Religious dogma defines conditions for those that need conditions. — praxis

I don't think religion is relevant here. Christianity contains examples of why unconditional love is not a real thing, (and probably the best examples), but how we interact with a concept like love is a universal, human issue.

Lets say you want to buy a car, and the salesman tells you it is an unconditional car. Or, you're interviewing for a job and the employer tells you that the pay/benefits are unconditional. Or, that a scientist has made an unconditional discovery.

It would be foolish to accept these usages of unconditional, precisely because we understand the concept of "without condition" to be so vague that it is practically useless in assessing real value or fairness.

You don't have to be religious to recognize that doing so with love would be just as foolish.

Words mean how people use them. — Benkei

Yeah...

[edit: Pardon, there is some strong language. Please start at the 30 second mark for the relevant part of the video dealing with how we use words.]

I’m not pro the terminology of unconditional love. — javra

I'm not sure what you mean here. Would you mind clarifying?

As to categorizing love, all the better to do so. — javra

Agreed.

Would one risk one’s life for both? Would one not risk one’s life for either? — javra

It's a strange world. People risk their lives for materialism every day. It's often referred to as the rat race or "earning a living" (as though one does not have the right to live if they are not working for money). Several people have defined unconditional love as a willingness to help others without the expectation of payment or reward in return. I supported those definitions, but I also said that in the context, there's no reason to attach the unconditional part; it just becomes a distraction to real love.

This is one of the reasons why unconditional love is so popular. Practically the entire world operates on demanding payment for services to one another. It's difficult for the majority of the world to think of themselves as being unloving for what seems like normal, ordinary economic behavior, which is where unconditional love comes in so handy. It goes like this, "Okay I don't have this special unconditional love, but at least I still have normal love as I continue demanding payment for my service to others".

You have offered no argument as to why we should think that loving someone unconditionally entails that you do anything they ask, even if it would harm them. — Janus

This is a weird argument. Unconditional literally means without condition. All you have to do is look at what the words actually mean.

when it is the meaning of your life. — Pollywalls

Is the condition you're using to define what this love is. If this condition is not met, then the love is not unconditional. You will run into this contradiction every time you try to define what unconditional is. Somehow people have been tricked into thinking conditions are wrong, but in what other area of life do we apply this same principle?

Unconditional science? Unconditional employment? Unconditional education? Unconditional driving? Unconditional entertainment?

it means you can't have any other purpose. — Pollywalls

So, if you do have some other purpose, then the love is no longer unconditional? Can't you see how you're using conditional statements to define something which supposedly should have no conditions?

unconditional love is possible in my opinion, but certainly no human has loved unconditionally. — Pollywalls

I believe this is the crux of the problem with the concept of unconditional love. It's like criticizing someone and instead of acknowledging any truth in the criticism, they say, "Hey, no one's perfect". It's a non-answer that doesn't deal with the problem at all.

you can't measure the amount of affection you have. — Pollywalls

Which is exactly the point of unconditional love; a means of avoiding accountability for how we behave. No conditions means no accountability.

Then beside ourselves, for those who believe there is the unconditional love of God. They who believe in God believe that God loves them unconditionally. — Bitter Crank

This is probably the worst (and most popular) abuse of the unconditional love doctrine, where God becomes the bad guy if he places conditions and expectations on what it means to love him, and that he himself would be wrong to punish those who refuse to listen to him, because his love is supposedly without condition.

Love is patient
love is kind and is not jealous
love does not brag and is not arrogant
does not act unbecomingly
it does not seek its own
is not provoked
does not take into account a wrong suffered
bears all things
believes all things
hopes all things
endures all things.
Love never fails — Bitter Crank

All of which are conditions on what love is. If these conditions are not met, then the behavior is not love. It's so simple. The only reason anyone would have to want to dismiss the conditions which define what love is, is to justify their own unloving behavior.

In some rural areas of African countries, it is said that no electricity = no TV at night = boredom = activities which lead to kids.

When is an atheist all dressed up with nowhere to go?

