#Covenantal Relationship

[mindfulldsliving]

Alma 13:1-19 and Redemption Through Priesthood Ordinances

Understanding how Alma 13 applies to our lives today can help us see the continued importance of priesthood ordinances and principles in guiding us to Jesus Christ.

How Priesthood Ordinances in Alma 13:1-19 Point Me to Jesus Christ for Redemption Understanding the priesthood ordinances in Alma 13:1-19 is pivotal for both Latter-day Saints and Evangelical Christians seeking a deeper connection to Jesus Christ. These verses outline the purpose and divine nature of the priesthood, illustrating how it guides believers toward redemption through Christ’s…

[mightyostanes]

Why Jews Aren't "Trying to Trick G-d"

(Note only secondary sources are cited in the bibliography)

For my second post I had originally planned on writing something more fun but unfortunately, I feel the need to write this. Lately I’ve seen quite a few people on twitter saying that the way Jews interpret Halakah is that Jews are trying to trick G-d. While this is obviously a bad faith argument designed to be shitty, I still think this subject should be explained in greater detail. Mostly because I think there’s a fundamental disconnect in the way people imagine religions should interact with their deity and how Judaism has historically interacted with G-d. Furthermore, due to the Haskalah and Counter Haskalah I feel that a lot of these ideas have been lost to a lot of Jews in the English-speaking world. Replaced by Platonism that has much more in common with Philo and Maimonides then it does with anything the sages actually wrote or believed. Or to put it in much franker terms the toilet demon Rabba Bar Rav Huna mentioned in Gittin70:A6 probably wasn’t a metaphor. Instead, it seems incredibly likely that both he and Rabbi Tanhum Bar Tanilai believed in a literal Sheyd that lived in literal toilets no matter how embarrassing that sounds. 

    The reason this bizarre tangent is important is because if you actually look at the biblical, rabbinic, medieval, kabbalistic, and hasidic literature it utterly destroys the idea that the relationship of the Jew to G-d is of one sided kowtowing submission. Granted, it’s quite easy to interpret it that way but that’s mostly due to conditioning in terms of what people think a theistic religion should be about rather than any wiggle room in the texts themselves. In fact, I’d wager most arguments against this have more to do with people’s idea of the Tanakh than the Tanakh itself. 

      The biggest reason for this misunderstanding in my opinion is that very few people actually know what a covenant is let alone its context. To illustrate my point, I’d like you to think back on the last time you made a covenant with someone or something. Assuming you aren’t a ceremonial magician the answer to the question just posed is probably never. In the modern world covenant has become almost solely associated with the Bible and has almost no context. Especially because the idea of the ‘New Covenant’ talked about in the works of Paul the Apostle has very little to do with what covenants historically were. Rather than statements of blind faith, covenants in the Ancient Near East were more analogous to contracts and treaties. There are even some scholars who think that the covenantal theology in Deuteronomy may be based on Ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties. (1)

    In these treaties a bigger state or kingdom would make a treaty for a smaller kingdom to accept fealty to them. (1) In these treaties, at least in paper, rather than being a slave the ruler of the smaller nation was supposed to be a junior partner. Said vassals would also continue to be junior partners to the larger power if they held up the obligations given to them by the treaty. (1) Similarly, just as the smaller party holds obligations to the larger party the larger party also holds obligations to the smaller party. Including ostensibly having to listen to complaints or suggestions the smaller party made. 

