The Law of Love

Tag: bible

  • Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs for their Faith?

    Did the Apostles Really Die as Martyrs for their Faith?

    Sean McDowell — November 04, 2013

    “Even though they were crucified, stoned, stabbed, dragged, skinned and burned, every last apostle of Jesus proclaimed his resurrection until his dying breath, refusing to recant under pressure from the authorities. Therefore, their testimony is trustworthy and the resurrection is true.”

    If you have followed popular–level arguments for the resurrection (or ever heard a sermon on the apostles), you’ve likely heard this argument. Growing up I heard it regularly and found it quite convincing. After all, why would the apostles of Jesus have died for their faith if it weren’t true?

    Yet the question was always in the back of my mind — how do we really know they died as martyrs? For the past couple years I have been researching this question as part of my doctoral dissertation. And what I have found is fascinating!

    While we can have more confidence in the martyrdoms of apostles such as Peter, Paul and James the brother of John (and probably Thomas and Andrew), there is much less evidence for many of the others (such as Matthias and James, son of Alphaeus). This evidence is late and filled with legendary accretion. This may come as a disappointment to some, but for the sake of the resurrection argument, it is not critical that we demonstrate that all of them died as martyrs. What is critical is their willingness to suffer for their faith and the lack of a contrary story that any of them recanted.

    Historian Michael Licona captures the key point in his book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach: “After Jesus’ death, the disciples endured persecution, and a number of them experienced martyrdom. The strength of their conviction indicates that they were not just claiming Jesus had appeared to them after rising from the dead. They really believed it. They willingly endangered themselves by publicly proclaiming the risen Christ.”

    Here are the key facts:First, the apostles were eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus. When a replacement was chosen for Judas, one necessary criterion was that the person had seen the risen Lord (Acts 1:21–22). Paul and James the brother of Jesus were also eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:3–8). Their convictions were not based on secondhand testimony, but from the belief that they had seen the resurrected Christ with their own eyes. This makes the disciples’ willingness to die different from Muslim martyrs, who certainly sincerely believe in Islam, but base their belief on secondhand testimony.Second, early Christians were persecuted for their faith. John the Baptist was imprisoned and beheaded (Matt. 14:1–11). Jesus was crucified. Stephen was stoned to death after his witness before the Sanhedrin (Acts 6–8). And Herod Agrippa killed James the brother of John (Acts 12:12), which led to the departure of the rest of the Twelve from Jerusalem. The first statewide persecution of Christians was under Nero (AD 64), as reported by Tacitus (Annals 15.44:2–5) and Suetonius (Nero 16.2). Although persecution was sporadic and local, from this point forward Christians could be arrested and killed for proclaiming the name of Jesus. And many of them were.Third, the apostles were willing to suffer for their faith. This is certainly true of Paul, who recounts the suffering he endured, which included being whipped, beaten, stoned, shipwrecked, near starvation and in danger from various people and places (2 Cor. 6:4–9). Speaking for the apostles, after being threatened by the religious leaders, Peter and John say, “For we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20). The apostles are then thrown in prison, beaten for their faith, but they continued to preach and teach the gospel (Acts 5:17–42).

    While the evidence of martyrdom is far better for some of the apostles than others, the evidence for Peter is particularly strong. The earliest evidence is found in John 21:18–19, which was written about 30 years after Peter’s death. Bart Ehrman, in his book Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend, agrees that Peter is being told he will die as a martyr. Other evidence for Peter’s martyrdom can be found in early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian and more. The early, consistent and unanimous testimony is that Peter died as a martyr.

    This does not prove that the resurrection is true. But it shows the depth of the apostles’ convictions. They were not liars. They truly believed Jesus rose from the grave and they were willing to give their lives for it.

    Sean McDowell (’98, M.A. ’03) is a popular author and speaker, and the newest faculty member in Biola’s M.A. program in Christian apologetics

  • unteachable lessons: christian spirituality and the wisdom of the afterlife cannot always be taught with words – often it must be experienced through living.

    Often words get in the way.

    This captures something essential about the paradox of spiritual formation—how the most transformative lessons aren’t taught in a classroom or written in a manual but are lived into, often through tension, mystery, and what feels like failure or unknowing.

    Unteachable Lessons

    Some lessons cannot be taught—they can only be lived. This is the paradox at the heart of Christian spirituality, the journey of faith, and the wisdom echoed in near-death experiences (NDEs). Words can point to truth, but they are only fingers pointing at the moon. They are not the moon.

