[seeker5]

Sure, the love she has for her handpicked people (or the love a mother has for her child) can be truly unconditional. But that's not unconditional love as a state of being, because there is a condition involved: you must be one of the chosen people or I will not love you. Certain gruesome criminals need not apply. That's conditional love, as a state of being, and it doesn't mean that there are conditions for you loving any particular person, e.g. your own kid. (who is hopefully not a gruesome criminal -- that would be hard.)

Maybe the conditions for loving someone can simply be "You're in my field of range, I see you around, I spend time with you, therefore I choose to love you unconditionally"

But frankly, in my OP, despite my wording, I really wasn't asking how to be loving unconditionally, I didn't mean to ask about that state of being. I meant more about how to love people unconditionally.

It sounds like love, for you, equals wanting to spend time with you (or have dinner with you), is that right? Like, what kind of love is this if you don't want to eat with me? In that case I can see where hearing about love that doesn't involve a shared meal (shared time together) would strike you as false or offensive. It does actually sound to me like you are getting emotionally reactivated by this conversation, is that so? This last paragraph you wrote sounds a little snide to me -- like my perspective of unconditional love pisses you off. Is that right?

You're correct in your perception on how I felt.

I can imagine this:

Someone: "Seeker - I love you sooooooo much!"
Seeker: "Ah, that's nice, hey wanna grab a bite to eat, I'd love to talk with you"
Someone: "Oh hell no, you're too disgusting for me to want to sit down with."
Seeker: "..."
Someone: "But I do love you so much though!!!"

I see now the wisdom that Steve has in frequently telling people "You are loved." instead of him telling people "I love you". It clears up a lot of potential misunderstanding that can arise.

Originally Posted by Ontowhere

Would you rather, spent time at dinner with someone, who doesn't accept you for who you are, or not have dinner with someone who accept every part of what you are? In wich case, would you feel more freedom?

You're equating love with acceptance. While loving someone can mean accepting someone, it seems to me you can fully accept someone without loving them in the way Angela means to love. I can and do fully accept people as they are, I fully accept their choices and freedom of being without having to love them.

So yeah, I'd rather have someone who doesn't love me, but accepts me as I am and feels connected with me and wants to eat dinner with me (assuming I also connect with them), then someone who fully loves me unconditionally but would never want to eat dinner with me.