The Law of Love

Author: Matt Breckler

  • some examples of purported miraculous healings

    The Congregation for the Causes of Saints (now part of the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints) investigates and approves miracles used in the canonization (sainthood) process in the Catholic Church. These miracles are typically medically inexplicable healings attributed to the intercession of a candidate for sainthood.

    Here are some notable examples of miracles approved by the Congregation:

    🩺 1. Healing of Marie Simon-Pierre (Pope John Paul II’s cause)

    Year: 2005

    Condition: Advanced Parkinson’s disease

    Miracle: After praying for Pope John Paul II’s intercession shortly after his death, her symptoms disappeared overnight. Neurological tests confirmed the disease had inexplicably vanished.

    Significance: This healing was used for John Paul II’s beatification in 2011.

    🩺 2. Healing of Floribeth Mora Diaz (John Paul II’s canonization)

    Year: 2011

    Condition: Inoperable brain aneurysm

    Miracle: From Costa Rica, she prayed for John Paul II’s intercession on the day of his beatification. Her aneurysm disappeared without surgery.

    Significance: Approved as the miracle for John Paul II’s canonization in 2014.

    🩺 3. Healing of a newborn (Mother Teresa’s cause)

    Case: A tribal woman in India gave birth to a child with multiple brain abnormalities.

    Miracle: The child recovered suddenly after the family prayed to St. Teresa of Calcutta.

    Significance: Used for her canonization in 2016.

    🩺 4. Healing of a Brazilian man (Fulton Sheen’s cause)

    Year: 2010

    Condition: Stillborn baby, no heartbeat for 61 minutes

    Miracle: After prayers for the intercession of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, the baby revived suddenly without brain damage.

    Significance: Approved miracle for Sheen’s beatification (though it has since been delayed).

    🩺 5. Healing of a woman with tuberculosis (St. André Bessette)

    Year: Early 20th century

    Condition: Tuberculosis of the spine (Pott’s disease)

    Miracle: The woman claimed to have been healed instantly after praying to Brother André and touching a relic.

    Significance: One of the miracles used for his canonization in 2010.

    How the Vatican verifies miracles:

    Strict medical review by independent doctors

    No natural explanation must be possible

    Instant, complete, and lasting healing required

    Must be linked specifically to prayer for the intercession of the candidate

  • required threshold of faith for christians to be saved is not clear

    required threshhold of faith required for Christians to be saved is not clear, the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic.

    the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements.i’m sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of ‘sinner’s prayers’ that dont include those things?what or where exactly is the threshhold?if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise.what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren’t saved), substitutionary atonement v ‘christus victor’ etc etc.ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have ‘gut feelings’ but dont have firm answers. you’ll note a different answer pretty much every time.some say you have to admit you’re a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you’re a sinner, and that he’s a savior, but not that he’s God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary.some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory.and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come into play?so what’s the magical formula?

    while I can’t claim an objective answer to this, only God knows and God surely has a merciful approach to it. I do feel for practical purposes the best answer is that the threshold for true Christians is that we must rely on Jesus. That is central. All the bible verses seem to circle around this theme.

  • can god create a rock so big that he cannot lift it? he can do one or the other but not at the same time

    Can an Omnipotent God create a rock he cannot lift? it is said that If one answers yes to the question, then God is therefore not omnipotent because he cannot lift the rock, but if one answers no to the question, God is no longer omnipotent because he cannot create the rock.my position is that he can do one or the other, at different times, but he can’t do both at the same time. and, that he can’t do both at the same time doesn’t disprove God as omnipotent.

    to answer this, we need to ask another question. what happens when an immovable rock meets the unstoppable force of God?the issue– the paradox arises because it rests on two premises- that there exist such things as immovable rocks and unstoppable forces – which cannot both be true at once. If there exists an unstoppable force, it follows logically that there cannot be any such thing as an immovable rock, and vice versa.so the key then is “at once”. to ask if God can create both scenarios at once is a logical impossibility. God cannot do the logically impossible.if God creates the immovable rock, he cannot be an unstoppable force. and if God acts as the unstoppable force, he cannot create an immovable rock. he must choose which scenario exists at any given time. and, in fact, the fact that he would be able to choose the scenario, highlights the underlying omnipotence of God to begin with.to highlight the time element. if God made a rock that could not be lifted for a week, then for a week he could not lift it. when we merely say God can make the rock, but then he can lift it, we are assuming that the time has elapsed such that God is able to then ‘switch gears’ and lift it. when we add a time element such as “a week” it highlights that there are in fact restrictions if God makes that rock.we have to suppose that God knows what he’s doing when he makes decisions like that to prevent lifting it for a week. and, this is a matter of consistency…. it is like dropping a ball or not. i can say i won’t drop a ball, and if i am consistent as i would imagine God is, then i won’t drop the ball. if he creates the rock, whether or not he can lift it, he probably won’t lift it for as long as he says he won’t. not that he couldn’t.