    Like an artist who cannot explain their work except through the work itself, spiritual truth often eludes explanation. You cannot know what it feels like to ride a bike until you’ve ridden it. In the same way, you cannot know the depths of compassion, surrender, or divine presence simply by reading about them.

    Near-death experiences affirm this: this life is a school, not of information, but of transformation. In the most general sense, this life is about ‘experience’ – we are the universe experiencing and discovering itself, and we are co-creators in the canvass of the universe. It’s also a crash course in learning through the illusion of separation, where the very fabric of life’s complication and chaos becomes the context for spiritual growth. In this world, we face what cannot be planned. We are given the opportunity not just to hear about love or trust, but to be broken open by them. We cant just be taught this stuff in the afterlife, we learn by experiencing… that’s why the opportunity to live this life is so important, and it’s why reports of souls being keen to live this life is so important to them, it’s a crash course in spiritual development.

    When we possess knowledge or wisdom in a more spiritually developed sense, all we can do as Christians is plant a seed in others. As is often mentioned in christian spirituality. Such as spreading the gospel, but also even extending to all aspects of spiritual life.

    As was taught in the book “unteachable lessons”, the author explains, ”i wish i could explain it. I wish i could analyze the process and chart the step by step journey from narcissism to compassion. But it isn’t anything that neat and tidy, and there’s no making it tidy, either” “{…} there’s no building this down to ‘seven steps to learn compassion’ or ‘action plans for a post selfish life’. Some lessons are simply unteachable lessons. “I’ve come to see that unteachable lessons are available to just about all of us- and i suspect that the more we need these unteachable lessons, the more likely they are to show up in our lives. Maybe they don’t always entail suffering and loss, but I suspect they always involve some sort of deep interior transformation that is messy and just can’t be put into words.

    These are the lessons taught to  us in silence, and the curriculum is life, the syllabus is nothing more than our willingness to be present.”

    These are truths learned not by the mind alone, but by the soul—truths carved in silence, written in the ink of lived experience.

  • the orthodox define righteousness before God in the best theological terms – but Protestant and Catholic versions are reasonable too

    Catholic Justification doesn’t get a fair critique. All they essentially say is that to the extent that a person cooperates with God’s unmerited grace, they are justified and good. I think a better standard is that nothing we can do makes us right with God other than unmerited grace and a faith that naturally results in good works. As luther said, we are saved by faith alone but faith is never alone. A completely free will relationship based on faith, no coersion, like the love between a parent and child or husband and wife. But catholics just are taking the stance that they are just calling a spade a spade, and thats not unreasonable. I like the orthodox view of theosis, cause it doesnt involve legal technicalities like legal atonement, which the bible says all legal requirements were nailed to the cross and its more like we have a prodigal parent child relationship with God. Theosis is like the protestant view that faith naturally results in good works without defining how it functions in salvation. Jesus doesnt in fact define the calculous other than to say good works are required and that those who are greater blessed by god are held a higher standard, ‘to whom much is given much is expected’

    Im tying a very thoughtful and balanced critique here—one that respects the nuances in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox soteriologies without flattening them into caricatures.

    Let’s unpack the core of what you’re saying:

    1. Catholic View of Justification: Cooperation with GraceYou’re right: the Catholic Church teaches that justification begins with God’s unmerited grace. The individual cooperates with that grace—not to earn salvation, but to freely respond to it. This isn’t necessarily a “works-based” system in the Pelagian sense, but it does emphasize that salvation is a process (initial justification → sanctification → final justification).

    Your observation that “they’re just calling a spade a spade” hits the mark. Catholics often argue that their view reflects the lived reality of transformation—they simply name what happens when people grow in grace: their cooperation matters. It’s not what saves them, but it is part of the journey.

    But you also rightly note that this language can lead to confusion. To Protestants, especially those in the Reformation tradition, it can sound like justification is partly earned—even though Catholic doctrine denies that explicitly.

    2. Protestant Insight: Faith That WorksThe Protestant emphasis—especially Luther’s statement that “faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never alone”—brings a needed clarity. You point out that:“Nothing we can do makes us right with God other than unmerited grace and a faith that naturally results in good works.”

    This is a deep truth, and Protestantism excels at safeguarding the freedom and intimacy of a relationship with God that isn’t based on merit or fear. That’s the power of your analogy of the parent-child or spousal relationship: it’s love freely given and freely received.This avoids two dangers:

    Legalism (I obey, therefore I’m accepted)

    License (I’m accepted, therefore obedience doesn’t matter)

    Instead, it offers:“I’m accepted by grace, therefore I obey out of love.”

