-loving and all-powerful.
-
Unconditional love is the highest form of love.
-
If God’s love for us is conditional, then it is not the highest form of love.
-
Therefore, God’s love for us is unconditional.
Now that it is established that God posits unconditional love, I deem it important to demonstrate why humans on earth are capable of positing unconditional love as well. I will go along with the example you present about the love that is present within parent-child relationships. You say that a child like Damien from “The Omen” is unlovable by a parent because of the evil he procures. This reminds me of an article by Jane English called “What Do Grown Children Owe Their Parents?.” In this article, English agrees that the parent-child love has a condition, but she would not agree that the condition is what you cite in terms of Damien. Rather, she says that the love a parent has for a child is conditional on them being their child. That’s it. It is true that there are cases where parents disown their children and as a result stop loving them. In these cases though, the one condition for a parent’s unconditional love is removed: that parent is no longer considering that child their child. After all, that is what it means to disown. This fact, however, by no means supports your claim that unconditional love has conditions because God’s love works in the same way. He loves us because we are his children. The only difference is that he could never disown us. There is no way for humans on earth to break from this condition because they will always be God’s children so long as they are on earth.
It is possible for both humans and God to love others without condition and without reciprocation. While semantically there seems like there is a condition (parent-child love is conditional on the child being the parent’s and God-child love is conditional on the child being God’s), this is basically a tautology.
-
Alex: In your post, you make a few claims, but I find two to be particularly problematic:
1. It is not possible to love someone in a meaningful way who does not love you back.
2. Unconditional love has conditions.JC: To explain 1 again, if there is no bidirectional love there is no relationship, and if there is no relationship there is no meaning. If I tried to love a stone that would be meaningless, or if I tried to love someone who hated me and everything that I stood for.
To explain 2 again, the closest example we have to unconditional love is parents, but this love does have a condition the child is good sometimes, and not totally evil like Damien.
Alex: First, we know that unconditional love exists because God the father loves us unconditionally.
JC: The argument is circular. You need additional information, you need a basis for the assertion that is not simply reasserting the premise. Where in scripture does it say God loves humans unconditionally? God is perfectly loving, but humans don’t love Him back.
Alex: This unconditional love does not require one to reciprocate it back, as is the case with God and his children.
JC: God should be seen as the Creator. Seeing Him as Father was always a dodge. A human father is not a creator. He has merely activated a mechanism for procreation which God designed. A father seeks to provide for His children, and God has provided for all the creatures on the planet, only the human creatures are presently threatening the rest of the creatures as well as their own future civilization. What would a human father do, seeing his children squandering what he has given them, and attacking one another brutally like is happening in Ukraine? He’d have to disown them. They don’t love him and won’t listen to his counsel regarding peace and harmony. There’s no real relationship with them.
Alex: God still loves his children, even the ones who do not love him back.
JC: You think God is tied to the humans because He made them, but He is not tied to them any more than He is tied to the animal plane. The animals do not enter an authentic relationship with God, and humans could not be guided safely through the industrial era.
Alex: Here is why:
1. God is all-loving and all-powerful.JC: You paint a picture of an inanimate object, not a Living God. You’re trying to force God to be all-loving, while flattering Him that He is all-powerful. God is perfectly loving but not all-loving. For one thing, were God to stop loving the greatest best, all progress would cease. Angels excel in goodness and earn God’s favor that way. If He loved all the same then no favor could be earned. He’d be inanimate, like a charging station for Teslas.
Alex:2. Unconditional love is the highest form of love.
JC: You haven’t pointed to any better examples of unconditional love except in a circular way insisting God has this love. If unconditional love does not exist, it is not a real love.
Alex: 3. If God’s love for us is conditional, then it is not the highest form of love.
JC: Love must be conditional by its very nature. Love is a response to the attributes, to what is lovable about an individual. If they lose these attributes there is no basis for love. On the other hand if their attributes increase in glory and nobility they deserve more love.
Alex: 4. Therefore, God’s love for us is unconditional.
JC: Your argument remains essentially circular, for you haven’t given any external justification for these claims, instead just repeating them. Scripture doesn’t say God’s love is unconditional. This appears to be an invention of the modern liberal churches.
Alex: Now that it is established that God posits unconditional love, I deem it important to demonstrate why humans on earth are capable of positing unconditional love as well. I will go along with the example you present about the love that is present within parent-child relationships. You say that a child like Damien from “The Omen” is unlovable by a parent because of the evil he procures.
JC: I watched “The Omen II” yesterday, and Damien kills his second set of parents too. He’s a strong example of why unconditional love is an impossibility, for where there is rebellion and hatred love becomes meaningless. We cannot love that which destroys us.
Alex: This reminds me of an article by Jane English called “What Do Grown Children Owe Their Parents?.” In this article, English agrees that the parent-child love has a condition, but she would not agree that the condition is what you cite in terms of Damien. Rather, she says that the love a parent has for a child is conditional on them being their child. That’s it. It is true that there are cases where parents disown their children and as a result stop loving them. In these cases though, the one condition for a parent’s unconditional love is removed: that parent is no longer considering that child their child. After all, that is what it means to disown.
JC: You appear to be arguing that unconditional love arises from feelings of ownership of the child, rather than as any response to the attributes of the child! But God has no feeling of ownership regarding creation. Ownership amounts to a claim of relationship with material objects that are presumed to have intrinsic value. They stick to the fingers as if glued there. God is detached from the material creation, aware the real value is in spirit.
Alex: This fact, however, by no means supports your claim that unconditional love has conditions because God’s love works in the same way. He loves us because we are his children. The only difference is that he could never disown us. There is no way for humans on earth to break from this condition because they will always be God’s children so long as they are on earth.
JC: You appear to be stuck claiming that parents love their children out of feelings of ownership, because it is their child and not the child of another, and that God’s love is the same way. But anything you claim must apply equally to the animals, which are part of God’s creation too. Therefore He owes nothing more to humans, than He does to animals.
Alex: It is possible for both humans and God to love others without condition and without reciprocation.
JC: I never said reciprocation. Selfless love does not demand reciprocation. But if the love is discovered to be unidirectional, it loses meaning. One loves to the extent of one’s power, for this is under one’s control. But any love becomes meaningless in a vacuum.
Alex: While semantically there seems like there is a condition (parent-child love is conditional on the child being the parent’s and God-child love is conditional on the child being God’s), this is basically a tautology.
JC: It isn’t a semantic or tautological issue, for you have said parents love their children because they are their children and not those of another, in other words from ownership. This is why love in the family does not spread to the community to make a loving world. To say, “Mine,” is not genuine love. Love requires a vision and response to the attributes.
-
Log in to reply.