</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by new_beginning:
YES! I see what you mean now - in terms of a definition. But can I say that I UNconditionally love some very unlovable people, IN SPITE of what needs they meet (or don't) and IN SPITE of their treatment of me?

I do thoroughly understand what you're saying, especially putting it to the Agape test... but... for me... I am speaking of people I know. Specifically.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Absolutely. And their level of "unlovability" has nothing to do with it.

For those who may be interested, I've posted a pdf file with excerpts from Greg Baer's "Truth About Relationships" book which he used to have on his old website.
It contains an Introduction, and chapters 1, 2 and 6 of the book.
It is in a zip file here:

TAR Excerpts (zipped pdf)

Dern, leave all ya'll alone for a weekend and look what happens!

BTW, "all ya'll" is the plural of "ya'll." (For those of you debating definitions.)

After reading (most) of these thoughts, I think we're in violent agreement - sorta.

I think this debate boils down to semantics.

I propose that we're talking about different kinds of "love." My opening post perhaps should have distinguished between caring love and romantic love when I referred to "marital love."

To me, very clearly, romantic love is conditional - otherwise we'd pair up unconditionally like CSue (I think is was her) suggested above someplace.

Caring love is an entirely different matter. I care about trees, I car about bugs, I care, even, about my XW - an alien's alien. (I don't care about OM <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> ). I care about strangers every time I donate platelets. I care about all these things unconditionally. Replace "love" for "care" and I love these things unconditionally.

But I do not have romantic love any longer for my XW. She stopped filling my needs, including trust, and slowly but surely my romantic love for her faded. But I still care about her and wish her no harm. That's the unconditional remainder of my love for her. I have unconditional love for my son in abundance, but I will never have romantic love for him.

So, I suggest we distinguish between romantic love and caring love. In other words, "love" is a broad topic and perhaps we didn't slice it fine enough earlier in this thread.

WAT

Yeeeeaaaaah! That's IT, WAT, romantic love IS conditional!!!

I agree with Spacecase that if we separate the WHO from the DO, we can love unconditionally and I find this very easy to do with all my kids.

The thing is when someone knows what will hurt and they do it repeatedly, they have demonstrated they are not to be trusted.

I don't believe trust is a gift that just keeps on giving. To me, trust must be earned, but forgiveness isn't forgiveness if it must be earned. I can love someone because God loves them but I don't automatically trust them when there is an established pattern of untrustworthy behavior.

mh:

"Oh 2Long, you made me giggle!
Ok, I know you are an atheist so the words of Christ in the bible don't mean anything to you"

This isn't quite true. I was raised in Christian Science, so the words of Christ mean a lot 2 me.

"but I've never seen a child call their female parent "Father".

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> A2ally, this is from my upbringing, as well: Christian Science refers 2 God as "Father/Mother".

In the end, though, how DO we determine the sex of something? Like I always say, "Turn it over!" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

"All the best to you!"

You 2!

BTDT:

"Yeeeeaaaaah! That's IT, WAT, romantic love IS conditional!!!"

Absolutely. And it's one of the first points that Baer makes in his book.

"I agree with Spacecase that if we separate the WHO from the DO, we can love unconditionally and I find this very easy to do with all my kids.
The thing is when someone knows what will hurt and they do it repeatedly, they have demonstrated they are not to be trusted."

Hm... this bears very much on my sitch. My W has said, as recently as a few days ago, "I don't know if I can ever trust you again." I didn't have an A. She did, 2ice with the same person. She's still in contact with him, but is "trying" 2 stop. What do I do? Make a demand? Plan B? Answer, neither of the above, because they're conditional "love" (or conditional tough love) and "protecting behavior", respectively and I won't have any of either. No, I'm going 2 continue 2 love my W as unconditionally as I can, and let her either respond or not, her choice. I am going 2 "trust" her when she says she's "trying" 2 end contact, because I need her 2 "trust" me that I will not ignore her when she's hurt or confused about something (like a friendship developing in2 a R).

"I don't believe trust is a gift that just keeps on giving. To me, trust must be earned, but forgiveness isn't forgiveness if it must be earned. I can love someone because God loves them but I don't automatically trust them when there is an established pattern of untrustworthy behavior."

My W and I each have a lot of making up 2 do for past mistakes, and we can't do that if we don't learn anything, and we can't learn anything about US if we're not working on US 2gether. So, I choose 2 give my W trust as a gift, in hopes (not expectations) that she will choose 2 trust me 2 not be withdrawn in the future. I'm not sure how 2 tell when we've "made it" yet, but I hope I will get there soon. I recognize that it's possible that we never will completely recover from our past mistakes (her A and my withdrawl). If that's the case, I hope we will have arrived at that conclusion 2gether, not at the end of some vindictive plan B (and I don't mean 2 imply that plan B is supposed 2 be vindictive, just that it sure felt that way when I tried it).

Because I can love my W unconditionally and give her the gift of my trust, I don't feel the need 2 "protect" my love for her or protect myself from her behavior via plan B. I don't feel it draining, but perhaps changing.

Good point about Romantic love being conditional, and precisely the point Baer makes, is that because it is conditional, it is not REAL love, it is not what "fills" us, what satisfies, what gives us joy. It is hard work to keep it alive, and it is based on a lot of false actions. It is based on showing "our best side" (not necesarily the real side), and doing what pleases another (not necessarily what we feel like doing), and is based on "expectation" of receiving what WE want from from another...and THAT is exactly why, inevitably, we "fall out of love". Because at some point one partner feels he/she is giving more that he/she is receiving, and withdraws their "love", then the other partner ends up doing the same...and so on down the road to....affairs, divorce, etc.
Which is why what we really need in order to have a real relationship, based on truth, is unconditional love.

2long and Spaceman - you seem to me to be talking in circles, but I'm not gonna debate this any more. I still really think we're saying the same thing, just using terminology too broad for expressing subtleties.

WAT

I'd like to know how I was "talking in circles"?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Spacecase:
<strong>I'd like to know how I was "talking in circles"?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">What I mean is that you agree that romantic love is conditional, yet you conclude that unconditional love is the basis for relationships.

I think I know what you mean, but once again, I believe we're stretching the meaning of "love" to include too broad a range of emotions. As I inferred above, we got off on the wrong track when I carelessly referred to "marital" love when I should have said "romantic" love. It appears now that maybe we all agree that romantic love is conditional and caring love can be unconditional.

No more from me on this - I've exhausted my understanding and perhaps I need to read Baer since he's obviously been influential on this.

WAT