Conditions according to who? — TimeLine

I actually listed a few example conditions in the same post from which you quoted me. Maybe tomorrow, when you feel more rested, you'll feel more agreeable. :p

The closest I have come to unconditional love is with my children. — T Clark

The first condition is that they must be YOUR children.

I like it when they show their love for me — T Clark

Which is a condition defining what you like.

don't want anything from them — T Clark

A statement which makes no sense in terms of love. How could a loving father have no expectations for his children? The expectations may not be perfect, but they will still be there as a result of the love you feel for them. Like, if your kid decides, "I don't want to school anymore", you will probably say, "Too bad, I'm your parent and I know what's good for you, so you WILL go to school" or something along those lines. If your kid says, "I don't want to brush my teeth or shower" you will probably MAKE him do those things because you have a better understanding of why those things are important. To say you don't want your kid love you or at least listen to you makes no sense.

If you read a story about a parent who does NOT make his kids get an education or brush their teeth or shower, you will probably think, "what terrible parents". You will probably not be thinking, "Ok, they are terrible parents, but at least they have unconditional love for their kids" because the conditions for what it means to be loving are not met.

We are not talking about justice or righteousness. — TimeLine

Actually, I strongly believe that love cannot be love without justice or righteousness, so it may be that our disagreement is based on a misunderstanding of what you think "we" are talking about.

That's not a condition of love, that's a condition of it being unconditional. — BlueBanana

It may be that we are talking past one another. I'm suggesting that conditions cannot be separated from the concept of what love is. As soon as you try to define what love is, you must have conditions which separate it from other things like indifference or hate.

And you seem to be talking about some quality of love which makes it unconditional, and I'm just not getting that part. Personally, I don't know how to reconcile the two because they are contradictory concepts, but it may be that I'm just not understanding some aspect of your interpretation of love.

It may be that you are looking more deeply than what the topic suggests. I'm only saying that "unconditional" ANYTHING is irrational, because conditions are what we use to make distinctions between one concept from another. It's just that unconditional love is a much more popular concept than unconditional patience, or unconditional hate, or unconditional mechanics. Any time you try to identify what makes those concepts different from one another, you must apply conditions. If those conditions are not met, then the label does not apply.

The conditions for posting on this forum are that people should not post frivolous thoughts, or insults, or advertising etc. If those conditions are not met, then the post/poster gets deleted or banned. We see value in such conditions because they present important distinctions which work in real life.

The same is true for love. Without conditions, what reason do we have to distinguish between good behavior and bad? Just because a mother says, "I love my son unconditionally despite him bullying his class mate" doesn't mean he should be exempt from facing the consequences of his actions.. That would be UNloving to the person he bullied. Love requires that there should be SOME kind of consequence for bad behavior, even though the person being judged is still loved while being punished.

There are conditions which must be met for love to be love. If those conditions are not met, but the behavior is still pretended to be loving, then that is a perversion of what real love is.

Unconditional love means that the love has no conditions. — BlueBanana

The first condition is that it has no conditions. This isn't hard.

and not want anything in return.
— TimeLine

Which is a condition.
— John Days

No it isn't. — TimeLine

Well, this situation is easily testable. If someone gives expecting something in return, will you say this is unconditional love? Of course you will not. Why? because the condition of "giving without expecting anything in return" is not met.

Where is the real disagreement here? I suggest it is in the emotional value of the concept. Unconditional love provides a seriously convenient method of escape from accountability. But justice is impossible without standards or conditions, and for you to say that justice is separate from love opens a whole new can of worms.

and not want anything in return. — TimeLine

Which is a condition.

unconditional love can't be unconditional, — BlueBanana

Which rationally contradicts anything you say afterward about how love can be unconditional.

I think this illustrates my original point; unconditional love does not exist. Any attempt to define what love is requires conditions which separate it from concepts which are not loving, like greed, fear, and pride.

But still, people want to believe that unconditional love is legitimate. Why? It makes no sense. How much better to just say, "No, it doesn't exist, so now we can move on to what are the conditions that rationally constitute real love" instead of, "I don't care about reasons; my feelings are enough to justify my behavior".

