The Law of Love

Tag: love

  • When Trying to do Good Feels Like Pretending

    When Trying to do Good Feels Like Pretending

    There’s a strange unease that sometimes comes with trying to be good. You hold the door for someone, speak kindly, give when it’s inconvenient—and yet, inside, something feels off. It feels practiced, maybe even fake. You wonder, am I actually a good person, or am I just acting like one?

    This tension is more common than we think. Many who set out to live a life of faith or virtue encounter it early on. We imagine goodness should flow effortlessly, as though saints never had to “pretend.” But in truth, most spiritual growth begins exactly there—in the uncomfortable space between what we do and what we feel.

    Learning the Motions of the Heart

    Every genuine transformation begins with practice. When we first learn to play an instrument, our fingers stumble; when we first begin to pray, our minds wander. Yet by showing up again and again, the outer motions slowly shape the inner rhythm.

    It’s the same with virtue. Even when kindness feels forced, it plants a seed. Even when patience feels like a performance, it begins to form real patience within us. We are training the soul to remember what love looks like, long before it feels natural.

    Doing Good is Still Good

    There’s a subtle trap in waiting until our motives are pure before acting. If we waited until we felt perfectly loving to love, we might never start. Love, in its truest sense, is an act of the will. It’s a choice, not just an emotion.

    A parent waking in the night to care for a crying child may not feel loving in that moment, but the act itself is love. In the same way, when we practice kindness, forgiveness, or generosity—even with a reluctant heart—we are still participating in goodness. And that participation gradually softens and reshapes the heart itself.

    The Slow Work of Grace

    Spiritual growth is rarely dramatic. It unfolds like a slow dawn, with long stretches of half-light. What begins as discipline—doing what we know is right—becomes devotion as our inner life catches up.

    It’s easy to mistake the awkwardness of that stage for hypocrisy. But in reality, it’s a sign of sincerity. If you’re worried about “faking it,” it means you care about authenticity. A true hypocrite wouldn’t even notice the gap between the inner and outer self.

    Letting God Do the Forming

    At some point, we have to let go of the anxiety about whether we’re “doing it right” and trust that grace is at work beneath the surface. The Spirit uses even our halting, imperfect efforts to shape us into something more whole.

    We act in faith, and God forms in love.

    In the end, what feels like pretending may actually be the first stirrings of transformation.
    We begin by imitating the good—and slowly, through patience and practice, goodness becomes who we are.

  • How the church fathers and modern theologians handle extra-marital sex – especially considering the Bible doesn’t necessarily explicitly prohibit it

    7. What Did the Early Church Teach?

    The early Church fathers generally taught that sex belonged within the covenant of marriage. For example, St. Augustine (4th century) held a very strict view, believing that even within marriage, sex was tainted by lust unless it was solely for procreation. He considered celibacy superior to marriage and taught that premarital sex, being outside the sacramental bounds, was sinful. His ideas heavily shaped Western Christian sexual ethics.

    St. John Chrysostom, while affirming marriage and family life, also emphasized self-control and spiritual purity, warning against fornication (porneia). Yet even he recognized that marriage was not primarily for procreation or legal formality, but for love, mutual service, and spiritual partnership (see Homily 12 on Colossians).

    The Didache (late 1st or early 2nd century), an early Christian manual, condemns “fornication” along with idolatry and murder, but does not clearly define what “fornication” entails. Again, the term was understood broadly—covering adultery, incest, cultic prostitution, and sexual exploitation—but it likely included all non-marital sex by assumption, even if not by specific definition.

    So yes, early Christians leaned strongly toward reserving sex for marriage—but their rationale was largely based on the need for moral order, community integrity, and spiritual discipline in a pagan culture saturated with abuse, exploitation, and moral chaos.

    8. What Are Modern Christians Saying?

    Today, Christians across traditions continue to wrestle with this issue. Many still hold the traditional view—that sex is only appropriate in a committed, covenanted marriage between one man and one woman. But others are asking deeper questions, especially in light of:

    • The absence of explicit prohibitions against premarital sex in the Bible.
    • The complexity of modern relationships, where people date for years, often with deep emotional, spiritual, and physical connection.
    • The harm caused by shame-based purity culture, which often taught that a person’s worth was tied to sexual “purity,” especially for women.

    Some progressive theologians argue that if a sexual relationship is marked by mutual consent, emotional commitment, honesty, and spiritual integrity, it may not violate biblical ethics—even if it takes place before formal marriage. They point to texts like Romans 13:10: “Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” If love is present, the law is not transgressed.

    Others, while maintaining a traditional ethic, admit the conversation is not as clear-cut as once thought. Tim Keller, a well-known Reformed pastor, upheld sex within marriage but acknowledged in his sermons that many Christians don’t understand why the Bible seems to limit sex to marriage—often reducing the teaching to rule-following rather than spiritual reflection on covenant, trust, and vulnerability.

    9. A Balanced Conclusion

    The biblical narrative places sex within the broader context of covenant, mutual giving, and sacred union. It warns against lust, exploitation, and impurity—not because sex is bad, but because sex is powerful, formative, and deeply connected to our spiritual lives.

    Still, it’s true: the Bible does not say “premarital sex is a sin” in so many words. Nor does it treat all non-marital sex as equally sinful or categorize it with the same moral weight. It leaves us with principles more than precise rules.

    So what do we do with that?

    We walk carefully. With humility. With reverence for God, respect for others, and an awareness that not everything lawful is beneficial (1 Corinthians 10:23). Rather than asking simply, “Is this allowed?”, perhaps we should ask:

    Does this relationship honor the dignity of both people?
    Does it express faithful, sacrificial love?
    Does it reflect God’s desire for wholeness, intimacy, and truth?

    That’s not fancy footwork. That’s spiritual maturity.

  • 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.*

  • a day in the life of sue, a libertarian

    A DAY IN THE LIFE OF SUE, A REPUBLICAN
    Sue gets up at 6 a.m. and fills her coffeepot with water to prepare her morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
    With her first swallow of coffee, she takes her daily medication. Her medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
    All but $10 of her medications are paid for by her employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Sue gets it too.
    She prepares her morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Sue’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
    In the morning shower, Sue reaches for her shampoo. Her bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for her right to know what she was putting on her body and how much it contained.
    Sue dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air she breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
    She walks to the subway station for her government-subsidized ride to work. It saves her considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
    Sue begins her work day. She has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Sue’s employer pays these standards because Sue’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.
    If Sue is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, she’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think she should lose her home because of her temporary misfortune.
    Its noontime and Sue needs to make a bank deposit so she can pay some bills. Sue’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Sue’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
    Sue has to pay her Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and her below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Sue and the government would be better off if she was educated and earned more money over her lifetime.
    Sue is home from work. She plans to visit her father this evening at his farm home in the country. She gets in her car for the drive. Her car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. She arrives at her childhood home. Her generation was the third to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.
    She is happy to see her father, who is now retired. Her father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Sue wouldn’t have to.
    Sue gets back in her car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Sue enjoys throughout her day. Sue agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m self-made and believe everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”