    3. Orthodox Theosis: Relational Transformation

    Your love for the Orthodox model of theosis (becoming one with God through participation in divine life) fits beautifully here. As you say, this view isn’t legal—it’s ontological and relational. Salvation is not a courtroom scene but a hospital or a family. We are not just declared righteous, we become righteous by grace.“God became man so that man might become god” (St. Athanasius)You’re right that Orthodoxy leaves the mechanism somewhat mysterious—focusing more on the process of healing and communion than on defining forensic or causal steps. It resembles Protestant trust in the fruitfulness of real faith, without insisting on an exact metaphysical formula.

    4. Jesus and the Standard: Mercy and Responsibility

    You’re tapping into something vital when you say:“Jesus doesn’t define the calculus, other than to say good works are required…”

    Indeed, in the Gospels, especially in the parables and the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speaks relationally, not systematically. The judgment scenes (e.g., Matthew 25) focus on love for the least of these. Your mention of “to whom much is given, much is expected” (Luke 12:48) is a prime example: salvation is not a math equation but a heart-relationship in motion, shaped by how we respond to what we’ve received.

    To Summarize Your Perspective:You appreciate the Catholic honesty about the role of human cooperation but find it sometimes too technical. You resonate with the Protestant clarity that faith is the root, and works the fruit—not a formula, but a natural result of love. You value the Orthodox mystery of transformation (theosis) that avoids both legalism and reductionism. And you see Jesus’ own teachings as centered on relationship, mercy, and responsibility—not abstract doctrines of merit

  • Meaning, Purpose, and Happiness in Life: A Christian and NDE Perspective

    Meaning, Purpose, and Happiness in Life: A Christian and NDE Perspective

    As Christians, we believe the meaning of life is to love, and the purpose of life is to serve. These are not just theological concepts, but practical truths that shape how we live each day.

    From the broader lens of Near-Death Experience (NDE) philosophy, the purpose of life is understood as to experience. Many who have had NDEs describe this world as a place where souls grow by engaging with the illusion of separation—from God, from one another, and from the unity of all things. In this framework, we are seen as the universe becoming conscious of itself, each of us participating in a grand unfolding.

    We are invited to be co-creators with God, approaching Him freely through faith. This journey is not one of coercion; God does not force belief. Instead, He gently draws us through the beauty and mystery woven into our lives. Creation itself whispers of the divine, and faith becomes our willing response to that call.

    Jesus taught that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others (Matthew 22:37–39). Traditional Christian theology affirms that we are created to love God in this life and to be united with Him in eternal joy. But Jesus’ teachings also reveal that this isn’t just a future hope—it’s a present way of life. His call to love and serve isn’t only a command; it’s an invitation to participate in the divine pattern of being.

    So we can say with confidence: the meaning of life is to love God, and the purpose of life is to serve others.

    And yet, many people—Christian and non-Christian alike—struggle to find purpose. In fact, studies suggest that about 85% of people report feeling aimless or unclear about their deeper meaning in life. Many fall into a repetitive cycle: work, downtime, repeat—constantly chasing the next high, the next distraction, the next pleasure, while avoiding discomfort and struggle.

    This cycle is often described as the hedonic treadmill—a pattern where temporary pleasures give brief satisfaction, but never lasting fulfillment. Even many secular philosophers agree that our true purpose goes beyond fleeting happiness; it lies in maximizing the well-being of others. Christians echo this insight, though we understand it in terms of love, sacrifice, and spiritual discipline.

    Modern culture tends to define happiness in egocentric terms—what makes me feel good in the moment. But true happiness, both from a Christian and NDE-informed perspective, is altruistic. It’s found in self-giving love, in meaningful service, and in the quiet joy of aligning ourselves with something greater than our own desires.

    In the end, happiness is not the absence of struggle, but the presence of purpose. And for those who follow Christ, that purpose is clear: to love deeply and to serve faithfully.


    These ideas offer a deep reflection that can be beautifully unpacked using NDE philosophy, Christian spirituality, and the Bible. Each reinforces a vision of life’s meaning as rooted not in self-centered pleasure, but in self-giving love and service. Here’s a breakdown:

    🔹 1. NDE Philosophy: From Separation to Unity Through Love and Experience

    Many who experience Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) report the following insights:

    ❖ Life is about love and growth through experience.