I'm new so forgive the poor formatting. — earthlycohort

I don't see any problem with your formatting. And, welcome to the forum. I'm fairly new, myself.

A bit like the first time you wonder what lies beyond the fringes of existence and find a great dark void. — earthlycohort

Or some illumination. :)

I believe the notion of unconditional love stems from a being's need for acceptance, — earthlycohort

I was thinking along the same lines earlier, when n0 0ne talked about it being an exaggeration. It seemed like it could also be a kind of insecurity. An exaggeration. A need for acceptance. An insecurity. They all seem rather similar in this context.

There can be a subtle, but important, different between “expect” and “hope / anticipate”. — javra

Sure, but unconditional is hardly subtle; it's pretty easy to disprove. All you have to do is try to define what unconditional love is and conditions will appear.

The mindset of “I gave you that so you must respect me in return or else” is one of authoritarianism-- not, from where I stand, one of genuine love. — javra

Sure, not love. "It is not love because..."

Unconditional has nothing to do with it.

And yes, it’s a sentiment that is explicitly conceptualized to be founded on conditions. — javra

Finally...

When successful—and often times it is not--it leads to a certain type of respect — javra

The reason unconditional love is not successful is because it is not a real thing. Instead of just trying to love one another, people are convinced that they must strive toward this special kind of love which is nigh impossible to achieve. Why make a distinction between love and special love? Isn't ordinary love worthy enough to strive for?

Parenting is a complex topic — javra

True, but it's only a subtopic. The same principles could be applied to teacher/student, Boss/employee, or politicians and constituents.

Still as a loosely given generality, a parent with a healthy love, to me, doesn’t seek to be liked/respected via the act of reprimanding their child, yet via good parenting, the child will come to internally recognize the good intentions of the parent – and, yes, thereby find non-fear-driven, love-based respect for the parents. — javra

I think there is pleeeeenty of room for discussion and some gray area in what you've raised. It would make a good topic in itself. But all of what you've said necessarily exclude unconditional. That's actually a good thing. Having conditions, even for something like love, is good, because we can use those conditions to accurately define what is and what isn't love. Without conditions there will only be abuse and hypocrisy even if they have a slick veneer of good feeling glazed over the top.

So when people speak of unconditional love they're just expressing an intention to tollerate a wide range of conditions? That doesn't sound so romantic. No wonder they go all unconditional. O:) — praxis

Yes, except the intention is hidden behind the contradiction of the word. They want to appear tolerant, but deep down they still judge and apply conditions. It's not that the concept of applying judgment or conditions is wrong. Those two concepts are neutral; they can be used rightly or wrongly.

The problem is that they pretend they are not judging or applying conditions, which is the point of using a word like unconditional. It gives the impression of being above judging others in favor of a more loving approach. But justice is impossible without judgment, and love is impossible without justice.

When a person falls into love there is an overwhelmingly compelling desire to let go and pursue, regardless of the risk of danger or emotional vulnerability. It's quite a magnificent force. — earthlycohort

I talked to a guy who said he was ready to marry his soul-mate, whom he never met in person, but they sure could talk for hours on the phone without getting bored. When I asked him about things like life goals, spending habits, political/religious views, lifestyle choices, he said they'd not gotten around to talking about issues like that, but he was sure that the power of their feelings would overcome any obstacle.

Falling in love is 90% Disney fantasy. It love can be great. Those feelings should be enjoyed for what they are. But those initial fantastic feelings are a small part of what makes for a loving relationship. Unconditional love is part of the Disney fantasy. Real relationships take a lot of work, effort, and compromise. Why use a word which inherently suggests these things do not matter? You say it shouldn't be taken so literally, like it's no big deal, but then why the insistence on defending it?

You're arguing that in order to experience literal unconditional love that there can be no conditions or orders that are required — earthlycohort

Yes, exactly. Doesn't that make sense? If you say it is unconditional, and then use conditions to define what is it, then where's the problem in my argument?

If true unconditional love is as described — earthlycohort

Actually, there have been several descriptions on this thread of what unconditional love supposedly is. Can you be more specific?

