• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The myth of unconditional love?

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hey,

I wanted to ask how satanists reject the masochistic idea of "unconditional love", "love thy enemy" and "christian love". I think it opens people up to abuse manipulation and exploitation. Its really unhealthy as a way to deal with unrequited love because it sanctions "loving" without being loved back as a very warped and sentimental "ideal" of pointless sacrifice.

Is Love necessarily selfish and should it be? And do you think the seperation of love from sex is artificial?
 

moon light

even mind can not be trusted only inspiration
Hey,

I wanted to ask how satanists reject the masochistic idea of "unconditional love", "love thy enemy" and "christian love". I think it opens people up to abuse manipulation and exploitation. Its really unhealthy as a way to deal with unrequited love because it sanctions "loving" without being loved back as a very warped and sentimental "ideal" of pointless sacrifice.

Is Love necessarily selfish and should it be? And do you think the seperation of love from sex is artificial?

It depends on your concept of love
Is your concept of love your happiness or the happiness of others?
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It depends on your concept of love
Is your concept of love your happiness or the happiness of others?

I think I'm leaning towards "love of my own happiness". I'm not suggesting that the love of my own happiness goes so far to be sadistic and take pleasure in others suffering or be indifferent. But Its become very clear that I can't take responsibility for others emotional well being as it is outside of my control. "People pleasing", even if it were desirable, simply doesn't work and rests on a cycle of emotional dependency and neuroticism. Too often we are told to hide our true feelings and thoughts and self-love is necessary to redress that. If someone can't love you for who you are- then they don't really love you at all. They are just using you.
 

Liu

Well-Known Member
The main point imo regarding love is that one should not think that one must love anything or anyone for moral reasons. This forcing oneself to act a certain way often leads to less happiness of both oneself and all others one actually loves or even just likes.
It may even lead to feelings of guilt and unworthiness, which are detrimental to making anyone happy.

Actual love for oneself, for others, for goals one may have, is the strongest motivator for following through with doing what needs to be done to achieve one's dreams.

If unconditional love of all is possible and not incompatible with the human psyche anyway, then it won't come to be by internalizing outside pressure.


@moon light Welcome to this forum. May I ask what's your religion? Your profile says "hanif", which seems to be related to Islam?
 

moon light

even mind can not be trusted only inspiration
I think I'm leaning towards "love of my own happiness". I'm not suggesting that the love of my own happiness goes so far to be sadistic and take pleasure in others suffering or be indifferent. But Its become very clear that I can't take responsibility for others emotional well being as it is outside of my control. "People pleasing", even if it were desirable, simply doesn't work and rests on a cycle of emotional dependency and neuroticism. Too often we are told to hide our true feelings and thoughts and self-love is necessary to redress that. If someone can't love you for who you are- then they don't really love you at all. They are just using you.

OK
But happiness is a relative rather than an absolute concept
Everyone has a way to be happy
There are those who find happiness in sadism - masochism - dominance - submission ---
For the love of your happiness only -love is incomplete
But full love is to harmony happiness between two - so that you find happiness in the happiness of the other
This concept can not be separated from sex - where the happiest Sadiest is with Mazuhee and so on
 

moon light

even mind can not be trusted only inspiration
The main point imo regarding love is that one should not think that one must love anything or anyone for moral reasons. This forcing oneself to act a certain way often leads to less happiness of both oneself and all others one actually loves or even just likes.
It may even lead to feelings of guilt and unworthiness, which are detrimental to making anyone happy.

Actual love for oneself, for others, for goals one may have, is the strongest motivator for following through with doing what needs to be done to achieve one's dreams.

If unconditional love of all is possible and not incompatible with the human psyche anyway, then it won't come to be by internalizing outside pressure.


@moon light Welcome to this forum. May I ask what's your religion? Your profile says "hanif", which seems to be related to Islam?

This also depends on your concept of morality

Thanks Leo
Hanif is the religion of Abraham
 

Liu

Well-Known Member
This also depends on your concept of morality

Thanks Leo
Hanif is the religion of Abraham


I agree, the personal concept of morality is very important in this question.

However, I assume your religion is not a LHP-religion. In that case, you are not allowed to post in this sub-forum, but instead only in the general forums, and in the Abrahamic sub-forum: Abrahamic Religions DIR

This discussion here is only open to members of LHP-religions.