    i think at the end of the day you can say God can both make the rock and lift it, if your premise is right that God can be illogical. but that’s another debate. i’m assuming God must be logical. 

    it’s sort of like asking. “can the unlimited limit itself? if you answer yes, then it’s not truly unlimited, though if you answer no it’s still not unlimited”. i call that the ‘unlimited paradox’

  • unlimited paradox: can an unlimited thing then limit itself?

    if you answer that the entity can limit itself, then you are saying it’s not truly unlimited. yet, if you answer that the entity can’t limit itself, it’s still not unlimited. it’s a paradox.

    if unlimited entities exist, how do you reconcile this paradox?

    or, if you think about existence and the universe as we know it, we know it is all finite, so maybe that plus the paradox are indicators that unlimited things just don’t exist?

  • confederate statues shouldn’t be honored

    history.com and all the academic websites say the ciivil war was about slavery. hisotyr.com says if you asked people back then what the war was about, they’d say slavery. that means the only difference between germany erecting statues of hitler and the south raising confederates, is that one fought for genocide and the other fought for slavery. that’s also why it’s not like the statues of washington,… he just happened to have a slave, but he’s known for a lot of other good things. if the south had other decent reasons for the war then it would be like washington- it’d be like if the usa lost the revolutionary war yet kept statues of washington. but that isn’t the reality we are dealing with. people engage in revisionist thinking, and anachronistically say the war was about states’ rights looking back on it, but that’s not what the people or the leaders said was the reason for the war. 

    “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery ” the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its articles of war

    it should also be pointed out, that a plurality if not a majority of momuments were erected during jim crow and the civil rights movement. that means they were promoting suppresion of the black man with those monuments. it’s not possible to say even the original intention of the monuments have good intentions.

    even a confederate leader in his later years after the war denounced revisionist ideas that the war was about more than slavery…. (also in the following is an editorial about why we shouldn’t honor confederate monuments)

    “

    “”Whatever else I may forget,” the ex-slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass said in 1894, “I shall never forget the difference between those who fought for liberty and those who fought for slavery.” Douglass (who is doing an amazing job and is being recognized more and more) deplored an emerging national consensus that the Civil War had been fought over vague philosophical disagreements about federalism and states” rights, but not over the core issue of slavery. In this retelling, neither side was right or wrong, and both Confederate and Union soldiers were to be celebrated for their battlefield valor.

    Douglass was right to be concerned. Southerners may have lost the Civil War, but between the 1890s and 1920s they won the first great battle over its official memory. They fought that battle in popular literature, history books and college curricula, but also on hundreds of courthouse steps and city squares, where they erected monuments to Confederate veterans and martyrs. These statues reinforced the romance of reunion.

    Now, a century and a half after the Civil War, Americans are finally confronting the propriety of celebrating the lives of men who committed treason in the name of preserving slavery. That these statues even exist is unusual. When armies are defeated on their own soil”particularly when those armies fight to promote racist or genocidal policies”they usually don”t get to keep their symbols and material culture. As some commentators have noted, Germany in 1945 is a useful comparison. “Flags were torn down while defeated cities still burned, even as citizens crawling from the rubble were just realizing that the governments they represented had ended,” wrote a reporter for McClatchy. Most physical relics of the Nazi regime were banished from public view. In this sense, the example of Germany”s post-war de-Nazification may offer a way forward for the United States.

    Yet history tells a more complicated story. In its initial years, de-Nazification had only limited impact. It would take time, generational change and external events to make Germany what it is today”a vibrant democracy that is notably less permissive of racism, extremism and fascism than the United States. Tearing down the symbols of Nazi terror was a necessary first step”but it didn”t ensure overnight political or cultural transformation. It required a longer process of public reconciliation with history for Germans to acknowledge their shared responsibility for the legacy of Nazism.

    The vast majority of Americans have long agreed that the destruction of slavery was a just outcome of the Civil War. But in continuing to honor Confederate leaders and deny their crimes, we signal that the United States has not yet fully come to terms with its collective responsibility for the dual sins of slavery and Jim Crow.”

    the following is a politifact article that is responding to people who claimed the war was about more than slavery as “obvious if you research it”. so politfact did research it, and came to the same conclusion that it was was about slavery….
    http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/103590/3/#2870466

  • different golden rule standards in the bible

    are there different standards of the golden rule? or different standards for how to treat others, according to Jesus?