BTW, are we now talking about something that is even better than unconditional love? True unconditional love? Because, apparently, unconditional was meant to one-up love, so I guess it makes sense that at some point unconditional would need to be one-up'd as well.

Poor plain love just can't compete anymore.

unconditional love means something else in the English language than its legal meaning. — Benkei

You call it a legality. I call it progress that you're willing to even go that far. :)

I've never said it isn't a condition — Benkei

Then there is no point in saying it is unconditional.

people aren't as literal as you're being when using the phrase. — Benkei

Some people want words to mean what they mean.

"Worth" is actually inappropriate; — Noble Dust

I don't think so. Worth is a concept for mature people who recognize that it is not meant to tear others down, but rather to recognize the difference between people who contribute to the good of others and those who do not.

Unconditional love is worthless. Because it claims to be without condition there is no way to measure it or to hold it accountable to any standard. It is a clever convenience that people have created to say that, no matter how they may feel at the time, it can be justified if they claim their feelings should be regarded without condition.

if a parent is compassionate toward their children with the consciously pursued intention that the children will be there for the parent when he/she is old, this is a condition-based love and is not the real thing. — javra

Nope. It is not wrong at all for parents to expect that their children will respect their good behavior toward them. The parents themselves are the most important examples of what real love is from the time the children are born. It makes sense that if the parents show love to the children, that the children will show love to the parents in their old age, because love makes sense. If they have good examples of what love is and what love isn't, then the kids will want to take care of the parents who loved them. There does not need to be this "unconditional" condition attached to love to somehow validate what it is meant to be.

That's the positive side to how love is different from indifference or manipulation. — Noble Dust

Exactly. There are conditions which differentiate between what love is and what it is not. Those conditions are important because they relay genuine information which works in practical reality. unconditional love, by definition of what the word unconditional actually means, negates any sense of distinction and all manner of terrible behavior can be justified on the basis that there should be no condition.

A person who manipulates the basic desire for love is someone who can sense basic emotional instincts and plays to those instincts, without regard for the actual individuality or well-being of the person they're exploiting. — Noble Dust

Yup, and all it takes is for them to say, "Relax, my love for you is without condition".

you say that "a willingness to forgive, kindness, patience, [...] 'tough love'" are conditions of love? Or are you just saying that other people here said they were? — Noble Dust

I am saying there are criteria for what makes love what it is. If those criteria (or conditions) are not met, then the love is not love at all, but some other thing (like the manipulation you talked about earlier).

In any case, I'll respond with my own opinion. Yes, forgiveness, kindness, patience, and justice are just a few of the "conditions" of love. — Noble Dust

No need to put condition in quotes in this case. They actually exist in the real world.

But these "conditions" are different than the "conditions" that define love as either "conditional" or "unconditional". — Noble Dust

Nope. Conditions are conditions.

The basic word "condition" here means patently different things, just by nature of the English language. — Noble Dust

But you're not saying what the difference is. Why should love have a different definition of what conditions are than any other usage of conditions?

are conditions in the legal sense, — Noble Dust

Nah, I'm talking about practical conditions. If a person abuses, hurts, and takes advantage of another, it cannot be said that they love that person, because love has conditions which make it what it is. If those conditions are not met, then the behavior is not loving. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that.

the concept means a love that doesn't waver under any circumstance — Noble Dust

Nope, that's not unconditional. That's called faithfulness and loyalty. You don't have to be a Christian to understand the validity of those concepts. But, if you really mean what you're saying, then what you've actually done is to make an argument against divorce.

So no given condition alters the state of that love. The fact that that unalterable state might be itself a "condition" has no content as concept because it doesn't avail itself to what conditionality means with regards to love. — Noble Dust

But, it does mean that we should not use "unconditional" to describe a state which clearly does have conditions. I'm not against faithful, loyal, unwavering love; rather I'm saying we should stop using "unconditional" to describe a concept which clearly is defined by conditions.