   In the Tanakh or Five Books of Moses, there are exactly three covenants mentioned that occurred between G-d and humans. These three aforementioned covenants are the covenant with Noah and his descendants once the Ark lands, (Gen 8:20-9:13), The covenant for Abraham’s descendants where an unknown light phenomenon signifying G-d passes through Abraham’s sacrifice (Gen: 15), and the famous covenant between G-d and the Israelites on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19-24). Shortly after the establishment of both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants G-d or an emissary of G-d appears and holds a banquet with the covenant members (Gen 18:1-10, Exodus 24:9-18). In the Ancient Near Eastern context that these texts were written in, banquets and feasts thrown by a king or senior covenant partner were incredibly important tools for control or consolidation. In both the Neo-Assyrian Empire and in the kingdom of Mari not only eating with the king but being at the table with him showed that you were considered as part of the king’s metaphorical family (2). These constructed family hierarchies would be clearly delineated by how close one sat to the king and how one sat, with the people right next to the king being seen as close immediate family members analogous to sons or younger brothers. In the two previously mentioned covenants the Elders of Israel and Abraham’s family sans Lot were sitting with G-d or his emissary suggesting an incredibly close relationship instead of merely that of master and servant. Especially as the angels or heavenly host were not seated ahead of the human participants at the metaphorical dinner table. 

          This idea of man as junior partner and consultant is also seen in the way that humans can critique, give advice to, or argue with G-d and G-d takes their words into consideration. A famous example of this post covenant is Abraham giving G-d suggestions on what to do with Sodom and Gomorrah and G-d accepting his input (Gen 18). An even more extreme example is in Exodus 32 when Moses actually argues with G-d and seemingly wins the argument thus saving the lives of the Hebrews. Similarly, complaints were by no means unknown by the rulers of vassal states to their overlords. The famous Amarna letters addressed by Egyptian allies and vassals to Pharaoh Akhenaten are filled with complaints and requests, with a few even being acknowledged (3). Considering that Pharaoh’s considered themselves living gods this just adds more background to the precedent of complaining towards, making suggestions to, or arguing with the divine.

    Beyond the kinship of all the community of Israel, and not just a singular son, with G-d there are also many notions that have to be cleared up in regard to humankind’s place in creation. A famous Midrash Tanhuma Tarzia 5 has a Roman Consul asking Rabbi Akiba why Jews circumcise male children when G-d has them born uncircumcised. In response Rabbi Akiba shows the consul grain, created by G-d and bread which is that same grain altered by man. Rabbi Akiba then asks the consul which one is better, before giving the obvious answer that most people prefer bread. This little story besides giving a philosophical explanation for circumcision also gives a good summary of the main ethos of Rabbinic Judaism. That G-d made the world unfinished so that mankind in general and Jews in particular could finish it. To establish the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than merely waiting for it. The translation of ‘Tikkun Olam’ as repairing the world was meant to be understood literally and not just as a metaphor for social justice.

    Lastly and perhaps most shocking to an Abrahamic Gentile reader, the G-d of Judaism was not traditionally portrayed as unchanging or infallible. The idea only gained traction in rabbinic Judaism after Maimonides inserted it into his theology after borrowing it from Aristotelian, Islamic, and Christian ideas in the 12th century. Historically the G-d of Judaism has been shown to change their mind, and according to Moshe Idel is even affected by theurgy (4). As evidenced by many stories in the Torah where G-d explicitly changes their mind on what they want to do. The mutability of G-d’s mind in terms of human prayer and action carries over to the realm of Halakhic interpretation assuming the other party has a good point. The most famous example of this rabbinical overturning G-d’s decree is in Baba Metzia 59B where Three Rabbis tell G-d that G-d and Rabbi Eliezer’s interpretation of a ruling regarding an oven is invalid. They achieve this by citing Deuteronomy 30:12, and Exodus 30:2 stating that the Law is not in heaven and is for the majority to decide its correct meaning. Instead of smiting the group of Rabbis G-d simply laughs stating that ‘My children have beaten me’. Indeed, the Great Maggid even goes as far as to say that G-d, like a parent teaching their child Torah, actually prefers a novel interpretation instead of just parroting the interpretation given by the parent (5).

           In Pauline Christianity Deuteronomy 30:12 which states, “The Law is not in Heaven” has been taken to mean that Halakah isn’t binding in the kingdom of heaven. However, the mainstream rabbinic interpretation means that only living humans can truly follow the Torah and perform Mitzvot to their fullest extent. In the Talmud in Shabbat 88B there is one of many Moses vs angels battles found throughout Jewish literature regarding whether humans should receive the Torah. Just like all of the other stories with this mytheme, Moses obviously wins this battle and takes the Torah to Israel. What makes this story different is that rather than using theurgy to bind the angels or just beating the tar out of them, Moses defeats them with a well-reasoned argument. I’ll let the passage I copied from Sefaria speak for itself.

     Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, the Torah that You are giving me, what is written in it? God said to him: “I am the Lord your God Who brought you out of Egypt from the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2). Moses said to the angels: Did you descend to Egypt? Were you enslaved to Pharaoh? Why should the Torah be yours? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Moses said to the angels: Do you dwell among the nations who worship idols that you require this special warning? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8). Moses asked the angels: Do you perform labor that you require rest from it? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? “Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7), meaning that it is prohibited to swear falsely. Moses asked the angels: Do you conduct business with one another that may lead you to swear falsely? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). Moses asked the angels: Do you have a father or a mother that would render the commandment to honor them relevant to you? Again Moses asked: What else is written in it? God said to him: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal” (Exodus 20:13) Moses asked the angels: Is there jealousy among you, or is there an evil inclination within you that would render these commandments relevant?

-Shabbat 88B (Babylonian Talmud)

       The Mitzvot, something occasionally seen as higher and holier than the immanent aspect of G-d (6) were meant to be performed solely by humans. Because just like the angels, G-d lacks many of these physical imperfections that give many of the Mitzvot any real weight. Therefore, as the ones who do the most mitzvot, how we interpret and follow them is fundamentally up to us.

    Admittedly I could go on and on about the theoretical frameworks behind the ideas. Such as the status of the Torah vis a vis the status of G-d, or the tradition of prayer as legal battle with the divine realm but that’d be a whole other bag of cats. One that’d probably take 20 pages to accurately give my thoughts, thoughts that would be at best heretical to at least a fair number of Jews. So instead let us end this here, there is no way for Jews to cheat Halakhah because it fundamentally belongs to the Jews. It is our burden that we have to bear and our most cherished treasure. Even if it did indeed come from G-d, like any gift the receiver usually is the actual owner and the one who decides what to do with it.

Citation List for non primary sources

Koller, Aaron. “Deuteronomy and Hittite Treaties.” Bible Interpretations , September 2014. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2014/09/kol388003. 

Milano, Lucio. “Naptan Ḫudûtu Aškun". Practice and Ideology of Neo-Assyrian Banquets.” Thesis, Storia Antica e Arceologico Ciclo , 2013.Section 3. Eating With The King: The Earthly Banquet. PG 60-80

Nutter, Nick. “How the Great Kings Managed Their Vassal States during the Bronze Age.” nuttersworld.com, August 15, 2024. https://nuttersworld.com/civilisations-that-collapsed/managing-vassal-states/. 

 Idel, Moshe. Middot: On the emergence of Kabbalistic Theosophies. Brooklyn, NY: KTAV Publishing House, 2021. 

Idel, Moshe. “The Son of God as a Righteous in Hasidism .” Chapter. In Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, 531–85. New York, NY: Continuum , n.d. 

6. Idel, Moshe. “The World Absorbing Text.” Chapter. In Absorbing Perfections Kabbalah and Interpretation, 26–45. New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University Press, 2002

[unbidden-yidden-deactivated20240]

In Judaism, one alternative way of referring to converts is "Jews by Choice."

If a parallel term exists in Xtianity I am not aware of it, but I would like to propose that it really should exist, albeit not just in reference to converts but to all Xtians. Every Xtian should get the opportunity to fully understand their faith in context and to make an informed decision to choose it for themselves. As it stands, many Xtians are deeply ignorant about Jewish history (before and after the formation of Xtianity), the original cultural context for the stories in the Old Testament, the cultural Jewish context that Jesus existed and taught in, the critical historical (scholarly) read of these texts, what they probably meant to the Israelites who produced them, and what they mean to Jews today and how we read these same texts differently in our religious context.

This creates a problem, where Xtians are taught only the narrow band of context that their church deems it important for them to know, and even that is frequently inaccurate or so limited in scope as to make it inaccurate by omission.

