Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Full Version: Love Bombing or Love Building—Which?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(revisiting a misunderstood thread in the controversy room)

Love-Bombing is not a new expression. It dates at least as far back as July 23, 1978, when Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church used it in a speech:

“Unification Church members are smiling all of the time, even at four in the morning. The man who is full of love must live that way. When you go out witnessing you can caress the wall and say that it can expect you to witness well and be smiling when you return. What face could better represent love than a smiling face? This is why we talk about love bomb; Moonies have that kind of happy problem.”

Following that speech, Ronald Loomis, Director of Education for the International Cultic Studies Association, stated that such love-bombing was an underhanded method used by cultists to attract new members and hold onto the members they had. Asserting that the term was not invented by critics, he said: “We did not make up this term. The term ‘love bombing’ originated with the Unification Church, the Moonies. It’s their term.”

Other groups, such as the International Churches of Christ and Children of God, also use the term. In response to Loomis’ negative tone, the Unification Church’s next leader, Damian Anderson, protested that love bombing was nothing less than a genuine expression of friendship, fellowship, interest, or concern. He wrote: "Everyone likes such care and attention, so it is unfortunate that when we love as Jesus taught us to love, that we are then accused of having ulterior motives."

Love-bombing is therefore two-fold. By its proponents, it’s the positive reinforcement of love. By its critics, it’s a feigned, manipulative "love" used in recruiting and retaining members. While some would protest that love-bombing is preferable to hate-bombing, in fact, hate-bombing is not the opposite of love-bombing. The opposite of love-bombing is unconditional love, whereas love-bombing is highly conditional.

Consider the common practice of love-bombing in cults. Members will love you to death if you represent a prospective convert to their group. As you progress into membership, a tight family love will surround you as you faithfully promote their cause. However, when it is clear that you will not join or after becoming a member, voice doubts, create waves, or leave the group, all that love ceases. Scorn is immediately heaped upon you and all remaining members are encouraged to have no further contact with you.

Unconditional love, on the other hand, allows members to love all visitors, regardless whether they might be prospective members. Love, if genuine, needs to continue even when the visitor chooses to associate with another group of believers. Even problem members need to be loved when they create problems or leave in a huff. Christians need to ask themselves what kind of love they practice—conditional or unconditional. The difference is huge.

Not that organizations, particularly those of a religious nature, have no interest in keeping members. But love-bombing is phoney and manipulative. It appeals to the weaker mind and as such, is particularly unique to religion. Nothing sells product, preaches unity or binds the party faithful better than the good old-fashion evangelical call to unity. But to be honest, marketable goods and services and objectives of political parties need more than love-bombing to give them substance and merit—which is why cult manipulation leads so many to financial ruin and ultimately, senseless death.

Self-awareness, new-age encounter groups have for about 40 years successfully used this technique. But the ones who use it best are individuals, and these are the most difficult to expose. Take an abusive man who love-bombs one day and beats the living daylights out of his wife the next. She will love him to death because he love-bombs her ninety-five percent of the time and only beats her five percent. Pimps use the same love-bomb tactics to feign their love in recruiting a new girl to the street. But of all individual love-bombers, pedophiles are the worst.

While normal abuse is often exposed by neighbours and police, the love-bomber pedophile is rarely caught, since he preys on naïve, innocent children. He will begin by saying things like, “God loves little children who love their daddies (uncles, grandfathers, etc.)—especially those that keep our little secret.” You can only imagine how this plays out in a little child’s brain. Bruises, bloody noses and broken limbs are obvious evidence of abuse, but that which is buried in the heart of a child, for sanity sake, is far too deep and out of sight for anyone to see. Even more profound is the fear worse than death threatened upon the child revealing it.

While studying with a gay man back in the ‘60’s, I remember him telling me what happened to him as a choirboy in the Anglican church. “While having sex with me, the priest used to tell me that I was an angel sent to him from heaven and that God had a special place for all little boys like me. While the catechism was silent on this, the Bible was explicitly otherwise.”

In fact, love-bombing is a pedophile’s best tool. It is the tool of deception that permeates humanity. In fact I’m convinced its invention is satanic, which is why so many people that use it aren’t even aware they do. To them, love-bombing is true love, even when it is used as a guised threat of abandonment in which the victim receives the underlying message, “If you don’t (love, believe, do, cooperate with) me, I won’t be your friend—or worse, I might even kill you or someone you love.”

Words don’t have to be spoken—just implied. But they are extremely successful when they detonate into sinister beauty used to manipulate good people—people who would otherwise not end up in abusive relationships or extreme life-styles that they are mistakenly blamed for. Being aware of this method went a long way for me to identify what Jehovah’s Witnesses have been given by those who are presently leading them. Sad to say, many are being love-bombed to death—spiritual death.