Let go of the emotional illusion and define the concept with terms which are relevant to what is actually happening.

it isn't virtuous to give everything and be repeatedly abused for it. That can only breed unhealthy relationships, and resentment. — Wosret

Good point. Unconditional love would suggest there is no such thing an an unhealthy relationship, because unhealthy is a condition which separates itself from what is healthy.

A person that does this is of higher moral virtue, and this in itself defeats the principle. — Wosret

Yes, this does seem to be what people keep trying to say about unconditional love; that it is okay to call it unconditional because unconditional is a higher kind of moral value. All those other people who only practice normal love are inferior to those who practice unconditional love.

I expect from others what I expect from myself, and expect from myself what I expect from others. — Wosret

In other words, the golden rule. :)

If I wish to feel superior to everyone, and resent everyone, then this is certainly a vehicle to that. — Wosret

Nailed it.

We can debate whether that's an accurate use of language but should we care? — Benkei

Yeah, of course we should care what the words we use mean. Otherwise, what's the point of debate?

without expecting something in return — Benkei

Is a condition. If the condition is not met, you will say it is not unconditional. It makes no sense.

So, does unconditional love mean what you say it means or how people use it? — Benkei

It doesn't mean anything; well, not any rational thing. That's the point; because it is a paradox, it can mean whatever people want it to mean according to how they feel in the moment. What kind of love is this? Oh, it's the unconditional type. That unconditional could be excluded based on what it is not shows that it is based on a condition, but the name itself suggests there are not conditions.

There is A LOT of room for confusion there. How much better to reject the emotionalism of this fantasy love which makes no demands, has no requirements or expectations, and has no discernible criteria which separates it from random spurts of emotion.

Lets talk about real love rather than some fantasy love which can never be defined.

What if your loved one asks you to shoot them, for example? — Janus

Exactly right. If your love really was without condition, then you would do what they ask. What I am suggesting is that we stop referring to love as being unconditional. It is emotional fluff which makes no rational sense.

What is the Red in your Conscious experience of Red? — SteveKlinko

It's a color.

Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? — SteveKlinko

As part of the spectrum of light, it can have both properties of matter and energy.

Seems to me it is something that is outside of known Science. — SteveKlinko

Nah, just google it, "What is light".

That we've agreed to call this particular spectrum of light "red" is an aspect of consciousness which seeks to define what it is and then label it for easy recognition among billions of other consciousnesses around the world.

Loving someone unconditionally does not entail that you will do whatever they ask. — Janus

Which is the contradiction. If there are no conditions to the love, then there would be no reason to refuse their requests.

Perhaps it's just an exaggeration. — n0 0ne

This is probably the closest thing to what adding unconditionally is actually meant to achieve; exaggeration. The question is, why do people feel a need to exaggerate their feelings for one another? Why isn't love on it's own good enough?

no matter what. — Janus

Is a condition.

The examples you gave of purported conditions that unconditional love is subject to, such as the condition that it must not be conditional, or the condition that the one loved is a son or daughter, a male or female and so on, are red herrings. — Janus

EDIT: I realized that I misunderstood something you said here. The only condition in what you've listed above which I talked about was the one about a parent's love for their child is based on the condition that it is their child and not some other person's child. It is possibly that some parents can have the same kind of loving behavior toward other kids as they would their own kids, but even then it would be inappropriate to show the same kind of love to children as we would to adults (like buying diapers for adults or a bottle of nice whiskey for a kid). There are still conditions which dictate how the love should be appropriately expressed. If those conditions are not met, then the love will not be love.

no matter how badly they treat you — Janus

Is a condition. If the condition is not met (i.e. you stop loving them because they treat you badly) then the love is not love any more.

Lets say a parent has a grown child with some kind of dangerous drug addiction, and the child keeps coming back to the parent to borrow money. At some point the parent will say, "I won't give you money anymore because doing so is only hurting you" and the child responds, "don't you love me unconditionally?" and he would be right. If there really was no condition to the love, then the parent would continue giving the money.