And this is because the reality is that the Tanakh (that is, the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures that the Old Testament is based on) does not naturally or inevitably lead to the Jesus narrative. If you are starting from a Xtian perspective, and especially if you read the New Testament first and then and only then dive into the Old Testament, the Jesus narrative is obvious to you because you are looking for it, expect to see it there, and are coming at these texts with that reading lens in mind. And it's not that you or anyone else is nuts to see that narrative there - there are plenty of solid Xtian reads of these texts that make sense if you already believe in Jesus as presented by the New Testament.

But what the vast majority of Xtians aren't taught is how to approach the Tanakh from a Jesus-neutral perspective, which would yield very different results.

Now you might fairly ask, why would they *need* to approach the Tanakh with a Jesus-neutral perspective? They're Xtians! Xtians believe in Jesus, that's what makes them Xtians!

My answer is multi-pronged: First, I believe that G-d wants a relationship with all people, and speaks to us in the voice we are most likely to hear. That's inherently going to look different for everyone. And that's okay! G-d is infinite, and each of our relationships with G-d are going to only capture the tiniest glimpse into that infinite Divine. Therefore, second, when approaching religion, everyone sees what they want to see. If you nothing religion but find your spirituality in nature, you're going to come at these biblical texts with that lens and take away from them similar things that one might take away from other cultural mythologies. If you, like me, are coming at these texts with a Jewish mindset, you are going to come away with a portrait of Hashem and our covenantal relationship as Am Yisrael. And, of course, if you read with a Xtian lens, you're going to see the precursor narratives leading up to Jesus. That reading bias is not only understandable but good or at least deeply human. Everyone sees what they want to see in these texts. There is no objective or flawless way to read them, and to claim that there is, is to claim that not only is there only one answer, but only one kind of relationship that G-d wants to have with people, that you personally happen to know what that is, and that everyone else is wrong. I am sorry, but if you believe that - if you truly think that you in particular (and/or the people you happen to agree with) know the mind of G-d, then you do not worship G-d. You worship yourselves, because to know the entirety of G-d would require you to be G-d. There's a term for that. That doesn't mean there aren't wrong answers too. But it does mean that there is no singular unimpeachable reading of the texts. What you see in these texts then, says far more about you than it does about the texts themselves or G-d.

So the question then becomes: Why do you want to see this? (Whatever your "this" is.) If your read of these texts is something you choose, why do you choose to see what you see? And is it a meaningful choice if you are not taught other ways of knowing, other perspectives on these texts, and to think critically while exploring them?

Judaism inherently teaches a multiplicity of opinions on the texts, and maintains that they can be read to mean different things, even at the same time by the same person. Deep textual knowledge and methods for learning more, asking questions, challenging accepted answers as a way to discover new meaning, and respectful disagreement are baked into our culture and methods. Some Xtians of some denominations have analogous processes, although on the whole still emphasize correct unified belief over correct action with a multiplicity of belief. I am not suggesting here that Xtians stop approaching their own scriptures as Xtians or adopt Jewish methods instead. What I am suggesting is that Xtians should be taught a fuller picture of these texts and learn other perspectives so that they (1) understand their own beliefs and why they believe them (or after further inquiry if they believe them), and (2) understand and respect that this is what they are choosing to believe and that it is not the only thing one could reasonably believe. Because (3) if not, they are more susceptible to having their faith shattered at random by something unexpected, and will connect less to their faith as a relationship with G-d and more as an obligation based on an unchallenged world view.

And, frankly? (4) It will help them to be better neighbors, to love their neighbor as themselves, and to give to others the respect that they would like to receive.

Being taught the historical context, Jewish history before and after Jesus, the differences between the Old Testament and the Tanakh, the timeline of the development of Xtianity in relationship to rabbinic Judaism in the wake of the destruction of the Second Temple, the development of church doctrine and the various splits amongst the denominations, and Jewish readings of the Tanakh would give clarity and desperately needed context to Xtians about their religion. Is there some risk that some people, upon understanding these things would drop out of faith entirely or, like me, discover that they are actually meant to be Jews? Yes, definitely.