    NDErs often say, “We are here to learn how to love.” Life is a classroom for the soul—where every interaction is an opportunity to choose compassion, forgiveness, and truth.

    “Our purpose in life according to NDE philosophy is to experience. We are the universe experiencing itself. This life involves the illusion of separation, from the unity of the whole.”

    This reflects what many NDE survivors report: that on the other side, all is one. Here, in physical life, we feel separate so we can freely choose love and awaken to our shared divinity.

    “We are called to be co-creators with God…”

    Many NDErs affirm that we participate with God in shaping reality. Creation is not just past tense—it’s ongoing, and we are invited into the creative dance of love, beauty, and goodness.

    🔹 2. Christian Spirituality: Love and Service as the Core

    The passage says:

    “The meaning of life is to love God and the purpose of life is to serve others.”

    This is the very heartbeat of Jesus’ teachings:

    📖 Great Commandment

    “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
    — Matthew 22:37–39

    These are not just commands—they are an invitation into a new way of being. A way of life. A calling.

    📖 Jesus as Servant

    “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
    — Matthew 20:28

    Jesus models the spiritual principle echoed in both NDE and Christian teachings: love = service.

    🔹 3. Faith Without Coercion: Mystery and Freedom

    “When we create and approach him through faith, we are not being forced to accept a truth. There is no coercion—only encouragement from the mysteries that we see.”

    This is key. God doesn’t manipulate belief. He invites relationship. He leaves space for mystery, wonder, and personal freedom.

    📖 Romans 1:20

    “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities… have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

    Creation and conscience draw us toward the Creator—not through force, but through awe, beauty, and love.

    This theme also resonates with many NDErs, who describe being shown their life review with total love—not judgmentally, but as a chance to learn, awaken, and grow.

    🔹 4. The Hedonic Treadmill vs. Altruistic Joy

    “Most people struggle with purpose… chasing the next high, the next pleasure… stuck on the hedonic treadmill.”

    This criticism of modern life mirrors both spiritual traditions and NDE insights. Pleasure isn’t wrong—but when it becomes the goal, it leads to emptiness.

    📖 Ecclesiastes 2:10-11

    “I denied myself nothing my eyes desired… Yet when I surveyed all… everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind.”

    Solomon tried it all—and concluded that reverence and love of God was the only lasting meaning (Eccl. 12:13).

    “True happiness is altruistic.”

    This conclusion is echoed in:

    📖 Acts 20:35

    “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

    And in modern psychology, where studies repeatedly show that service, kindness, and meaning bring more lasting happiness than wealth or pleasure.

    🔹 5. Christian Purpose: A Clear Call in a Confused World

    “For Christians, purpose should be easy.”

    This is both an encouragement and a challenge. In a world where 85% of people say they struggle to find meaning, Christians are given a clear map:

    • Love God with everything.
    • Serve others as if they were Christ.
    • Grow in grace as co-creators in the Kingdom.

    This isn’t simplistic—it’s profound. Every person is a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19), and every moment is a chance to embody love.

    🔹 Final Synthesis

    You’ve captured a profound truth, deeply aligned with both NDE experiences and the gospel:

    • Life is not about escaping suffering, but transforming it through love.
    • Faith is not coercion, but response to mystery.
    • Purpose isn’t hidden—it’s lived out in every act of love and service.

    📖 Micah 6:8

    “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

    That is meaning.
    That is purpose.
    That is both the way and the destination.

  • is love inherently self sacrificial in NDEs and Christianity? And is it more about ‘being’ or ‘doing’?

    That it strives towards altruism maybe even?This doesn’t seem like it should be controversial, but I know nde philosophy can subvert conventional philosophy and maybe you would say something like love ‘just is’ and not put qualifiers on it.I know one point that I think helps explain meaning and purpose on life, is some folks focus more on ‘being’ and some on ‘doing’. A purpose to be, versus to do. I would wanna say doing is loving and that’s sacrificial but being is just existing and something like being an artist instead of a saint.My bias is towards Christianity too, cause they say love embraces suffering while Buddhism avoids suffering. But even with this, Buddhism focuses on being even if Christianity focuses on doing

    This reflection goes deep into the tension between *being* and *doing*, *suffering* and *transcendence*, *love as action* versus *love as essence*. And you’re right: NDE (near-death experience) philosophy, especially when compared to traditional theology or philosophy, tends to dissolve hard categories. It often leaves us with paradoxes, not propositions.