Can you see how adding "unconditionally" just confuses the issue?

it compels the genuine experience of love. — TimeLine

I really like the way you've worded this part of the sentence, and I believe this is exactly why adding "unconditional" into the mix actually takes away from the genuineness of love. I was talking to someone else about this earlier so I'll paste my comments here as I think it relates:

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the concept of altruistic kidney donation. It's also called good samaritan donation. It's what happens when a person volunteers to donate one of his kidneys to a complete stranger suffering from kidney failure. There is no payment involved and in fact, the donor does not even know who the recipient will be. The hospital arranges everything. Only after the donation, and only if both parties agree, will the hospital organize for the two to meet and even then they closely monitor the situation to be sure that there is no pressure from either side as a result of the procedure.

Because this kind of donation is so rare in a world where nothing is free, the donor is often praised as being a hero who behaved in a very special way unlike how other people would behave. It sounds very nice, but it's a wrong way to view the situation. This kind of altruism should not be treated as special or heroic, because doing so elevates this kind of behavior above what the average person could do.

Instead, it should just be normal, precisely because the behavior is so good. If everyone was a hero, there'd be no point in using the word hero anymore.

This is what it is like with unconditional love. You can see the way people talk about it, like this very special thing that is so rare that it is hardly ever practiced, and yet the examples people give of unconditional love is the kind of behavior all people should be practicing as just something normal.

As I said, unconditional love is symbolic of this experience of giving love. — TimeLine

I don't remember you saying that unconditional love is only symbolic. Can you elaborate on what you mean by symbolic? What is it a symbol of?

But surely the fact that they're your biological children only matters conceptually, and not actually. As something like 12% of fathers are raising children that they only think are biologically theirs — Wosret

I get what you mean, but whether or not the father knows for 100% that the child is his or not is beside the point. His behavior toward the child is what shows whether he loves the child or not. Lets say he takes the kid out to a theme park and buys him ice cream. Lets say, for the sake of this argument, the father is a billionaire. Still, he will not buy ice cream for every kid in the park, because they are not HIS kids. That is not to say he's wrong or unloving for only buying HIS kid the ice cream, but it does show that his love is not unconditional. If his love was unconditional, he'd be buying ice cream for everyone regardless.

So, let's start with love as conditional. What are the conditions in which love occurs in our experience? — Noble Dust

Good question. What separates love from something like indifference or manipulation? Several people here have already suggested that love does not demand payment for itself. In other words, if love can b bought, then it automatically becomes excluded from what love is.

Other conditions for love include a willingness to forgive, kindness, patience, and, as is the case with the concept of "tough love", it also includes justice. If we practice injustice toward one another, it cannot be said that we love them.

Fact is we cant even understand the wood of Consciousness. — SteveKlinko

That's not a fact at all. And it would probably be better not to speak on behalf of all humanity in this area. You can't understand the wood of it. I think I've got a pretty good start on what consciousness is and I've given several examples of that, whereas you keep going back to, "No, we can't!".

Forget understanding the Lead. — SteveKlinko

But, why should I forget understanding the lead? Because you can't understand the wood? That doesn't make sense. Why should I let your unwillingness to understand also stop me from understanding?

Not only does this interpretation of unconditional love not result in good/healthy things for the girls/women who hold it, it also happens to make far more ass holes in the world than there otherwise would be. — javra

Excellent point. Romantic love can feel so extremely powerful, which is why it is so popular in movies, books, music etc. It sells, and it sells BIG, but the make-believe of it has become a little too real and many people believe the lie that if they can only make their feelings strong enough then their feelings will overcome everything else. I talked to a guy who said he was ready to marry his soul-mate because they could talk on the phone for hours and never get bored. He couldn't hear anything about life goals, religious/political views, spending habits, living habits or any of the other things that have a huge impact on what makes a relationship work after the strong emotional feelings taper off over time.

Powerful emotional feelings are a legitimate part of love, but only a part. Other aspects of love include a rational examination of the issues, as well as patience, kindness, forgiveness, and even hardness, as is the case with parents who discipline their children, or spouses who make a stand against their partner over some important issue. These are all conditions which make love what it is.

