heisenberg69,
"I agree with you that unconditional is the operative word. but does that mean anything goes ? To give an example: I love my son and whatever he chose to do in his life he would still be my son. But if he became a drug runner does that mean drug running is something I have to like and approve of ? No it just means that my love for him is not conditional on him having to do anything to get it."

Your example is someone you probably have spent lots of time with, you've gotten to know him or want to know him because 'it's my flesh and blood', lots of interaction going back and forth, which means you've both done something to establish love. And running drugs isn't that much of a challenge for the whole idea of loving someone no matter what.

If you've got to castrate someone because of how they dress, speak, what they read, and so on, then there are conditions placed upon someone until they conform and unconditional love suddenly has fertile grounds to grow in.

Related to those protestors in Virginia Justin spoke of, several years ago the issue of gay marriage came up in California and people were allowed to vote about it. Before the vote took place a bunch of Christian groups stood on the street and held up signs that opposed gay marriage. They stood there as if they were representing some goodness and higher morality and waited for people to honk their horns.

I'm not gay, but I became incredibly annoyed with them. Even though my parents were with me on one occasion I stopped my car, opened my window and yelled, "Jesus said to love your neighbors as yourselves. Is this what you are doing you hypocrits?"

I felt really annoyed because I felt like they were being disrespectful towards people who are homosexual. What right do they have to tell other people who they can or can't love? That saving the sacredness of marriage business is a bunch of BS.  With all of the infidelity, domestic violence and divorce that has and continues to take  place the supposed sanctity of marriage would've been ruined years ago--if it could be ruined. Not that gay marriage can ruin it.

As far as I'm concerned the people who bring up that sanctity of marriage business are lying. If they were truthful they would say that they are afraid to question anything the Bible says (except when it benefits them personally), and therefore believe they are standing up for God's truth because supposedly God hates homosexuals, and blah, blah, blah.

Another thing that really bugged me about these protestors is that with all of the bad things that happens in this World the gay vote issue is the only issue that stirred them to go out on the streets and protest.

My guess is that if Jesus was around such protestors he would've turned over their tables and given them a good tongue lashing.

Volu-

Your example is someone you probably have spent lots of time with, you've gotten to know him or want to know him because 'it's my flesh and blood', lots of interaction going back and forth, which means you've both done something to establish love. And running drugs isn't that much of a challenge for the whole idea of loving someone no matter what.

If you've got to castrate someone because of how they dress, speak, what they read, and so on, then there are conditions placed upon someone until they conform and unconditional love suddenly has fertile grounds to grow in.

In my drug runner example I think it is a loving responce not to want my son to have a premature death or a lengthy spell in prison. To this end I would advise him of the pitfalls and dangers of his chosen profession and try to find him alternatives. That said he is an adult and he has to make those choices for himself (and live with the consequences).Whatever his choice my love would remain. But you are right he is 'flesh and blood' and I imagine more evolved ,expansive people than me feel that way about the whole of creation ...

Darn Democrats! They remind me of those darn Republicans.

Lights of Love wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 6:31pm:

heisenberg69 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 4:29am:


  Obviously from my last post, i lean much more strongly to the pro choice in this, but i agree it's a difficult issue, and really in things like this--one size does not fit all.  However, ultimately, other's beliefs should not be so forced onto others.  It's one thing to debate, to disagree, etc., it's a whole other to make laws based on one groups beliefs. 

  This is why at forums, i've almost never reported a post or fellow member to any "authorities" (unless their obviously, blatantly a spammer type or what not).  If i have an issue, i bring it up with them. 

  Re: the pro choice or pro life issue, besides the free-will issue, which to me is the most important and over riding one, there are other things that make me lean in the pro choice area.  My Mother was an above average psychic person.   During my birth, she saw a Light descend into my body some minutes after the body was birthed and out into the world. 

   So while there was general 'life' in the body before then (something we could call "Spirit"), what made it a real, living human--my individuated Consciousness, was not more integrated with the body until actual birth. 

  So, the pro-lifers may be lacking some information and perspective in all this.

  Also, a thought has occurred to me of a compromise for both sides and camps.  I've considered that maybe it would be wise to legally allow up to 3 legal and health care aided abortions.   That way you would sort of satisfy the strongly pro-choice side who argues abortion for rapes, extreme poverty, extreme health issues, etc. 

  And then you would also somewhat satisfy those who think that if abortion was totally legal, that some very irresponsible women would be having them left and right in living their irresponsible lifestyles and killing human life forms.  Granted most of these don't understand that the huge majority of women do not lightly get an abortion, and it would be a rare woman indeed who would have multiple over  periods of time.

   Re: the link that Kathy shared, wow!  I would have never thought that Democrats would push for something like that, it does seem very "Republican" in nature.

heisenberg69,
"Whatever his choice my love would remain."

I doubt whatever when there are extreme choices possible, but it's awesome to have someone(s) one loves strongly. Is the example a current reality?