    Let’s unpack this through a few lenses:—### ❖ **Love: Does It Strive Toward Altruism?**

    You’re right to question whether love *“just is”* or whether it must strive, do, or sacrifice to be real. Many NDE accounts describe love as **the fundamental fabric of existence**—not just something we do, but what we *are made of*. So in that sense:

    * **Being = love** (ontological reality).

    * **Doing = love in motion** (ethical or relational expression).

    But here’s the trick: in many NDEs, even **”being” love** results in radical compassion and service. It’s as though once people wake up to what they really are, they *can’t help but act in love*. So the doing flows out of the being, naturally. It’s not coerced.

    —### ❖ **Christianity vs. Buddhism: Action or Detachment?**

    You’re not alone in feeling Christianity emphasizes **doing/loving through suffering**, while Buddhism emphasizes **being/non-attachment to avoid suffering**.

    **Christianity** says:

    * Love suffers with others (e.g., *”Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends”* – John 15:13).

    * Purpose often involves *sacrifice, vocation, calling*.

    * Even God *does* love (incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection).

    **Buddhism** says:

    * Love is **metta** (loving-kindness), but rooted in *equanimity*, *impermanence*, *non-clinging*.

    * Purpose is to wake up to being—not to fix the world, but to *see clearly*.

    * Suffering arises from attachment, so avoid clinging—even to outcomes of love.

    Yet, many **Bodhisattvas** in Mahayana Buddhism *do suffer* for others, and choose to return again and again to help. So even Buddhism has its *doing in being*.

    —### ❖ **Being an Artist vs. Being a Saint**

    You said:> “Being is just existing and something like being an artist instead of a saint.”That’s a fascinating contrast. And maybe it’s not either/or.* The **artist** reveals beauty, truth, or the divine through *presence, perception, and expression*.* The **saint** sacrifices, loves, and heals through *compassion, courage, and discipline*.

    But the best saints are artists of the soul, and the best artists are saints of attention. In other words, true purpose might blend both: contemplative **being** that overflows into transformative **doing**.

    —### ❖ **Back to NDEs: Mission as Love**Many NDErs return saying:

    *“The purpose of life is to love.”*That love may take the form of a job, caregiving, writing poetry, cleaning houses, praying for the world, or quietly being a peaceful presence in a chaotic place. Sometimes, *doing nothing* in the worldly sense, but being *deeply present*—that *is* the mission.

    —### ✦ Summary Reflection

    You’re onto something with the contrast between “being” and “doing,” but perhaps they aren’t separate poles.> “Being is the root. Doing is the fruit.”And when love is real, it doesn’t stay still. It doesn’t need to strive in a burdensome way, but it does naturally move outward. Whether through the path of the saint or the artist, love ultimately expresses itself—not out of duty, but because that’s what it *is*.

    Let’s take the theme—**being vs. doing, love as essence vs. action, and how this ties to meaning and purpose**—and walk through it using both **Scripture** and **philosophy**.

    —

    ## 🕊️ **SCRIPTURE: BEING & DOING IN LOVE**

    ### 1. **Love as Essence (Being)**

    > “God is love.” – *1 John 4:8*

    This isn’t saying God *has* love or *does* love, but that **God’s very being is love**. Love is ontological here—foundational to existence. This points to “being.”

    And we, made in God’s image, share that nature:

    > “In Him we live and move and have our being.” – *Acts 17:28*

    This suggests that our truest identity is not in action or status, but in *union with God’s loving essence*.

    —

    ### 2. **Love as Action (Doing)**

    > “Let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.” – *1 John 3:18*

    And:

    > “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” – *James 2:17*

    Here love (and even belief) *must express itself*. It must be lived. Jesus didn’t just preach; He *healed, suffered, wept, died*. Action is not just a product—it’s an inseparable part of love.

    —

    ### 3. **Jesus: The Fusion of Being and Doing**

    Jesus repeatedly *withdrew to lonely places* to pray and be with the Father (being), but then *returned to crowds*, feeding, healing, teaching (doing).

    The Transfiguration (Matthew 17) is a striking moment of **pure being**—glory, stillness—but it’s followed immediately by a return to a broken world. The message seems to be: *we go up the mountain to be, we come down to serve.*

    —

    ## 🧠 **PHILOSOPHY: BEING VS DOING**

    ### 1. **Aristotle: The Telos of a Thing**

    Aristotle said everything has a *telos* (purpose), and the telos of humans is **eudaimonia**—flourishing through *virtuous activity of the soul*. It’s a union of being and doing.

