Defining Unconditional love

I think what Jesus was saying was that it is most virtuous to love everyone, even your enemies. He goes on to say, if you only love those who love you, what reward will you have? Do not even pagans do this?So we have to find out what the word "love" here means. Does loving someone mean doting on them, hand and foot, becoming their servant for all of time no matter if they treat you poorly or not?No. It means to treat them with the Golden Rule, even your enemies. The crux of it is that we are not equipped to complete the task with perfection. But the closer we are to that perfect goal of loving others the way God loves us, the better off we are, and the more receptive of God we become. I don't think you have to stop loving a person even when they wrong you. In Christian terms, you would still care for that person, be in prayer for that person, and wish them the best. But you are not supposed to be shackled to a completely abusive person as a personal mandate from God. Think about it: If Jesus wanted you to love every one in the same exact capacity, then you would be married to the entire world. Obviously, that is not the case. And all over the Bible is says to choose your mate's carefully so as to avoid these trials.What it means to love someone is to not to harbor a spirit of animosity, be forgiving to others who wrong you(forgiveness does not mean that you don't have to suffer consequences for your actions, or is a free ticket to be an ass your whole life), and to try and sow peace where there is discord. Love in many ways is conditional. The unconditional love means treating people the way you would have them treat you. It doesn't mean you have to suffer a lifetime with someone who doesn't treat you the way you would treat them.Its like a murderer. He may be truly sorry for what he has done. And this is a good thing for his own conscience. And he may be absolved by God if he sincerely means it. But these are eternally difficult questions to answer because we are not able to give that absolution. All we can do is to forgive them. But forgiveness does not necessarily mean that they are to be exonerated for their crime.A man who engages in some sexual sin can and will be forgiven for his sin for evermore even though he may have to carry a token of that sin in his flesh. There are consequences for our actions. We may have to pay temporal consequences even if we are forgiven.If you receive a loan from a lender and you later realize that you made a mistake, you can be forgiven for making a hasty decision. But you still owe that person or institution. Until you pay your debt, you are not free of that consequence.These are eternally difficult questions that we grapple with. Sometimes there is no easy answer, nor will the answer always come easily. But if we follow the Golden Rule, can we really go wrong? And isn't is maddening that something so simple in concept can be one of the hardest things to achieve?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Not at all Maybe I believe that love means something different than you. I believe that love is a choice, not simply a fleeting emotion. Many, many people, in my opinion, wrongly equate love with feelings of strong sexual desire.But part of the problem is likely in the English language itself. In the Greek, there are five different words for five different kinds of love.Agape being the kind of love God has for his creation. Philo being the way that you love a sibling or a dear friend. Eros is the kind of sexual desire you might have. I can't remember the other two off-hand, but the point is that the English language has not equipped itself to defining different types of loves. Which, to me, is a bit perplexing given the obvious difference in the emotions that different kinds of love illicit in us.

quote:

---

I don't think you have to stop loving a person even when they wrong you. In Christian terms, you would still care for that person, be in prayer for that person, and wish them the best.

---

You don't enable the abuser. By enabling them, you become a co-conspirator in your own misery. But enabling means that you are allowing them to treat you poorly because you have not stood up for yourself. However, that says nothing about loving the person, or not loving the person still.For example: Sometimes we see a falling out occur between parents and their child who is a young adult. Suppose the son of the parents has been on all kinds of drugs, is living out a destructive lifestyle, and has become increasingly disrespectful to the rules of the parents household. At wits end, the parents say,"We have loved you your whole life. We will continue to love you. And though this may be a hard lesson for you to learn, we are opting for some tough love with you. We will no longer enable you to ruin your life. You are of the age where we can't stop you from doing what it is you want to do. But you don't have a right to any of this in my household. You are always welcome back for support. But until you request that help from us, or get help for yourself, you may not live here."Do the parents now "hate" their child? Or do they love him enough to instill some tough love? I know that this isn't beyond God. When I do wrong, he allows me to make my mistakes and only intervenes when I request him to. Does he not love me anymore because I have done wrong?The only definition I can find in your post on unconditional love is :

quote:

---

The unconditional love means treating people the way you would have them treat you.

---

Treating people with the Golden Rule does not always make them come around. That much seems obvious because there would, in effect, be no more wars, strife, or enmity. The idea is to keep yourself pure. By staying pure, people take notice of it. You will make people hungry for the Lord by living a good life rather than telling people what to do and how to live. Not a single one of us. I don't know the details of your relationship, so I can't fully comment on them. But in my own experience, couples tend to hold on to things that later become weapons. It shouldn't be, especially if someone has either been forgiven for it or if they have rectified the supposed deficiency.There is no magic wand that is going to make people see things the way you see things every time. And you may fail 100 times. But that 1 time may make all the difference. Keep yourself pure, and by doing so, they will eventually hunger for it. We all hunger and thirst for it at some point. We do put conditions on people to remain in a relationship. We all do that. The parameters are, don't lie to me, don't harm me, don't cheat on me, don't degrade me, etc, etc, or I will walk away. But this perhaps is the difference between loving someone and being in love with someone. There is always room to love someone -- anyone. To treat them with basic respect and dignity. But it does not mean that we have to enable them, nor must we approve of their conduct.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman