I have gone back and forth on unconditional love.  Firstly, unlike most people I’ve always felt that unconditional love was a vice, not an altruism.

I value science, I do not see physical science as distinct in the least from philosophy or politics.  The lessons are very human, and in fact, somewhat religious in nature.  For example, nearly all religions I’m familiar with teach humility of some kind as a supreme virtue, and the history of science teaches this ten times over, first unseating us from our special place at the center of the universe.  And every time it unseated us, and we accepted a lesser but still semi-central stature, we have been unseated again.

Modern man still isn’t quite aware how complete the dethronement has been, and wonders things like “do animals have souls” or more likely doesn’t wonder and treats them as if they don’t.
Unconditional love is a vice, but I believe in it.  I believe in it because I have to, I’m stuck with it.  I can put conditions on anything, but not my hope and love.  I can believe in harsh sides of love, I can believe a mother that unconditionally loves her child can turn him into the police, or refuse something he claims to need.

I believe there is so much vice in the world we can’t sort the world into the worthy and unworthy.  This is not some selfless concept, I repeat again so you might believe me.  I’m not claiming that unconditional love is selfless.  

Shall we love our enemy?  Can you love them and still fight for your survival against them?  If so, and I think so, then yes, love thy enemy.  Can we trust Republicans… does love require trust?  Conditional love does, but unconditional love happens even in the absence of trust.  So it’s possible to love, unconditionally, and still not trust.  Do I love Rush Limbaugh.  Well, not warmly, but do I hold out the hope that Rush might grow and learn, or his children might, or his listeners?  Yes.

The meek shall inherit the earth… that maxim always appealed to me because I see the meek not as the weak, but as those who are slaves to unconditional love.  Their unconditional love leads them into trust and other things implied but not really required by their love.

I believe the free world of the future only comes when the meek as I’ve defined them find the power of their voice and perspective.  It’ll happen when the meek find out how to fight for what they believe and win.

This is in contradiction to the idea many have of meek which is merely the dictionary definition #2 in this definition from American Heritage (via dictionary.com)

   1. Showing patience and humility; gentle.
   2. Easily imposed on; submissive.

I say that the meek are really definition (1) but have been easy victims using their patience and gentle humility against them so far, and this gave them a reputation as definition 2.  To me, 1 is fundamental and 2 is mere libel.  You can say they are easily imposed on, but then why do they never give up?  Why do they persist?  Their patience has lead to submission but doesn’t have to and will not forever.  They struggle to overcome and do.

And this is how I as an atheist interpret Christ’s influence.  Christ’s message is so far from the message of most Churchs and most Christians now and throughout history one wonders why they carried it to the present, and for me it’s because the power of the meek, while so far an undercurrent, will still have it’s day in the sun, and when it arrives it will be much more stable and robust.  Mankind as we know it cannot imagine peace on Earth, but the meek can.

It was the assertion of a very strong message about the power of unconditional love, and about the reality that people do change.  The strength to have patience comes from the reality that all things change, which gives hope.

So I warned you this time I was meandering, but if I owe you a point it’s merely that, there is no such thing as conditional love, only alliance can be conditional, love is its own condition.

But if I can get away with just a question instead of a point, then it’s “What does ‘unconditional love’ mean to you?”

0 0 votes
Article Rating