    * You flourish not just by existing, but by *doing what you were made for.*

    * But this “doing” is tied to your nature (*being*)—you don’t force it, you fulfill it.

    —

    ### 2. **Existentialists: You Create Meaning by Doing**

    Sartre: “Existence precedes essence.”

    This view flips things: you aren’t born with a predefined essence; you make yourself through your actions. Your *doing* shapes your *being*.

    Christian critique: While empowering, this can neglect grace and the gift of being. In Scripture, you’re not just what you make—you’re *already loved*.

    —

    ### 3. **Mystics and Contemplatives (Christian + Buddhist)**

    Christian mystics like **Meister Eckhart** or **St. John of the Cross** emphasize union with God in silence, stillness, surrender—being.

    Buddhists similarly teach **non-doing**, awakening to the present moment.

    Yet both traditions birth compassionate action:

    > “The soul that is united with God must do His works.” – *Teresa of Avila*

    This mirrors the NDE theme: **being overflows into loving action**, not out of pressure, but because love wants to love.

    —

    ## 🧩 **SO WHAT IS PURPOSE? TO BE OR TO DO?**

    It may not be either/or. Here’s a synthesis:

    | Aspect | Being | Doing |

    | ————— | ———————————- | ——————————– |

    | **Root** | Identity in God | Expression of love |

    | **Mode** | Presence, stillness, contemplation | Service, sacrifice, creativity |

    | **Trap** | Passive detachment | Burnout or pride |

    | **Integration** | Union with love itself | Embodying that love in the world |

    > “Abide in me… and you will bear much fruit.” – *John 15:5*

    We **abide** (being), then we **bear fruit** (doing). If we reverse it, we risk striving without soul.

    —

    ## 🔔 Final Reflection

    If your soul leans toward *doing as sacrificial love* (Christian view), and wrestles with *being as passive or self-indulgent*, consider this:

    > “The world doesn’t need more people who are busy. It needs people who are fully alive.”

    > – *Howard Thurman (Christian mystic)*

    To love well is to live deeply. And to live deeply, you must root yourself in being. The best doing flows from that.

    Here’s a **spiritual-philosophical framework** that draws from **Scripture**, **NDEs**, **Christian theology**, and **philosophy**, especially around the core polarity of **being vs. doing**.

    —## 🌿 The “Love as Being and Doing” Framework### 🧱

    **1. Ontology: What Is Love?****Key Question:** Is love something you do or something you *are*?| Perspective | Description | Representative Voices || ———– | ——————————————————————————————————– | —————————————————– || **Being** | Love is the foundational reality of existence. You are made in God’s image—love is your truest identity. | 1 John 4:8, Acts 17:28, Meister Eckhart, NDEs ||

    **Doing** | Love is defined through sacrifice, action, and service. If not expressed, it’s not truly love. | James 2:17, John 15:13, Teresa of Calcutta, Aristotle |>

    **Tension:** If you only “are” love but never *act* on it, is it still love?

    —### 🌀 **2. Purpose: To Be or To Do?****Key Question:** What is the meaning of life—existence or mission?| Purpose Type | Description | Strengths | Risks || —————– | —————————————————————————- | —————————— | ———————— || **Being-Purpose** | You are here to experience, awaken, and radiate God’s love through presence. | Peace, authenticity, inner joy | Passivity, disengagement ||

    **Doing-Purpose** | You are here to serve, heal, sacrifice, or accomplish a mission of love.

    | Impact, virtue, legacy | Burnout, ego attachment |>

    NDEs often say: *“You are sent back to love”*—but how that love manifests differs by soul.

    —### 🪞 **3. Identity: Who Am I in Love?****Key Question:** Is my worth rooted in *what I do* or *who I am*?

    * **Christian View:** You are *beloved before you perform*. The baptism of Jesus happened *before* His ministry: > “This is my beloved Son…” – *Matthew 3:17**

    **Existential View:** You create meaning through action. > “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” – *Sartre**

    **Integrated View:** You are **loved as you are**, and this compels you to love others.> “We love because He first loved us.” – *1 John 4:19*

    —### 🛤️ **4. Flow of Love: From Being to Doing**

    **Model:****Abide → Transform → Act**| Stage | Meaning | Scriptural Echo || ————- | ——————————————– | ———————— ||

    **Abide** | Dwell in God’s presence, stillness, truth | John 15:5 || **Transform** | Let love reshape your heart and ego | Romans 12:2 ||

    **Act** | Love through sacrifice, creativity, vocation | Micah 6:8, Matthew 25:40 |This mirrors **Jesus’ life**: 30 years of hidden *being*, 3 years of *doing*, eternal *being* again.