Is it any different outside? Yeah, it is. The abuse can be far more frontal where people are permitted greater freedoms. But the tolerance for abuse, while more obvious, is also greater, and because love-bombers are everywhere, they are particularly efficient in religious and volunteer environments—actually anywhere that casts the least suspicion and where members rely heavily upon hierarchal leadership. And since members are lead to believe their hierarchies would be the last to inflict conditional love-bomb techniques, it’s also the only place that nobody looks for an abuser.
Hi SW. You know several people thought this post was aimed directly at them last time do you? Anyhow I can see its a general subject about a certain psychosocial tool that gets used in this world. You know it actually relates to the works of the flesh and the works of the spirit and even the identity of the false prophet/ prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing? One term I don`t agree with though is unconditional love. Theres no such thing. Its just much less conditional than the type of self interest fleshly love your referring to.
Hi Seraphim :hug:

I believe I have unconditional love for my children. I can't imagine anything they could ever do that I wouldn't love them anymore-- :heartbeat: I also believe there is a love that loves individuals even tho you don't agree--you don't have common ground ==but you love them as people--and want the best for them. I am not sure that is exactly unconditional love but it is a type of love that flies high and has
only the best interests of the other person at heart. to me that is what we want to be cultivating --
I agree with you Wolfie to a degree. It poses an interesting theological question if there is nothing that children could do to stop parents loving them. God loves his human children perhaps even more than human parents. So if some are destroyed via oblivion as we were taught in the watchtower does he not then stop loving them at that point because they no longer exists nor will ever do so again in the second death. If Gods love is literally and completely unconditional then hell would have to exist to provide a hope of redemption one day to avoid Gods love ending for such ones. Of course we humans cannot judge thank goodness so our love could be unconditional but only up to Gods line of judgment. A mother i`m sure wont go on loving her children into eternity if they are completely destroyed by God in the last judgment. Perhaps thats what Jesus was driving at when he talked about those having more affection for family than for him is not worthy of him. Mind you that form of love he was talking about there was not agape which is the highest most unselfish form of love. Deep subject!
it is a deep subject and so much of it comes from our own attitude and perspective. I am a mother of three and have a different view of children of say a young man with no children at all. years ago I might have hung some conditions on my children and thought if they did thus and such I would not be able to love them anymore but now I understand why parents sit through all the trials and tribulations their children go through loving them all the way..I can understand loving them into eternity no matter what but still loving Jesus more :heartbeat: ...just an off the cuff thought or two brian-- :love:
Yea your totally right. I have no children and am complimented to think some think i`m young still LOL . You know better than me because I have no fleshly children. So if there are no limits I wonder then if hell does exist as a way for God to completely and unconditional love his children who reject him, so as to protect those children who want to use their free will for good but to hold out a chance for his children who do not in a separate place?
I have a question Wolfie or anyone else.

How can Love be actually uncondintional?

NO conditions means NO LIMITS..

Without being a downer. I really cannot see how Love can be said to have no conditions. At some point lets say one of our "LOVED ones" starts to run amuck and literally do whatever they want, rape , murder, steal , IF we Love our "OWN" more then those who this person hurts we have a conditional LOVE.

Sorry it is just the way my mind works.

Totaldismay Wrote:
I have a question Wolfie or anyone else.

How can Love be actually uncondintional?

NO conditions means NO LIMITS..

Without being a downer. I really cannot see how Love can be said to have no conditions. At some point lets say one of our "LOVED ones" starts to run amuck and literally do whatever they want, rape , murder, steal , IF we Love our "OWN" more then those who this person hurts we have a conditional LOVE.

Sorry it is just the way my mind works.


Hi Frank :friends:

I understand your thoughts very well as at one time I would have thought the same thing. Loving a child that runs amuck as you say doesn't mean supporting them in their wrongdoing--it doesn't mean approval--and it doesn't mean we love our own more than the victim--it simply means we still love our child even tho maybe our heart is breaking and we deeply regret what is happening--we might even have to take actions we grieve over but the love for the son or daughter is still there--for some reason frank you can be 90 and your child 70 but they are still the baby that was laid in your arms-- :heartbeat:

wolfie Wrote:
Loving a child that runs amuck as you say doesn't mean supporting them in their wrongdoing--it doesn't mean approval--and it doesn't mean we love our own more than the victim--it simply means we still love our child even tho maybe our heart is breaking and we deeply regret what is happening--we might even have to take actions we grieve over but the love for the son or daughter is still there--for some reason frank you can be 90 and your child 70 but they are still the baby that was laid in your arms-- :heartbeat:

Said in a nutshell, wolfie. I would rather cut off my right hand before casting a stone at my own child.