It's just nice if it happens. — MikeL

Still a condition.

An example of what I mean: that's a condition of the love being unconditional, not a condition of love. Unconditional refers to the lack of conditions of love, not the lack of conditions on which we define the term unconditional. — BlueBanana

sorry, but this just sounds like word-salad now. You literally said, " that's a condition of the love being unconditional"

How can it be unconditional if it is defined by conditions?

I mean condition as in a condition for something to happen, which is what unconditional in the context means. — BlueBanana

Unconditional in the context means that there must be conditions in order for something to happen? Huh?

It is an act of giving love — TimeLine

"Giving" is a condition. If the giving does not happen, then the condition is not met and the love is not unconditional. the concept is a contradiction which is based purely on emotionalism. It's tempting to suspend standards when we feel strongly about an issue, but claiming that our suspension of standards is an expression of love is just hypocrisy and convenience. It is not rational to suspend conditions for the sake of love, because that would suggest that love could be unjust.

no longer about what you want — TimeLine

Is a condition.

but if you think of unconditional love as symbolic, referent to things like motherly love where, for instance, in the event that her child does some wrongdoing to her she still cannot stop loving him, it may start to make some sense. — TimeLine

No, because the condition is that the wrong-doer is HER child; not some other person's child, and, her love may not be real love at all if it causes her to ignore injustice toward those who are not her child. If unconditional love is meant to be symbolic, then a better symbol is needed than a word which suggests that standards do not matter.

I believe unconditional love is an expression of how a person gives love, that is, to give love without seeking anything in return. — TimeLine

"Without seeking anything in return" is a condition.

in order to receive the love from other/s. Unconditional love works in reverse; it is a person who is not seeking this love from others, but rather giving it; being charitable is an expression of unconditional love, showing mercy is an expression of unconditional love. — TimeLine

No, because "showing mercy" is a condition. If mercy is not shown, the the love is not real love. Without conditions, there is nothing to distinguish between real love and fake love. Calling it "unconditional" is a misnomer which SOUNDS nice, but is not practical at all, and when people delve into concepts of love which are not practical or based on conditions, then almost always hypocrisy is the result.

I may have been hurt by a man, for instance, but showing him unconditional love would be to hope that he improves rather than desire revenge. — TimeLine

If the love really was unconditional, then whether or not you were hurt would be irrelevant.

It is not appealing to emotion if there are reasonable grounds in this hope, because love itself is a decision and a choice and as such requires reason and intelligence in making those choices. — TimeLine

Reason and hope are the conditions on which those decisions are made. There is no way you can try to define something which is unconditional, because the attempt itself to define that concept requires conditions. Therefore, unconditional love is an emotional concept which is specifically designed to overlook conditions which may contradict what real love is for the sake of satisfying emotional desire.

Condition for love towards something means that there is love towards something if the condition C is met, — BlueBanana

"If the condition is met". Unconditional love is automatically excluded. If something ELSE is meant, then the "unconditional" part needs to be dropped.

something to aspire to — Cavacava

Still a condition.

It might be that the idea exists because it is what people wish to receive, rather than are able to give. — MikeL

Wishing to receive is still a condition.

Competent
Honest
Effective
Efficient
Responsive — Bitter Crank

haha, it's spells cheer.

Uncle Karl says that the state is a committee to organize the affairs of the bourgeoisie. — Bitter Crank

But there must be governance of some kind...

It has no "purpose." Rather, it has a structural position in a constellation of institutions that further (or retard) social development. — Saphsin

Hi Saphsin. "No purpose" sounds like a misnomer of some kind, because a purpose is defined in the very next sentence (e.g. "a structural position in a constellation of institutions that further (or retard) social development."[/quote]

Can you elaborate on what you think Herbert meant by no purpose?

Kids govern their pets.
Parents govern their kids.
Teachers govern their students.
Bosses govern their employees.

Everyone knows what it's like to govern something, even if it's just a matter of governing your own thoughts and feelings. The more people you're in charge of, or the more complex the job, the more variables will be added, but the principle is the same in all of them; be responsible for what you have.

