The Law of Love

Tag: religion

  • is it compatible with Christianity to think it’s only an illusion that we are separate from God, other people, and creation? The illusion of separation and illusion of duality

    The “illusion of separation” is an idea that can be made compatible with Christianity, though it requires interpreting some Christian concepts in a more mystical or contemplative way.

    What the “Illusion of Separation” Means

    In the afterlife/NDE (near-death experience) or spiritual awakening community, the illusion of separation typically refers to the mistaken belief that:

    • We are separate from God
    • We are separate from each other
    • We are separate from the whole of creation

    This idea comes from the sense that, at a soul level, all is one — that we are always united with divine love, but we forget or are unaware of this unity while in the physical, ego-centered world.

    Christianity and the Illusion of Separation

    Traditional Christianity doesn’t use the phrase “illusion of separation,” but many of its deeper teachings align with it, especially in mystical and contemplative traditions. Here’s how:

    1. Imago Dei (Image of God)

    Genesis 1:27 says humans are made in the image of God. This implies an inherent connection, not distance. The Eastern Orthodox tradition especially emphasizes the divine spark within. Jesus even made reference to this spark within humans when he said “ye are gods’, in response to naysayers saying that he shouldn’t reference himself as the Son of God.

    2. God’s Immanence and Omnipresence

    Christianity teaches that God is everywhere and that we “live and move and have our being” in Him (Acts 17:28). This means separation is not ultimate, even if it feels real.

    3. Mystical Union with God

    Christian mystics like St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, and St. Teresa of Avila describe the soul’s journey as one of reuniting with God — but often say this union was never truly lost, only hidden.

    • For example, Julian of Norwich wrote:
      “We are not just made by God, we are made of God.”

    4. The Fall as a Loss of Awareness

    The story of Adam and Eve is often interpreted as a fall into duality — a state of being where we believe we’re separate from God. Jesus, then, is seen as the one who reveals the truth of our ongoing union with the Father.

    • Luke 17:21: “The kingdom of God is within you.”

    5. Jesus as the Bridge — or Reminder

    Christians see Jesus as the one who restores the broken relationship between humanity and God. In mystical terms, He can also be seen as one who reveals that the separation was never absolute — it was our sin, fear, and ignorance that made it seem so.

    Possible Points of Tension

    Some Christians may object to the idea that separation is an “illusion,” especially if it seems to downplay:

    • The reality of sin
    • The need for redemption
    • The distinction between Creator and creation

    But mystical Christianity doesn’t deny these — it reframes them. Sin becomes not just rule-breaking, but forgetfulness of who we are in God. Salvation becomes a waking up to divine love.

    Summary

    ConceptNDE/Spiritual ViewCompatible Christian View
    Illusion of SeparationWe’re never truly apart from God or each otherGod is always present; union is our true state (Acts 17:28, mystics)
    SinForgetting our divine natureMissing the mark, living unaware of God’s love
    SalvationRemembering who we really areReconciliation, restoration, waking up to grace
    Ego vs. SoulEgo believes in separation“Die to self” (Luke 9:23), “Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20)

    If you’re leaning toward a synthesis of Christian spirituality with unitive or mystical experience, this concept could deepen your understanding of grace, love, and the human journey. You’re not abandoning Christianity — you’re plumbing its mystical depths.

  • A Philosophical Contrast: Christianity vs. Buddhism on Suffering and Love

    **A Philosophical Contrast: Christianity vs. Buddhism on Suffering and Love**

    Buddhism, in its purest form, is fundamentally about transcending suffering. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path are oriented toward liberating the individual from *dukkha* (suffering) through detachment, mindfulness, and enlightenment. While compassion (karuṇā) and loving-kindness (mettā) are core virtues, the ultimate goal is personal liberation from the cycle of rebirth. Helping others is virtuous but often secondary to achieving one’s own enlightenment.

    Christianity, by contrast, sees suffering not merely as something to transcend but often as something to embrace for the sake of others. At its core, Christianity is not about gratuitous suffering, but about redemptive suffering—choosing to endure pain or difficulty for the sake of love. This is exemplified most vividly in Christ’s crucifixion, where suffering is not only embraced but transformed into the highest act of love.What sets Christianity apart—and arguably makes it a more complete moral worldview—is its prioritization of **self-giving love** (*agapē*). In Christianity, love is not merely one noble emotion among many, but the very essence of God (1 John 4:8) and the guiding principle of human life. Love gives meaning to suffering and demands action: sacrifice for one’s family, neighbor, even enemy. Without this willingness to suffer for the greater good, society and the individual do not mature.Thus, while Buddhism offers profound insights into the nature of suffering and mindfulness, it may fall short as a comprehensive moral framework because it ultimately aims to avoid or transcend suffering rather than embrace it for others’ sake. Christianity, grounded in the transformative power of love, sees such suffering as not only meaningful but necessary for spiritual growth, communal well-being, and the flourishing of human dignity

  • examples of faith from atheists

    Richard Dawkins stated that “Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

    However, even naturalistic worldviews also take some things on faith.
    For the purposes of this discussion, we will define a miracle as an event which occurs outside of the natural order and cannot be repeated or explained by the scientific process.
    Consider the following four miracles which must be accepted by the atheist in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary:

    1. Getting Something from Nothing. There has never been an observed example where something was created from nothing. No person would attempt to build something without materials, and there is no theory outside Big Bang cosmology which reaches this conclusion without ridicule from the scientific community
    2. Getting Life from Non-Life. Even if naturalistic causes could have created the universe, it would still be necessary for non-living material to become living. This is also an unproven (and impossible) feat which must be accepted when denying the existence of God.
    3. Getting Order from Chaos. Personal observation tells us that all things tend towards disorder, not order. Left to themselves buildings crumble, gardens are taken over by weeds, and living material decays. If unguided natural causes produced the universe (from nothing) and produced life (from non-life) these processes would necessarily go against observed scientific principles in order to produce the complexity, beauty, and order that we observe in the world around us.
    4. Getting the Immaterial from Physical Matter. If nothing was able to produce everything, non-life was able to produce life, and chaos was able to produce order the atheistic worldview would still encounter an insurmountable obstacle. No matter how organized, it is impossible for physical material to produce the immaterial realities of human consciousness. Our morality, beliefs, desires and preferences all exist outside of mere physical matter.

    Each of these examples go against the natural order and could be labeled as miracles. Naturalistic worldviews such as atheism, evolution, and neo-Darwinism regard this evidence for God with what Dawkins would certainly consider an unscientific approach: each item must be taken on faith.

  • it’s plausible to think God doesn’t exist… it just lacks common sense

    an atheist here made a good point… sometimes things look more like they are ‘consistent’ with God theory, rather than ‘evidence for’ God theory. any time you see evdience for God, ask if it would be better or at least possible to not call it evidence but merely consistent with God theory. 

    there’s lots of philosophic arguements for God. id group those with things like casuality arguments and design arguments. the thing about these is that there’s at least plausible arguments that can be made that are counter those. so it’s easy to just call these consistent with God and not evidence. 

    then you get into more science type arguments. the most straight forward way of looking at these, is that they are in fact evdience for God. things that look like supernatural healing. atheists usually become theists during NDEs.  something impossible happening with healing it looks like, and we dont see that as far as we know coming from atheists, we dont see impossible looking healhings from atheists. and it’s almost never the case that theists become atheists during NDEs and NDEs are objectively evidence for the afterlife, so it’s at least realistic to say it’s also evidence for God. 

    with that said, if you have a dark heart and mind, an atheist could say there’s no evidence for God with these scientifc things. you could say we only have confirmation bias that healings that look supernatural happen, or that theists only assume those things only happen to theists and not atheists. they make a big assumpion that impossible looking things happen to atheists, but we’d have to admit it’s possible and just not reported. and, as far as NDEs, the conventional wisdom is that NDEs are subjective and influenced by the mind… so even if NDEs are objectively evidence for the afterlife, it’s also possible to say visions and thoughts of God are merely produced by our psychology and not signs of an objective reality 

    with all this said, even if they could plausibly say there’s no evidence for the God, atheism still lacks common sense.

    -i think there’s too much emphasis in NDE research on saying their experiences are based on psychology… it looks more like objective things happen, and any deviations are misinterprataions. for example, christian NDEs are common, but hindu NDEs are just the experiencers interpretation… at least there’s not enough deviant types of NDEs to say it’s all psychology based. 

    -when healings that look supernatural happen, it still looks like impossible things are occurring. you can try to rationalize it, but that’s what it looks like. 

    -to say humans are merely flesh robots is riduculous. it’s obvious we are more than robots. 

    -there’s no explanation that we know of that can explain how life started on earth, or how something as complicated as human consciousness occurrs. there’s theories, yes, but they are weak from atheists on the common sense level.

    -even if there are counter arguents for the philosophic arguments for God, they are at least formidable and strong, and help explain the God theory, at least if the God theory is in fact true. eg, causality or the argument from design 

  • evidence: God, christianity, miracles, NDEs, the afterlife

    i use two unconventional proofs for god. one is healing miracles, i dont see the kinds of miracles that happen to theists happen to atheists, or even non christians honestly, despite looking for that evidence and asking around. i realize that just because we dont see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there, but this is still significant. 

    the other one is that the large majority of atheists come back believing in God after NDEs. it’s irrational to say there’s no evidence for the afterlife, when you get into the science of NDEs, and the credibility of NDEs lend credbility to all the atheists that convert. it’s also been objectively studied that christian NDEs happen at a much greater rate than non christian themed NDEs… such that jesus is a common component of these experiences. nonchristian themes are very rare, and hard to quantify or qualify, and open to interpretation, and might be unreliable. 

    there’s all the philosophical arguments for God, such as the design argument and the causality argument. these are best kept at the level of philosophy but dont get much beyond just corroborating the God theory. 

    in fact, all these points could be said to be just consistent with God, and if you wanted to split hairs, not evidence. a skeptic on this site made that point once, is this more about evidence or just ‘consistent with the God theory but not evidence’. but with the miracle and NDE point, it’s majorly lacking in common sense to stay atheist.

    —-

    some other points. there are credible medical doctors who are exorcists who say they have seen supernatural phenomenon. there are credible doctors who study young children who remember past lives, and say that the children couldn’t know the details they explain. i think there are professors out of the university of virginia for example who study this.