It would be foolish to talk about unconditional science, because science is based on conditions like observation, experiment, and evidence. If someone tried to prove a conclusion, we would expect him to do so based on these conditions. If he tried to argue that his conclusion is proved on unconditional science, we would not accept it, because that kind of method would allow anyone to prove anything without condition. There would only be chaos.

It is difficult for most of us to see the problem with unconditional love because we've been taught that it is inherently good, and because it is unconditional, it cannot be questioned. Even here on this philosophy forum, where the whole point of discussion is to be reasonable, thoughtful and to consider the evidence of various arguments in a rational, critical way, there are people who just cannot let go of the obvious contradiction in the concept. They acknowledge that there are conditions to unconditional love, but they still say it is right to call it unconditional. This is an emotional connection, like the fairy-tale fantasy romance that javra talked about.

I am suggesting that we break out of the fantasy, good-feeling cultural traditions surrounding the concept of unconditional love, and instead view love in terms of what is practical in day-to-day life.

As Laurie Lewis wrote "You don't choose who you love, love chooses you." — T Clark

You're still talking about an emotional kind of love rather than behavioral love. Of course we choose who we love. If a man tells his wife, "Sorry that I cheated on you, honey, but that gosh darned love just chose me" we'd think that is a ridiculous argument, because even if a man is tempted to cheat, he still has a responsibility to refrain for the sake of the love for his spouse.

It would be even more ridiculous if he were to say to his wife, "Don't we have unconditional love for one another? Why are you putting these conditions on our love by forbidding me from loving this other woman?"

Unconditional love sounds nice and fluffy and soft and warm and fuzzy, but it is a delusion.

No, it is not. It is the exact opposite. It is a convenient doctrine which allows the excuse of any bad behavior, and it is justified by extremely powerful emotions.
— John Days

I've experienced it. You're wrong. — T Clark

The issue was never about whether someone is able to experience altruistic love (i.e. the kind which works even if there is no payment or reward). The issue was that it is irrational to call it unconditional when there are clearly conditions which define it.

I think you are confused by what unconditional actually means, and this fits with my point that people are viewing this from an emotional point of view rather than rational.

If a plumber were to say, "Yes, I can see your basement is flooded but I won't fix the problem until you pay me", then he has added a condition to his love, but then again, that kind of behavior isn't love in the first place. His demand for payment eliminates his behavior from what love is, in the same way that a prostitute demanding payment for her time automatically eliminates her behavior from what love is. No rational person will believe a prostitute loves them while she's still asking for payment.

When you add "unconditional" to the love, you only add confusion to what love is, as though there are some kinds of love which do allow demands for payment, and that unconditional love is just a better kind of love because it does not demand payment? This is delusion about what love is, and it's popular because it allows the majority of the world to continue thinking of themselves as loving despite demanding payment for their time, skills, and services.

Is unconditional acceptance a good thing? — praxis

This is a really good example, and the obvious answer is that no, unconditional acceptance is not a good thing. There's no person here who could honestly say that are willing to accept an agreement without first understanding what the conditions of that agreement are.

and that there are and can be those that express unconditional love. — TimeLine

Nah. They can express love which does not expect any kind of payment in return, but that is still a condition for what makes this love what it is. If this condition is not met, you will say it is not unconditional. It's a contradiction.

You can be charitable, for instance, but if the act of giving is only because you know that in doing so people will acknowledge you for being wonderful, the intent or motivation behind the act is false and the condition has been set, namely that you are only giving love to receive appreciation for it. — TimeLine

Exactly. There is an "if, then" statement which separates unconditional love from non-unconditional love, therefore rendering the concept of unconditional a contradiction. Why continue to defend the contradiction as though it is legitimate? Isn't it just an emotional response? We like the idea of a love which is so powerful and pure and true that there are no conditions which can define it, but that is the illusion. Love without some kind of qualifying condition which defines what it is and what it is not is a breeding ground for hypocrisy. Why insist that there are no conditions when clearly there are?