In Christianity, to attain salvation, all you have to do is accept Christ as your saviour. There is no road to salvation via altruism in Christianity. — szardosszemagad

Depends on what you mean by "believe". Most professing christians today have been taught that "Jesus did it all on the cross" and so if they "confess with their mouth" that "Jesus is Lord" then they've got it all fixed up.

That's not what Jesus taught at all. In fact, he pointedly asked his so-called followers, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"? He talked about judging one's self first before judging others. He talked about taking the lower seat. He talked about working for love instead of money and the things money can buy. He said it was necessary to forsake familial attachments, reputation, personal ownership, and even life itself for the sake of promoting goodness.

He said we should not talk about our fasting, or our charity giving, and that we should not make our prayers a public spectacle. He said we should keep those things a secret. He said that IF a miraculous healing happens, we should not advertise it. He said we should beware leaders who wear fancy clothes and that we should not use flattery for one another like, "Sir", "Mr", or "father", because we're all brothers and sisters. He said real leaders will be those who serve and his real followers would be known by their love for others.

Nearly everything Jesus taught has been replaced by superficial Christianity posing as the genuine article for the sake of respectability, health, and wealth. And then non-Christians come along and make these abuses into a convenient target to excuse their own problems; "See, I'm not a bad person because I'm not religious like those people". Many professing Christians themselves barely know what Jesus taught, let alone obey him.

But real sincerity won't be satisfied with easy targets. Probably one of the most inspiring thoughts I've ever read on appreciation of truth comes from Socrates trying to persuade Crito on why he does not want to be rescued from his death sentence. Crito worries that others will think bad of him for not rescuing his friend from death, and after some elaboration, Socrates concludes with, "Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say. And therefore you begin in error when you suggest that we should regard the opinion of the many about just and unjust, good and evil, honorable and dishonorable. "

This is how it is with the teachings of Jesus.

How does Christianity avoid the paradox? — jancanc

There is no paradox. It is not inconsistent to feel joy from doing good. I would say that it is more so that there is confusion. In our worldly system of economics, it is common to believe that it is normal to charge others for our love. If we do not demand payment, then we will starve or freeze or in some way die horribly. But that is not a fact. It is only a belief. We believe it so much that it is normal to talk about "earning a living" as though someone who does not work for money has not earned the right to live.

We are taught this core principle from birth; we see it everywhere and are constantly exposed to it even if it is only the sight of our parents making transactions. All those popular TV shows people watch on TV? They exist for the sole purpose of attracting people to the advertising which plays on that network. It's the same for radio and the internet, and cable.

Very few people in the world work in jobs which they'd do even if they didn't get paid, but that's only because they've been taught to take whatever job which pays rather than doing what will make them the most productive.

It's very easy for any human raised in our materialistic, fearful society, to become cynical, believing that there is no motivation which is not based on some kind of payment, but altruism is real. It is not a paradox. It is not a contradiction. It is enlightenment.

As a "Satanist" (or close enough), I think I can clarify something I find not quite right in your analysis above. If we own ourselves and are our own kings and popes, we don't need a justification — 0af

Then there would be no need to use Satan as your mascot.

for our "greed." — 0af

You put greed in quotes like it's not a real thing that all humans struggle with on a daily basis.

Satanists (if they aren't what I'd call confused pseudo-Satanists) consciously embrace selfishness as the "truth" of human nature. — 0af

If that were the case you wouldn't call it selfishness. You'd just talk about behavior like stealing or taking as though it were normal. But all humans know what injustice feels like, and all humans know that unjust taking isn't good.

As I see it, the more interesting of us humans are more attracted to status than sensual pleasure. — 0af

Yeah, it's interesting unless that desire for status and sensual pleasure directly inconveniences you. I'd like to see you give an explanation for how someone who steals from you personally or rapes a loved-one of yours is doing something interesting.

So the religious-type (from my or "our" point of view) is getting his kicks from a sense of righteousness — 0af

Any time you call the police, or use the courts, you're trying to do the same. A desire for justice and order isn't a religious thing. That's just what hypocrites tell themselves so that they can think, "I'm not bad like you because I'm not religious".