    Matthew 7

    “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

    Matthew 22 

    “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

    when i think of treating others as myself, i think of what is mine is theirs such as they can have everything i have. when i think of treating others as you’d have them do unto you, i think of ‘well i don’t expect people to give me everything of theirs so it shouldn’t be expected for me to give everything’. 

    these seem like different standards.

    of course, it’s possible to read one as if it’s the other, but which interpretation is best? i do know Jesus said to give away all that you own if you want to be perfect. i dont know if he was talking to just that person’s calling in life, or if it’s a standard for everyone, but it’s usually treated like a standard for everyone. so maybe ‘love as oneself’ is best? people tend to not take the ‘give it all away’ thing too seriously, and even if it’s serious, it’s temperered with the practical concern of being able to support oneself. 

  • chicken or egg came first? i argue the egg came first

    science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it?

    the lithmus test to define chicken should be that any ancester chicken that can successfully breed with a current chicken, is a chicken.

    so which came first? the egg. if you go back in time we will find the first closest relative chicken that can mate succesfully with a modern chicken. that first ancester chicken came in the form of an egg. it is impossible to know which chicken came first as we can’t for a practical matter mate all ancesters with all modern chickens, but in principle we know that there is an ‘earliest chicken’ and that it came in the form of an egg. 

  • penal substitution theory based on the bible is probably rooted in paganism

    penal substitution says that God needed an infinite method of having his wrath placated. the only method that is possible, the theory goes, is Jesus dying. his death means you don’t have to die as your sins are “covered”. 

    the problem with this idea is that it didn’t originate until a thousand years after Jesus and has little basis in the bible. during the early church, the language christians used is called “christus victor”. Jesus conquered sin and death on the cross, is the essence of the idea. i like to say love conquers death. anyone belonging to the brotherhood is also saved from death. so, penal substitution isn’t orthodox. 

    what about old testament sacrifices, were they to appease God’s wrath? nope. they were a means of saying “i dedicate what i have to you, and turn myself over to you”. here is a good quote that shows the true basis for old testament sacrifices and how it ties to Jesus’ sacrifice. 

    “In all of the sacrifices, the central theme is not appeasement, but representational consecration. That is, symbolically through the offering the worshiper says “this offering represents my giving to you my life”, or as you might hear in a love song “God I belong to you, here is my heart”. It is not a statement of placation (as if God needed to be bribed into loving us), but an act of devotion, entrusting oneself to God, giving your life into God’s hands. In the case of the thanksgiving and first fruits offerings it means that all that we have comes from God and so with these first fruits we acknowledge that it all belongs to God. The passover offering was about the birth of the people of Israel and marked the time of the exodus of God’s people out of bondage, so the passover offering was about committing and aligning oneself on God’s side against oppression. Finally along with all the other sacrifices the sacrifice of atonement for sin was saying “Here is my life, I want to live it for you Lord. I die to the sinful in me and give my life to you”.

    In the same way blood was sprinkled to dedicate the temple, and dedicate the law to God. This was the case with the Passover sacrifice which originated as the people marked their house door showing their allegiance with God, consecrating their house as belonging to the Lord. Thus Jesus when he connects his death with the Passover speaks of a “Covenant” being established by his blood “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Lk22:20). It was the sealing of a promise, like signing a contract in blood. We can see here that whether a sin offering, or a thanks offering, or a dedication that in every case there is the common theme of consecration – dedicating to God. This sense of consecration is conveyed in the Latin root of the word “sacrifice” which means “to make sacred” or “to consecrate”. We give ourselves, our lives, our need, our thanks, our allegiance to God vicariously through the ritual of sacrifice.

    There is here the aspect of identification with the animal – you bring a part of yourself to the altar, in many cases laying a hand on the animal’s head before it is slaughtered. Specifically in the case of the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement we can see also an aspect of transference as the scapegoat was sent off bearing the sin away (Lv 16:21-22). And as previously mentioned there is here a clear aspect of vicarious atonement specifically with the sin offerings – that animal that died was you. The consecration here meant that the sinner brought their broken life to the altar Yet in all of this the writers of the Old Testament are emphatic that the main object of sacrifice is not about a mechanical transaction detached from relationship, but the outward ritual effecting inner change, devotion, and repentance. As David says

    “Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean wash me, and I will be whiter than snow…Create in me a pure heart, O God…” (Ps 51:7,10)

    David’s prayer here is that the outward cleansing of the hyssop would go down and cleanse his inmost being. God, David says, is not interested in outward actions, but in the state of his heart. This is a relational exchange not a legal one.

    “You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it. You do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit. A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Ps 51:16-17).”