If you want to discuss the topic, you can open a thread on it elsewhere.
 
Hey,

I wanted to ask how satanists reject the masochistic idea of "unconditional love", "love thy enemy" and "christian love". I think it opens people up to abuse manipulation and exploitation. Its really unhealthy as a way to deal with unrequited love because it sanctions "loving" without being loved back as a very warped and sentimental "ideal" of pointless sacrifice.

Is Love necessarily selfish and should it be? And do you think the seperation of love from sex is artificial?
The old bald guy's got this;
"Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones."

Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible
 

SabahTheLoner

Master of the Art of Couch Potato Cuddles
Hey,

I wanted to ask how satanists reject the masochistic idea of "unconditional love", "love thy enemy" and "christian love". I think it opens people up to abuse manipulation and exploitation. Its really unhealthy as a way to deal with unrequited love because it sanctions "loving" without being loved back as a very warped and sentimental "ideal" of pointless sacrifice.

Is Love necessarily selfish and should it be? And do you think the seperation of love from sex is artificial?

A Satanist believes that love is good, so we can love. It is not healthy to "love" a true enemy because it is bottling up feelings that can hurt us if unaddressed. We express hate through ritual, so we can be protected from doing unnecessary harm that may be coupled with hidden hate. Love might be selfish but it is because it feels good to love another, we usually want to love another, and ideally the lover will be happy because they make their loved one happy, and vice versa. Some people do separate romantic/spiritual love with sexual love, either because they view them as different or they cannot feel sexual love. That is completely individualistic but either choice is natural.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Hey,

I wanted to ask how satanists
I'm not a Satanist; I'm Luciferian. If you are not looking for Luciferian perspective, feel free to ignore this post.
...reject the masochistic idea of "unconditional love", "love thy enemy" and "christian love". I think it opens people up to abuse manipulation and exploitation. Its really unhealthy as a way to deal with unrequited love because it sanctions "loving" without being loved back as a very warped and sentimental "ideal" of pointless sacrifice.
I think it is quite possible to to have unconditional love towards your children, especially babies. (Whether that is masochistic or not is up for debate.)

Is Love necessarily selfish and should it be?
Yes.
And do you think the seperation of love from sex is artificial?
In light of my statement about loving your children unconditionally, I would have to say that the separation of love from sex is not artificial, in the least....
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm not a Satanist; I'm Luciferian. If you are not looking for Luciferian perspective, feel free to ignore this post.

I think it is quite possible to to have unconditional love towards your children, especially babies. (Whether that is masochistic or not is up for debate.)


Yes.

In light of my statement about loving your children unconditionally, I would have to say that the separation of love from sex is not artificial, in the least....

Luciferian is fine. I'm just taking my new found sympathy for the devil for a test drive. Hopefully I'll get to know the LHPs very well with time. :D
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Luciferian is fine. I'm just taking my new found sympathy for the devil for a test drive. Hopefully I'll get to know the LHPs very well with time. :D
I see you have The Satanic Temple statue as your avatar. The Pastafarian in me salutes you! ;)
 

VioletVortex

Well-Known Member
When directed at an individual, unconditional love is a good thing. It's what humanizes the relationship between two people. Otherwise, it is simply based on value achieved through actions. But, unconditional love does not mean being consistently kind. It means that one will, in the long run, always love the subject deep down. For example, my brother does stuff that pisses me off, and I might shove him or something. But do I still love him? Yes.

Unconditional love, however, should never be randomly thrown at people in general.
 

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think you have to really pull things to very far extremes to prove that literal unconditional love doesn't exist, but even then it has problems. There have been mothers who loved their kids even after they became serial killers and stuff.

But not all of us are blind followers of LaVey. I see no reason that there can be unconditional love, which to me just means that you are not expecting anything in return. I can see though that, you can't unconditionally love just anyone or everyone, so what if that person changes? I'd argue they are not the same person anymore. So perhaps unconditional love doesn't last forever, but it at least exists.