The "righteousness" or pride of the Satanist is in dropping the pretense of speaking for the distant Father and instead claiming the position himself (I and the Father are one) without excuse or apology. — 0af

Except, dropping any pretense of accountability for one's actions as a symbol of freedom is exactly what I suggested as the psychology behind why satanists choose satan as their mascot. You don't owe anyone any apology for anything you may choose to do, because you're a free guy, right?

So of course it tweaks my vanity to hear Satanists described as stooping to justify their own desire and therefore their lives in their essence. Hence this interruption, which is intended in a friendly spirit. — 0af

I don't see it as an interruption at all. I see it as a challenge. I look forward to your response.

Altruistic conduct removes suffering. — jancanc

Nope, not true at all. Take, for example, good Samaritan kidney donation, where a person donates a kidney to a total stranger. The operation isn't that difficult, but it does require 3-4 days in hospital and there is some risk. They don't get paid and they don't get recognition. The hospital organizes the recipient and the donor is not allowed to know who the recipient is, just to be sure there is no ulterior motive going on.

Depending on your perspective, it's not really suffering, but still, it's major surgery. There is definitely discomfort and some pain post-op.

Thus, altruistic conduct is not (always) helpful. — jancanc

Altruism is synonymous with loving behavior. The two cannot be separated. Love is always helpful, even when it's not appreciated.

Altruistic is only helpful for those who cannot achieve salvation. — jancanc

Sounds like some kind of devils' advocate argument.

Yet how can one know that one “helps” via altruism is not being impeded on their “path” to salvation? — jancanc

This is a pretty confusing sentence, but I think what you'r to trying to ask is, is altruism really altruism if the person being altruistic gets a spiritual/intrinsic reward for being altruistic? The answer is, yes. Happiness is not a reward. It is a bi-product of a well-lived life. How can one be accused of finding satisfaction in doing good?

Altruism is real, and we need a lot more of it.

Personally, I don't think we can engineer that change — Bitter Crank

I've talked to a lot of people about this, and the most common answer I've heard is that many people want change, but most of them believe they can see something the others can't, and they're just waiting for everyone else to catch up with them before they will do anything about it.

It's a bit like a concept Jesus promoted, where he said that his followers should not allow money, or the things money can buy, to be the motivation for why they work. Instead, they should just work for the benefit of others. Most people can see that this is a good philosophy, but it comes across as highly impractical, mostly because we all know that humans invariably disappoint one another. If I help someone for free, what if no one helps me in return? I could end up giving all my time and resources away to a greedy world who just wants to use me up. The easiest conclusion is that, while "working for love" is a good theory, it's not practical unless everyone is willing to do it . But this is a catch-22, because if everyone waits for everyone else to make changes, then nothing gets done, and instead we end up with a world full of hypocrites who believe the best about themselves but never get around to acting on that best.

I believe this is where the concept of personal integrity really shines through, which gets back to the point you made about our inability to engineer change. Integrity and character can't be engineered or coerced. It can only be demonstrated, taught, and influenced in the hopes that others around us will be inspired to also try acting with integrity. It's a losing battle and yet, that's the point of integrity; people who exercise goodness still win even as the world around them falls apart and they are killed for it.

Socrates was sentenced to death, but I do not think he lost at all and I do not think he saw himself as a loser. Although he died, he won, and he won gloriously precisely because he did not back down on his personal integrity. He actually seemed to see his sentencing as a proof of victory, like some kind of personal achievement in his life. He didn't wait for everyone else to be willing to die with him.

Thousands of years after his death, his testimony reaches out from the grave to convict the sincere. That is what we need today.

Anyway, the original point was that Satanism, in the sense of rituals isn't really the problem. However, if the motivation for playing around with the rituals is to promote the concept of rebellion, then that is a problem, especially if it's meant to be rebellion against the concept of the creator/God who wants us to love one another (which is why they use Satan, the first rebel, as the theme for the ritual).

Rebellion is often dressed-up as independence to justify selfishness, "I'm not being greedy. I'm standing up for myself against a God who wants to deny my right to take as much as I want". They don't necessarily need to believe in a literal Satan or a God for the results to be the same and they may not even be consciously aware that they're attempting to justify their greed as some kind of righteous standing-up for one's self. This kind of delusion definitely fits the concept of eyes being wide shut.