    —### 🎨 **5. Archetypes: Artist vs. Saint**

    These are not opposites but facets of vocation.| Archetype | Core Purpose | Strength | Shadow || ————– | —————————————————————- | ———————– | ———————– ||

    **The Artist** | To reveal truth, beauty, mystery through presence and expression | Intuition, authenticity | Narcissism, detachment ||

    **The Saint** | To serve, suffer, and embody divine love in practical ways | Compassion, courage | Burnout, savior complex |**Ideal integration:*

    **The saint with the artist’s soul.**The artist with the saint’s heart.*

    —### 🧭 **6. Application Questions for Reflection*

    *Use these in journaling or writing:* Am I more comfortable **being** or **doing** right now? Why?* Do I believe I’m **loved for who I am**, not just what I offer?* Where is my doing not rooted in being?* Where is my being becoming passive or disconnected from love-in-action?* What would it look like for me to love today—from a place of truth and rest?

    —### 🕊️ Final Synthesis>

    **Being is the root. Doing is the fruit. Love is the life-force that flows through both.

    **This framework lets you:

    * Embrace your NDE-inspired intuition that love is *both the goal and the path*.

    * Integrate Christian theology with broader spiritual insights.

    * Avoid the traps of performance-based worth or detached passivity.

    * Write or live from a soul-level coherence: *to be is to love; to love is to live.*

  • The idea of developing “Christian spirituality” is essential to the inner lives of Christians – and shouldn’t be seen as “New agey” and taboo

    Spirituality that includes psychology like forming healthy relationships by avoiding toxic behaviors and setting boundaries and transcending the ego isn’t often talked about by Christianity but those forms of Spirituality are essential to develop when it comes to healthy christian relationships and christian spirituality in general. In fact the idea of christian spirituality is often seen as taboo by more fundamentalist and overly religious Christians

    This is touching on a deep and necessary critique that many thoughtful Christians—especially those engaged in psychology, pastoral care, or spiritual direction—are starting to voice more clearly.

    ### 1. **Neglect of the Inner Life in Some Christian Circles

    **Many forms of contemporary Christianity, particularly in more fundamentalist or dogmatic expressions, focus heavily on *beliefs, behaviors, and boundaries*—what to think, how to act, and what to avoid. While doctrine and moral guidance have their place, this framework often neglects:

    * **Emotional maturity***

    **Healthy relational patterns***

    **The role of trauma, attachment, or personality formation***

    **The transformation of the ego (not just its repression)

    **As a result, spiritual growth can become performative or stunted. People “act saved” but remain emotionally immature, reactive, codependent, or enmeshed in toxic relational patterns—something the early Church Fathers would have found deeply problematic.—

    ### 2. **The Need for Integration: Psychology + Christian Spirituality **Healthy Christian spirituality *should* include:

    * **Setting boundaries** (Jesus did this repeatedly—leaving crowds, rebuking Peter, confronting religious leaders)

    * **Recognizing and healing toxic behaviors** (especially those masked as “holiness”)*

    **Understanding ego** (the false self vs. true self—echoed in figures like St. Augustine, Thomas Merton, and Richard Rohr)*

    **Fostering secure, loving relationships** (as fruits of the Spirit and signs of sanctification)

    These are *not* secular distractions from faith; they are often *precisely* how grace works in real life.—

    ### 3. **Resistance from Fundamentalism**

    In many fundamentalist groups, this kind of talk is rejected or seen as:

    * “New Agey”

    * “Psychologizing the Gospel”

    * “Too focused on the self”

    But ironically, Jesus himself emphasized *heart transformation*, not just outward obedience. And Paul frequently wrote about renewing the mind, dying to the flesh (false ego), and growing into maturity in Christ.—

    ### 4. **The Taboo Around ‘Spirituality’**You’re also right that even the term **”Christian spirituality”** can feel taboo. It’s often associated with mysticism or contemplative traditions that more rigid churches find suspicious. But Christian spirituality is simply: *A lived relationship with God that integrates the whole person—heart, mind, body, and soul—into the likeness of Christ.*—

    ### 5. **A Better Vision: Wholeness and Holiness Together**You’re proposing a much-needed vision of **holistic discipleship**—where psychological health, emotional intelligence, and ego-transcendence are *not in conflict with* faith but part of how the Spirit transforms us. In other words:

    * Good boundaries ≠ selfishness

    * Inner healing ≠ naval-gazing

    * Emotional honesty ≠ spiritual weakness

    This is a kind of Christianity deeply rooted in love, truth, and actual transformation—not just belief statements or rule-following.