I've never had kids, but I've had animals that I felt I loved unconditionally. In a way our brains see pets as like babies and so loosing one can be worse for some people than loosing an adult loved one, particularly since we have no culturally recognized rites of death for them. A lot of Satanists like to edgelord about hate, guilt and all that, but none ever talk about grief, which is in my opinion much more destructive than hate or guilt, and a stronger emotion that can persist for years and years after it doesn't ****ing matter.

Most hate stems from something active, ongoing. You don't see many people raging about someone they hate that is dead, and you can't feel guilty if you don't see it as bad anymore or don't do it anymore. But grief? That **** can stick with you for ages, and it's not always about a living being that died. It can be about an identity, something that once happened but you lost and won't ever experience again... it's about loss.

Love is about having, and grief is about loosing. Those are the two most powerful emotions I think. Not love and hate, which at times can be on a razor's edge of difference, but two that are utterly different.

Unrequited love is both love and grief, and is one of the most intense things, the most painful, amazing and irrational things someone can experience. We are nonsensical beings, and you will never convince someone with unrequited love that their love is meaningless. I don't see why it should be incompatible with Satanism anyways. Yes, in a relationship it's a two way street. But if your not in that kind of relationship, and it is what you want to do, what's wrong with that? Is it masochistic? In a way, yes. But life is filled with pain as well as pleasure, it's normal for any relationship to have some strain it's how you deal with the stress and bull****, it's how to deal with the "pain" aspect that defines who you are, how mature you and all that. But selfish? Hardly. Everyone has to deal with the good and bad in people, that's what being in a relationship is about. So unrequited love is maybe an extreme, but I don't see it fundamentally different other than it has grief instead of the insane stress that sometimes accompanies long-term romantic relationships.
 

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Also to note... about sex and love... love seems to come more out of family bond than sex, IMO. plenty of animals meet once, **** and then leave. But the feelings of attachment and selfless love stem more from an evolutionary need for genes to propagate themselves through various animals by taking care of the young, than it does with the sex itself which can just feel good.

If the mom and children were not so strongly bonded it wouldn't work. Many animals have been seen adopting babies of other species, but very few will have sex with other species. Anyways my point is, I think love adapted out of the mother-child bond, not from sex, or else we would see every species that has sex having emotional bonds which we don't. So I don't see any problem in separating them, but we like a few other species have long-term relationships that adapted love into sexual relations too.

Historically and culturally a sex partner was often different than one's primary romantic partner. There is some evidence that men are romantically and socially monogamous but sexually not so. This explains the stereotype and tendency of some men to have a lot of affairs but not want to leave their wife or family who they say they love. So again I don't see that they have to be totally entwined, and only those who submit to our currently bizarre social contracts of relationships would it make sense to to say that love can't be separated from sex. Judaeo-Christian is more to blame for this than one might at first realize.
 

Liu

Well-Known Member
I guess there are two different way to interpret the OP.
I, and also some others here it seems, understood it to refer to "trying to love everyone you meet for no other reason than because that's what one should do", and not to "loving a specific person and happen to have no ulterior motive behind that except for taking joy from that person's existence/presence".

The latter of course is possible.
Whether it's healthy depends on the circumstances.

Whether it's "selfish", that depends on the definition of that term.
Whether to can be unrelated to sex - certainly.
 

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I guess there are two different way to interpret the OP.
I, and also some others here it seems, understood it to refer to "trying to love everyone you meet for no other reason than because that's what one should do", and not to "loving a specific person and happen to have no ulterior motive behind that except for taking joy from that person's existence/presence".

The latter of course is possible.
Whether it's healthy depends on the circumstances.

Whether it's "selfish", that depends on the definition of that term.
Whether to can be unrelated to sex - certainly.

I think when LaVey talked about in The Satanic Bible he Addressed both... but perhaps in my posts I didn't really go into the former. I don't think it's optimal to hate anyone, and I did address hate generally.

But I also don't think that anyone feels they have to love everyone they meet, or at least no one acts that way. Most people would probably agree that you only love those close to you and are rather indifferent towards people you don't know because well we all got our own problems. That aside, instinctually we want to help other humans if we can without distracting from our own responsibilities. \

I can illustrate this... I've hitchhiked a few times before. Less than 1% of cars even recognize you are there. If so many people really felt you should love everyone, wouldn't that number be a lot higher? I think it's a bit of a strawman to say that there are a bunch of people all lovely-dovey saying we should love everyone.