I wasn't enthusiastic about a Clinton administration, but I also resented her being made into a devil. — Bitter Crank

Something similar happened on the Trump side, as well. The guy has a lot of problems, some significant and some petty. A lot of attention was given to the petty problems, to embarrass him, laugh at him, and just generally mock him. I have friends who voted for Trump, and they got to the point where they could not hear any criticism about him, even the really legitimate ones, because they came to see all criticism of him as petty insults.

I'm not so sure if this kind of thing could be called bitterness, as I tend to think of bitterness as secret hatred, but it certainly does seem like it was a rather bitter election in the sense that it had basically become a matter of choosing the least worst option.

I think "malcontent" would probably be a more accurate word for many Americans; not happy with the system and yet also unwilling to do what it takes to change the system.

A theist or atheist who never read "Richard III" by Shakespeare, or more to the point, never read the Gilgamesh story in original Babylonian, can't be faulted for irrationality for not using the useful parts of these works. — szardosszemagad

Sure they can, if they disregard those useful parts because they dislike Shakespeare or the ancient Babylonians. When Jesus says, "If you give to the poor, do so secretly so that you don't fall for the temptation to only help for the sake of making yourself look better in the eyes of those who see you give", it would be foolish for an atheist to ignore it just because it can be found in the Bible, just like it'd be foolish of a Christian to ignore that same teaching if it can be found in Hindu or Buddhist texts.

When people judge the quality of a teaching based on where the teaching is found, then they have become religious about being anti-religious.

Problem is that preachers of the Bible are among the most greedy people on Earth. — Meta

They can be, but pretending they have a special problem which we do not, just because they're religious about their greed is probably worse.

A non-religious atheist is not concerned with what the bible says. — szardosszemagad

Which is the point; if there are good teachings in the Bible about greed and how to deal with greed, why should an atheist disregard them because they can be found in the bible? That is irrational.

What separates a lay problem (not religious) from a religious problem, — szardosszemagad

Usually it's personal bias or social conditioning of some kind. Why would any rational person have a problem with, "Judge yourself first so that you will be able to fairly judge others"? Jesus said it, and yet people still complain as though he was some kind of fraud.

Anything that the bible says is religious, — szardosszemagad

Nah, that's just social conditioning. Greed, fear, and pride are problems all humans deal with.

So... while you correctly identified the problem of greed as a real life, layman's type of problem, you can't say that it is not a religious problem — szardosszemagad

Sure I can. It's not a religious problem at all. It's a human problem. Hypocrites are the ones who want to say these are religious problems, because, if they themselves are not "religious", it's easy to think, "I am not religious, so I am not a bad person like you are".

I have no qualms with what anyone would want to say to me. — TimeLine

That doesn't sound realistic at all.

Just accept that I believe we are people trying to figure out the meaning of a story. — TimeLine

Sorry, but I don't just believe people because they ask me to.

Ultimately, I agree when you say that's not a religious position; it's a solution which works in real life because that is what everything is. — TimeLine

Nah, there's lots of fantastical or delusion ideals which don't actually work in real life. Pretending that forcing payment from others for our help is a healthy way of life does not make sense, even if most of the world has been conned into believing it does.

Que? — TimeLine

It's hard to believe that you are genuinely confused by my comments. Money does not make the sun shine or the rain fall. Money does not create the soil or nutrients within the soil which makes plants grow. Money does not create animal life or keep animal life going. Money does not utilize the resources of the earth to make life better for all humans. Money only acts as a means of motivation for why people work, and they've been conned into thinking it's a right motivation. It is not. Money has become a means of measuring human worth, which is why we have the phrase, "earn a living" and why artists or passionate creators will talk of prostituting themselves even though it has nothing to do with physical meshing of genitalia. . If one is not working for money, then they have not earned the right to live. It's why volunteering is a hobby for "bleeding hearts" rather than a beneficial way of life for all humanity.

No, it doesn't. And using capital letters won't make it so. — TimeLine

Are you suggesting the world's resources are not finite?

The point is that power is not something one can attain through money, — TimeLine

It's like you have no idea what it's like to live on Earth.

money, it is just a means. — TimeLine

Completely contradicts your previous statement about how money doesn't buy power.