  • there probably wasn’t a literal world wide flood based on the bible

    just because the bible says so, and God can do anything?

    when miracles occur, i believe there is evidence for it. with the story of noah, it’s not just the lack of evidence, but evidence exists that actively discredits the story. 

    if the story of noah occurred within recent history or thousands of years, how are there so many cultures who look like they evolved over hundreds of thousands of years, when supposedly they were all wiped out recently?

    how did all the fresh water fish and life survive when all the water combined with the ocean?

    how did kangaroos and island animals get to the ark? 

    why isn’t there any fossils of the mass casualties of life on earth?

    why wasn’t there any imbreeding with only one of each animal?

    how did they fit so many animals on one boat?

    is it all just because the bible says it, and God can do anything, that we should take it as true? the new testament does talk about noah as if it was a literal story, so at least if you believe the bible is the word of God, you can’t just say the story was a metaphor. 

    i believe when miracles occur, there is evidence for them. it’s understandable when a christian doesn’t think much about these things and takes the story as true. but for those who have studied or should know better, it stands as contemptable the disdain for truth that those literalist christians have.

  • is the love of god in the bible unconditional?

    is it really conditionally unconditional love? which is really conditional love. 

    is it just unconditional if you are a christian? how far would that go? supposedly you can’t slip up if you are a christian, but then again if you started sinning seriously people would say you were never saved to begin with. so whether you look at this from catholic or protestant type thinking, there are things that can cause you to lose God’s favor. 

    even if it was unconditional as a christian, it’s still conditional on having the proper faith in Jesus. 

    is God’s love based on whether you are good or bad? 

    my personal stance is God loves unconditionally, but that the bible does not truly reflect that in an ideal way. i think you can salvage the bad depiction from the bible, by saying God loves us unconditinally, but that doesn’t man there aren’t consequences to our actions. 

    —-

    We’re asking a deeply important and nuanced question—one that sits at the intersection of theology, experience, and how we interpret the Bible. Let’s unpack this honestly and clearly.

    ❖ 1. Is God’s love unconditional according to the Bible?

    Short answer: Yes—and no, depending on what you mean by “love.”

    • Yes, in essence: Many verses affirm that God’s love is steadfast, enduring, and not based on merit.
      “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” — Romans 5:8
      “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; his mercies never come to an end.” — Lamentations 3:22
      These point to an initiating, unearned love—God loves even when we’re not lovable.
    • No, if love means relational favor, blessing, or salvation: There are clear conditions attached to aspects of God’s relationship with people:
      “If you love me, keep my commandments.” — John 14:15
      “Remain in my love… If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love.” — John 15:9-10

    So: God’s love is offered unconditionally, but relationship, intimacy, and communion with Him are conditional.

    ❖ 2. Is it “conditionally unconditional”?

    That’s a sharp phrase, and it captures the tension in Christian theology.

    • Many Protestants say God’s love is unconditional, but access to its benefits (like salvation) is conditioned on faith alone.
      • But then, if someone “falls away,” it’s said they never had true faith.
      • This makes it seem like a love offered with open arms—until you fail the entrance exam.
    • Catholics and Orthodox also speak of God’s love being unconditional.
      • But salvation is synergistic—you must respond, cooperate, stay in grace.
      • Mortal sin, unrepentance, or rejecting grace can sever the relationship.

    So yes—there’s a conceptual dissonance: we’re told the love is unconditional, but much of the experience and consequence of it is filtered through conditions.

    ❖ 3. Is God’s love only for Christians?

    • The Bible shows God loves the whole world (John 3:16), and Jesus speaks of loving enemies, implying that reflects God’s nature (Matthew 5:44–48).
    • But again, the full relationship is only experienced in Christ, according to the New Testament.

    So the offer is universal, but participation is particular.

    ❖ 4. Is God’s love based on behavior?

    • If by “love” we mean God’s core posture toward humanity, then no—it’s not based on being good.
      • Jesus came for sinners, not the righteous (Mark 2:17).
    • If by “love” we mean favor, blessing, presence, or relationship, then yes, our actions matter.

    This is key:

    God doesn’t stop loving someone who sins. But sin can estrange us from the experience and fruit of that love.

    ❖ 5. Your view: Unconditional love with consequences

    Your take is both emotionally and theologically coherent:

    “God loves us unconditionally, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to our actions.”

    That aligns with a parent-child analogy:

    • A parent may love their child fiercely and unconditionally,
    • Yet discipline them, grieve their choices, or allow them to suffer natural consequences.

    The Bible, unfortunately, doesn’t always clearly distinguish between God’s love, favor, wrath, and justice. It often blends them together. That’s why some depictions of God in Scripture seem contradictory or even unloving.

    ❖ Summary

    Is God’s love unconditional?

    At its root, yes—but not all its expressions are.

    Is it “conditionally unconditional”?

    That phrase accurately captures the tension in much Christian theology.

    Is it only for Christians?

    No—but full communion with it is conditioned on faith, per Christian doctrine.

    Is it based on being good or bad?

    No for God’s core love; yes for relational depth, blessing, and consequence.

    Is your view biblical?

    It’s supported by the best of biblical theology, but not always by the surface narrative of Scripture