LaVey did talk though about love being inherently selfish, and that altruism was really just masochism. That all love is selfish because it's about what it does for you. Which makes sense to a sociopath but not to a normally empathetic person. To me it's like saying all love is selfless, both are extreme views and the truth is really in the middle as a spectrum.
 
Last edited:

Liu

Well-Known Member
But I also don't think that anyone feels they have to love everyone they meet, or at least no one acts that way. Most people would probably agree that you only love those close to you and are rather indifferent towards people you don't know because well we all got our own problems. That aside, instinctually we want to help other humans if we can without distracting from our own responsibilities. \

I can illustrate this... I've hitchhiked a few times before. Less than 1% of cars even recognize you are there. If so many people really felt you should love everyone, wouldn't that number be a lot higher? I think it's a bit of a strawman to say that there are a bunch of people all lovely-dovey saying we should love everyone.
I didn't saying that many people would actually believe so. However, the OP seemed to imply that there is at least such a notion, and there are situations in which people actually say that. For example when asking for donations for 3rd world countries.

LaVey did talk though about love being inherently selfish, and that altruism was really just masochism. That all love is selfish because it's about what it does for you. Which makes sense to a sociopath but not to a normally empathetic person. To me it's like saying all love is selfless, both are extreme views and the truth is really in the middle as a spectrum.
It makes sense to me, but then I sometimes wonder whether I'm a sociopath ;)
As I understand him, it's meant from a philosophical stance. If you define "selfish" as "done because it makes oneself happy", and look at how our minds work, then pretty much any decision is ultimately based on what feels right to do in one way or another. And loving, i.e. "enjoying the existing of" by that logic is of course something selfish to do, even if there is not a single ulterior motive.
 

Onyx

Active Member
Premium Member
I wanted to ask how satanists reject the masochistic idea of "unconditional love", "love thy enemy" and "christian love".
Since Satanists (etc) are free to formulate their own moral code, they are also free to apply the concept of "unconditional love" per their own discretion.

The rejection is not of the concept itself, but rather the blind following of a doctrine that may work in some situations (rarely IMO), but not others.
 

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I didn't saying that many people would actually believe so. However, the OP seemed to imply that there is at least such a notion, and there are situations in which people actually say that. For example when asking for donations for 3rd world countries.


It makes sense to me, but then I sometimes wonder whether I'm a sociopath ;)
As I understand him, it's meant from a philosophical stance. If you define "selfish" as "done because it makes oneself happy", and look at how our minds work, then pretty much any decision is ultimately based on what feels right to do in one way or another. And loving, i.e. "enjoying the existing of" by that logic is of course something selfish to do, even if there is not a single ulterior motive.

The issue I have with those kinds of arguments is that it's mostly semantics. You can make any statement true in the same way just by changing the definitions too much. So it is just misleading I think, to say that all love is selfish and then define selfish in a way that most people use. It gives a false impression that just makes the listener consider the person giving it to have some serious relationship issues.

Besides I don't think those kinds of sections of the text should be taken too seriously, since what he said was a reaction to Hippie counter-culture. Remember, he was living in 1966-1969 San Francisco, CA when he wrote this. So in a historical context it makes sense why he would say that to make a point, but the point by itself, without that context is just edgy filler. On the other hand, in that contextual understanding it exposes the extreme stance of what he was criticizing. It's more akin to parody in that sense than something that should be said with a straight face IMO. I think it's rather philosophically light to take it at face value, but for all I know LaVey was being 100% literal since I'm of the inclination that the motivation of writing TSB wasn't out of conviction, so maybe what I'm seeing in it is unintended irony subtext.

Also, as for if you are a sociopath or not, just ask yourself if you think you are truly empathetic to others in pain. Not feeling pity, but like you feel actual pain from the suffering of loved ones. I've known true sociopaths IRL who can't empathize with other people (little regard for them as subjects) and sees their kids as extensions of themselves rather than as fully independent people. They wouldn't admit it, but I can see how they operate as if what LaVey wrote is totally true at face value. You can find many public figures with the exact same tendencies and might know someone like that IRL too. By contrast I have a higher than average level of empathy and so such a belief or outlook just seems absurd to me.
 
Last edited:
Top