    —–

    ### **Reflection: The Spiritual Necessity of Emotional Maturity**

    For much of my life, I understood Christian spirituality in terms of beliefs, obedience, and outward morality. I thought being “spiritual” meant praying more, reading more Scripture, and avoiding sin. But something was missing. I noticed that many devout Christians—myself included—still struggled with broken relationships, defensiveness, manipulation, or burnout. There was faith, but little transformation.What I’ve come to see is that spirituality divorced from psychology is often shallow. Faith without emotional health creates people who might say the right things about God, but live out distorted versions of love—codependent, controlling, avoidant, or repressed. Jesus didn’t just come to correct our theology. He came to heal the heart, to make us whole. He modeled boundaries when he walked away from crowds or confronted manipulation. He saw through false piety. He invited people into an inner revolution—a death of the false self, and a resurrection into something more spacious, humble, and free.

    Yet, in many corners of Christianity, the language of boundaries, ego transcendence, or emotional health is treated with suspicion—as if it dilutes the Gospel. But the truth is, we can’t love our neighbor well if we don’t know where we end and they begin. We can’t embody grace if we’re controlled by fear, resentment, or unresolved wounds. We can’t be vessels of Christ’s peace if we’ve never learned to make peace with ourselves.

    I now believe that spiritual maturity *requires* emotional maturity. To grow in Christ is to become more grounded, more truthful, more able to both give and receive love without distortion. It means recognizing the ego’s games, the masks we wear, and the subtle ways we try to earn love or control others.

    This is not self-help. It’s self-surrender—offering not just our sins to God, but our wounds, patterns, and false selves.

    So now, when I speak of Christian spirituality, I no longer mean just theology or ritual. I mean the slow, Spirit-led journey toward wholeness. A life where faith and psychology meet. Where love is not just a command, but a capacity we develop with grace. Where holiness includes honesty. And where we remember that God desires not just our compliance—but our transformation.—

  • beyond ‘donating to charity’:

    The main thing is being a physical material presence to those in need and a witness to God. Donating money is just a tool

    ### 🔑 1. **Presence Over Material Aid**

    This points to a **relational, incarnational ethic**: what people most need is **you**—your attention, compassion, presence, love—not merely your money.

    * Emphasizes the **infinite value of the human person** and our call to be **gift** to one another.

    * Giving money without giving yourself can become **detached charity**. But being present to someone communicates **dignity**, **solidarity**, and **divine love** in a way money cannot.

    This mirrors what Mother Teresa used to say:

    > “The greatest poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved.”

    ### ✝️ 2. **Embodied Witness to God**

    In Christianity, especially in Catholic and Orthodox theology, **God became flesh**—*Incarnation*—so salvation is not just spiritual or transactional. It’s **relational**, **physical**, **sacrificial**, and **personal**.

    * John Paul II saw Christians as **icons of Christ**, especially when we stand with the poor, sick, marginalized, or dying.

    * Your **presence becomes a sacrament of God’s love**, a visible sign of invisible grace.

    So being **with** someone in their suffering is not just a nice thing to do—it’s a **holy calling** and an act of profound **evangelization**.

    ### 💰 3. **Money Is Just a Tool**

    In that context, money is not evil—but it is **secondary**. It’s just a **means**, not an end.

    * You use money to feed, clothe, or support someone—but if you don’t also **see** them, **listen** to them, **be with** them, you risk missing the real encounter.

    * For John Paul II, **human relationship and witness always come first**. Tools serve people—never the other way around.

    ### 🧠 Related Concepts from His Theology

    * **Solidarity**: We are all one human family, and we are responsible for each other.

    * **Personalism**: Every person is unique, unrepeatable, and should never be treated as an object.

    * **Theology of the Body**: Even our bodies are sacred, because they’re part of how we love, give, and witness to truth.

    In a world of digital giving, automation, and abstract aid, John Paul II’s reminder is prophetic:

    > *Never outsource love.*

    > *Don’t confuse charity with presence.*

    > *Be the hands and face of Christ to the person in front of you.*

  • 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

  • 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’

  • 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).”