If a person believes he is morally superior, and so when guilty of a wrongdoing attempts to deceitfully fabricate lies to people around him and garner enough support to make himself believe that he is not guilty, that does not require money. — TimeLine

I guess corruption, bribery, and extortion are synonymous with unicorns in the land where you live?

Notwithstanding your biblical references, — TimeLine

Yeah, I was hoping that wouldn't be an issue. Jesus said A LOT about greed, which isn't a religious problem. All humans on the planet struggle with greed. Jesus also gave solutions to the problem of greed. It is in the context of problem and solution that I referenced some Biblical teachings. For example, Jesus said that the answer to greed is for people to start sharing with one another. That's not a religious position; it's a solution which works in real life.

So, if we say that an absence of love is evil, money is not the root of all evil but rather the enabling factor — TimeLine

Well, if you look carefully, neither I nor the Bible said that money is the root of all evil. The love of money (or greed) is the root of all evil. Defining what "love of money" means in practical terms can get a little tricky, because it deals with motivations, but generally speaking, when someone believes they will die if they do not charge a fee for their love, it's almost certain they have a problem with money-loving.

since it is clear that whether you are wealthy or not has no bearing on being evil. — TimeLine

In a world with finite resources, it certainly DOES have a bearing on whether one is evil or not depending on how much of those resources he draws to himself. There will always be some kind of trade-off when it comes to finite wealth. The more we take for ourselves, the less there will be for others.

People screwing around in black robes and performing titillating rituals is a smoke screen. Real evil is believing we are more important than others just because we have more ability than they in taking what is available.

It had nothing to do with "emphasis". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Ok, I guess you were using in a different way. I understand it to mean emphasis.

I've heard plenty of statements about particular things, such as indifference to male rape victims, not being due to misandry. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The masked ritual scene with the naked chicks is full of masonic and religious (Christian) symbolism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhV-4658syE — Meta

I found this ritual scene a little boring, but I don't like sitting through these kinds of rituals even in a christian setting. Real Satanism has nothing to do with these kinds of fancy rituals, just like real faith has nothing to do with various rituals. Most Satanists will tell you that Satan is only a mascot representing the idea of rebellion and that's a pretty accurate interpretation.

The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. When talking about making a choice between two masters, Jesus did not talk about God and Satan. He said God is one master and mammon (money and the things money can buy) is the other, and that we cannot work for both without cheating on one or the other. The Revelation talks about a "mark" being used to economically control people. Only people who take the "mark" may buy and sell and it suggests that this mark will be mandatory for everyone, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, but only compulsory if you want to continue being part of the economic system. If you do not take the mark, no more job, no more bills, no more food, clothing, or shelter.

This shows that the problem isn't "the elite" but rather greed. It's just that the elite are better at being greedy than the poor. In the end satan does not care about things like money, sex, or rituals, but he does care that WE care about those things, and he will use those weaknesses against us. What he really wants is to turn people away from God, by any means necessary.

Drawing 666 and pentagrams on the wall, wearing black robes, and walking around with candles isn't satanism; forcing people to pay us for our love is.

You put the word "period" at the end of the thread title for emphasis, followed by an ellipses, as though there's actually a little more after the period. My sense of outrage is confused. :)

What I meant by "context", is the context in which the statement was used, the bible, not the context of your personal example. I have no doubt that you can produce an example which would make what you're saying make sense, but we need to consult the context in the Bible, to see what was meant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your own conclusion is evidence that my interpretation is accurate. You say it's nonsense that the creator of time/space/matter can exist outside of time while simultaneously existing in the past, present, and future; just another human being telling "I am what I am" that he can't be what he is.

The 'tilt' can be exaggerated by skillful (and perhaps quite sociopathic) teachers and leaders. It isn't unique to evangelical Christians, of course. Roman Catholics have their own variety of severe, unbending beliefs. — Bitter Crank

Most people today believe that a 5 dollar bill has more value than a gallon of milk. Tilt indeed...

Are they criminal, evil? — Wosret

They CAN be, and a lot of them are, but so are a lot of non-religious people, too!