I believe unconditional love is something we learn. I doubt that many parents today could grasp the law in Israel as stated in Deuteronomy 21:18-21:

“In case a man happens to have a son who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, 19 his father and his mother must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, 20 and they must say to the older men of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die. So you must clear away what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and indeed become afraid."

Were the ones bringing their child to the older men less loving than other parents? Was God less loving in making such a command? I don't know quite how love equates in this scenario, but if it was me, I would be absolutely beside myself with grief if asked to follow through, but then I've never experienced a rebellious child to that degree.

ps, In response to Brian,

I don't think the existence of unconditional love is so much the issue. What we are feeling at any particular time is anything but unconditional. I know what you're saying though. Sooner or later feelings fade and you can easily hate someone you once loved. You can just as easily love someone you once hated. Those are feelings of love but not a measure of what our love can encompass.

I believe that love, to be unconditional, must be generated through a self examination. If we are feeling hatred, we must examine why, and whether it might be stirred by jealousy or envy or just plain neglect on our part. There are many reasons for hatred but there is only one reason for unconditional love. It's divine.

Unconditional love has 3 requirements:

1) Having no expectations of receiving anything in return.

2) The heart's only desire is that the object of one's love is happy and at peace. Their happiness means your happiness.

3) There is no hidden motive, no hint or trace of what might be in it for you, not even in the subconscious mind. If it results in a plaque, or award, or having one's name placed on a hospital or in an elevator, it's not unconditional. It is only observed by your heavenly Father looking on in secret.


Peace,
Jimmy C.
Hiya everyone :hibye: :cheekkiss: Does Jehovah love Satan? :read: Sister LOWlee :grouphug:

Lowlee Wrote:
Hiya everyone :hibye: :cheekkiss: Does Jehovah love Satan? :read: Sister LOWlee :grouphug:

I believe that Jehovah's heart grieves over what caused his son to become Satan and what must be done to protect the interests of those who love Him. Just like those parents who were told to bring their rebellious, unrepentant son to the city gates to be stoned. I doubt that anyone grieves more than the Father:crybaby:

Lowlee Wrote:
Hiya everyone :hibye: :cheekkiss: Does Jehovah love Satan? :read: Sister LOWlee :grouphug:


hiya, sis lowlee :hibye:

i'm reminded of that old yogi berra saying:

"it's not over 'til it's over." :thinking:

Hi Again,

I do actually know what you mean i ust may not be able to fully feel it for all. thou I my not have children I have "motherly" tendancys as a man.. I helped raise many children.

I find the paths that GOD leads me in I do the same with adults that come and go thru my doors. AS I find many children to be in a better place then many adults..

I have always wondered about "no limits" as I place limits on almost evrything. I place boundarys on how people are allowed to interact with me.
I do feel sorry or regret for their own stupidity. but who am I?

what you said here is where I am sorts driving at

"we might even have to take actions we grieve over but the love for the son or daughter is still there--"

IF we take action against them is that LOVE? Now do you see where I am heading?
I dare Say that many in this world today would say "you don't love me" IF we restric them in anyway..
I believe that is why many do not Follow our Fathers ways and or advice.
I think for a vast maority that LOVE without conditions means Love without consequence...

Would you agree or disagree?



edited to add
And one last thing.. how many would stand by and allow someone to harm their child.
If we do nothing our child will die. If we do something and it rsults in the loss of life then can we say we loved them? the unkown person?
Would taking their Life to save our own childs life be consistent with love?
See I am a bad MAN in my mind because I Love my Family and would do anything to protect them.

Totaldismay Wrote:
Hi Again,

I do actually know what you mean i ust may not be able to fully feel it for all. thou I my not have children I have "motherly" tendancys as a man.. I helped raise many children.

I find the paths that GOD leads me in I do the same with adults that come and go thru my doors. AS I find many children to be in a better place then many adults..

I have always wondered about "no limits" as I place limits on almost evrything. I place boundarys on how people are allowed to interact with me.
I do feel sorry or regret for their own stupidity. but who am I?

what you said here is where I am sorts driving at

"we might even have to take actions we grieve over but the love for the son or daughter is still there--"

IF we take action against them is that LOVE? Now do you see where I am heading?
I dare Say that many in this world today would say "you don't love me" IF we restric them in anyway..
I believe that is why many do not Follow our Fathers ways and or advice.
I think for a vast maority that LOVE without conditions means Love without consequence...

Would you agree or disagree?


hi, frank :)

i know you and wolfie are having a conversation about this, but if you will permit me to jump in here for just a quick minute, i would offer this thought:

just because our unconditional love may not be perceived as such or understood by the party toward whom it is acting (or, any other observers, for that matter), doesn't mean it isn't there.

Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's