We hear of unconditional love and now increasingly we hear of unconditional acceptance. For many the two are different words for the same thing. For others they are not.  They lie.  Unconditional acceptance is more explicit. Let us explain why.

Unconditional love is a gaslighting expression.  It is made to look like it is about what is best for the other person when in fact it is about you wanting to be seen as always nice.  So unconditional love is unconditional acceptance. 

They should be bluntly called what they are: cordial laziness.  The person who celebrates you doing whatever you want as long as it does not affect them is only out for herself or himself.  And we must remember that the person will care about some things you do that affect them, not all.  So it is not really unconditional at all.  It is a virtue-signalling lie.

Unconditional love simply put is love without strings attached. No matter what, the person is always granted kindness without seeking anything back or asking for any change in behaviour. In practice, this "kindness" virtually means that the kindness is just, "Follow your heart and you will never be wrong.  I will celebrate your choice no matter what it is." Nobody thinks this is really love.

The unconditional love brigade are undermined by those who say, "There is a thin line between love and hate.  If you love somebody you can feel hate for them as well if they are doing something terrible to their lives."  If the love is that fragile then how loving is it really?  It definitely is far from being without conditions.

What nobody in the brigade admits is that a person can start to hate you or start to feel nothing for you over what you do to yourself. This has to happen when the person has to blind themselves to your bad side.  If they have to do that in order to think they love you then that is halo-shining and not true concern for you.  It is a strange kind of love - it is shallow emotion if they will not consider what harm you do to yourself and as good as encourage you. If that fake love is all you give, it will soon turn to harming them.

The debate about unconditional love versus unconditional affirmation comes down to whether you can really love a person who is immorally harmful or think of them as immoral/harmful and exhibit authentic love.

If you really love the sinner and hate the sin what do you mean? You will answer that it is because the sin enslaves and harms them and lies to them and exploits them. Yet when you are asked to prove all of it and show why the relevant and significant damage is not a mere side-effect you will not know what to say. Also, who knows if anybody will be alive tomorrow to suffer the bad effects? Are we to start saying that a sin is only a sin if you are guaranteed to live long enough? There is no certainty. And these days people think you have no right to claim better knowledge of their circumstances and future than they do. They are right too.

And if this hate of sin is really so compassionate then there is nothing hypocritical about trying to get the speck of sin out of somebody’s eye even if you have a plank in your eye. Yes you should be dealing with yourself but at least you are spending the time trying to help another.

Jesus said that you cannot see clearly to help them with the plank in your eye. In actual fact he is saying that the evil in you harms your perception of evil in others. So you have to get it out of you first for it lies to you and will lie to you about what you think you detect in the other person.  Yet it is clear that he knew that saying people sin is hate speech and leads to different new potential forms of hate. Read Matthew 7:3-5.  He never considered how if evil is that adept at fooling then a speck in your eye disqualifies you from seeing the speck in the other.  You don't have to have a plank swimming in your eye.

Unpack that.  If evil is able to work like some kind of clever manipulative spirit while remaining a non-person, that is scary indeed.  A hillock that could act like it knows what it is doing would be more terrible and more threatening than any insane dictator.  We would be able to trust nothing if what seems to be dead matter can fool us and simulate malevolence.  If you fear the evil in yourself then so that you have to get it out before you can help another with the evil in them you will never get anywhere if it is true that evil always lurks in us.  Christianity says you cannot become completely sinless.  You can only hope for sin reduction.

Incredibly the Church points to success stories to show its weapons against sin are effective.  This does not fit the doctrine that all sin and the only difference between a and b is the sins they commit that we know about.  And it is abusive to herald somebody as a success when the Bible teaches along the lines of, "Behave in a good way yes but not to be seen and do not speak of your goodness.  Nobody really knows what is inside you."

So you fear how some evil is always left behind when you repent and cast your evil out.

You fear how this is also true if you get the other person converted.  They have residual evil in them.

You fear how evil can seem to be extinguished and repented of and soon you realise it was you fooling yourself and it is there as large as life as ever.

If you fear and hate the evil like it was some kind of smart but toxic person in its own right, you have to fear and hate the instrument of the evil, the person.  The person is its tabernacle and willingly so.  If as religion says, "Evil is not real like joy is real. It is not an energy.  It is just a defect, a good that has turned to disorder. It is a nothing that results in real harm" then what?  Clearly the real subject should be the instrument of the evil not the unreal evil!  The point is the person sending the evil is real.  It is not about what the evil is or isn't.

A religion that cannot get these things straight has to take responsibility if its preaching against sin or its Bible doing it for it, causes harm.  It takes none.

The Church says that the truth cannot be avoided and you are better off not taking the risk of going against it.  So it advises to face the factual though it hurts for you will get over the hurt.  It always says that God is the truth.  For example if you say nothing can be condemned absolutely - meaning in all circumstances - you are told you have to face the fact that you are saying that saying there are no absolutes is laying down another absolute. You are saying it is absolutely wrong to say there are no absolutes.  The only way to avoid the contradiction is to say that that is the only real absolute and you are not including it.

Notice that if you reject the absolutes people tell you about, you are creating your own.  In many cases at least, people invent their absolutes and pretend that they care if God gave them or not.  If they follow a God's rules it is not because they are his rules or right but because they happen to match what they want them to be or think they ought to be.  They are what they would invent.

Now we are learning that people who err bring danger to themselves and others.  Sin is said to involve error.  That is the main reason it is able to harm.  But if we err unknowingly we can be worse than somebody doing it deliberately as in sinning.  It makes no sense to say that you should be punished and quarantined for erring sinfully and not just for erring without sinning.  Punishment is not really as fair as it looks and even if it is we are hardly in any position to decide when and how to do it.  Revenge is disguised as justice.

So we find that unconditional love is indeed a licence to be deviant and get celebrated no matter what harm you do.  And we find that those who condemn it for that indeed are using it more than they say.  The things they often call normal are in fact normalised lies.


No Copyright