However, those are not the kind of conditions that the word unconditional means in the context. — BlueBanana

Even IF those are not the kind of conditions unconditional love means in the context, the point is that there is SOME condition which is used to define unconditional love. Otherwise there would be no way to separate unconditional love from hypocrisy, greed, or fear. Why insist on using the word "unconditional" when conditions are clearly present?

Something wrong is happening with that reasoning. Something is hiding in that gap of logic. When people attempt to remove conditions which define what is right or wrong, and then attempt to justify that removal on the basis of goodness, only hypocrisy will result.

If we want to talk about unconditional love in terms of a love which is shared with others regardless of payment, then that is not unconditional love. The condition is that the person sharing the love does so regardless of personal benefit. That is not unconditional love. That is just love itself. Adding the "unconditional" part is an attempt to qualify that there is a kind of love which cannot be limited to standards or criteria, and anytime people try to argue that their behavior should be above standards, only abuses will result.

Unconditional love sounds so appealing, but it is an illusion. It is like addicts who think drugs will make their life more bearable. The drugs can make them forget, make them space out, make them unaware, and give a temporary sense of pleasantness, but it is not real.

How much better to forsake these emotionally appealing illusions and instead grab the bull by the horns, where we acknowledge that love requires standards, and then we get busy working out what are fair or unfair standards for love.

You can neither prove or disprove unfalsiable claims. — Jeremiah

But we can prove contradictions. Unconditional love cannot possibly exist, because any attempt to define what it is will be based on conditions.

I disagree. Realizing that all things, including love, are conditional, we might better respect those conditions. — praxis

Exactly. We say the love is unconditional, yet we define it with conditions. Maybe it is just semantics, but if that's so, why the insistence on the contradiction? I believe it's because there's a whole lot of room for hiding in contradictions.

I think you are playing word games--the delight of getting people to agree that something unconditional must have conditions. — Bitter Crank

Not must have. Does actually have. Look at your own words.

I will love you IF you obey -- otherwise, not. I will love you IF you make me proud of you -- otherwise, not. and so on. Some people have quite conditional love for their own children, spouses, parents, etc. — Bitter Crank

You yourself are using "if, then" statements. If the love requires payment of some kind, then it is not unconditional love. That's a conditional statement you're using to define what supposedly should not have any conditions attached to it.

God's love is said to be unconditional--Agape. — Bitter Crank

But it's not. God definitely has requirements and standards for human behavior. Jesus himself said, "If you love me, you will obey me". Love is contingent on how we behave. The teachings of Jesus tell us HOW to love God and our neighbor. Yes, God loves his creations even as he destroys them for their disobedience, because love cannot be love without the condition of justice.

Christians LOVE the unconditional love argument because it's so convenient. They can lie, cheat, steal (yes, I've ironically quoted the band tool) and any number of other sins and then point to the cross saying, "Jesus loves me unconditionally" and all responsibility for their actions magically disappears. In religious terms, this is called the false grace teaching.

Unconditional love is the bread of heaven — Bitter Crank

No, it is not. It is the exact opposite. It is a convenient doctrine which allows the excuse of any bad behavior, and it is justified by extremely powerful emotions.

Think about it, BC. Think about it from a purely logical point of view, rather than the emotional. This is not semantics, but rather a honest examination of a legitimate loophole. How can something which claims to be unconditional still be governed by conditions? It makes no sense.

It's like Christians who say, "you can't judge me". What balderdash. Of course we can judge. Life without judgment is impossible. What we need is FAIR judgment, which is why Jesus said, "Judge yourself first, so that you will see clearly on how to judge others".

When people say, "you can't judge me" what they are really doing is using a pseudo religious argument to avoid accountability or their bad behavior. Righteous indignation is like blind rage; for the one experiencing it, it is like an invincibility cloak. That is exactly what happens when people say, "there should be no conditions to the way I love". What they really mean is, "My behavior should be above examination on the basis of my very strong emotional feelings".

Although I agree it likely does not exist but for different reasons. — Jeremiah

I'm practically begging for reasons.