But let me let you in on a little secret: you don't want those people to begin with. You really don't. Because the reality is that if a person is not called to relate to G-d through Jesus, eventually that person will learn this about themselves one way or another. If they are given the information and tools to make a meaningful choice, they will part company on good terms. If not, they will likely become disillusioned and leave the church in pain, anger, and even trauma. They will bring that out into the world with them, and spread the bad news about the Good News making it even more likely that other people who were already on the fence will jump ship on bad terms. You cannot trick people into a meaningful relationship with G-d. You can only give them the tools they need in order to explore on their own and the rest is between them and G-d.

And the bottom line is that you don't need to and should not be afraid of knowledge. If your faith cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it deserves that scrutiny tenfold. The people you lose from the flock? You would have lost them anyway, because we aren't in the driver's seat here. G-d is. Hashem called me to be a Jew with just as much love and desire to connect as G-d calls Xtians to the church and to Jesus. A faith examined is a faith deepened or exposed in its weakness. And if it is the latter, don't you want people to know this sooner rather than later in order to fix it?

So my proposition and wish for Xtians is that they become Xtians by Choice. That they delve deeply into the origins and context of their faith so that they can be 100% certain that they understand their Xtian faith and why they choose to relate to G-d through that lens.

[apenitentialprayer]

The Creator calls each person to know Him, to love Him, and to live in covenantal relationship with Him; while calling the person also to live in fraternity, justice, and peace with all others.

Dignitas infinita, or "On Human Dignity" (§18)

[steveezekiel]

THOSE WHO FEAR GOD 1

12 WHO IS THE MAN THAT FEARS THE LORD? HIM SHALL HE TEACH IN THE WAY HE CHOOSES.

13 He himself shall dwell in prosperity, And his descendants shall inherit the earth.

14 THE SECRET OF THE LORD IS WITH THOSE WHO FEAR HIM, AND HE WILL SHOW THEM HIS COVENANT.

15 My eyes are ever toward the LORD, For He shall pluck my feet out of the net."

Psalm 25:12–15 (NKJV)

• Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, the Scripture says (Proverbs 9:10).

- Reverential fear of God leads to a deeper fellowship or communion with Him, which ultimately leads to friendship.

- People who fear God are shown the path to follow in life—the way or path which He has chosen for them to follow. This is revealed to them and they are taught how to tread the path (Psalm 25:12).

- Those who fear God, whom He had revealed the chosen path to, are those who dwell in His goodness or prosperity. The descendants of such inherit the earth (Psalm 25:13).

- God is a friend to those who fear Him. His secrets are made known to them. And He teaches or shows them His covenant (Psalm 25:14). In other words, God cuts a covenant with such who fear Him. He made a compact, a league, or a confederacy with them.

- Secrets are shared with those whom one has a covenant relationship with. Such are covenant friends. Thus, reverential fear is a way to cut a covenant with God—as a believer in Christ Jesus.

- The fear being talked about here is the willingness to obey, do His bidding or command—whatever He said to do.

- Thus, obedience to His commands leads to friendship: "YOU ARE MY FRIENDS IF YOU DO WHATEVER I COMMAND YOU" (John 15:14 NKJV).

READ: Matthew 12:50

- Note: This same fear of God makes your eyes be on Him for whatever you wanted or needed to do (Psalm 25:15).

- God does not want a distant relationship. A relationship from afar cannot be intimate or cordial. There cannot be a fellowship or communion in such a relationship, and God does not want it.

• What is Covenant?

- In the Old Testament, and in the passage of the Bible used as the text of this teaching; the Hebrew word translated "covenant" is "berit". The term was probably derived from"bara", means "to bind".

- Thus, the Word "berit" denotes a binding relationship between two parties in which each pledges to perform some service for the other.

- A Bible dictionary defines Covenant As: Oath-bound promise whereby one party solemnly pledges to bless or serve another party in some specified way.

- The keeping of the promise usually depends on the meeting of certain conditions by the party to which the promise was made (Deuteronomy 7:7,12-26; 8:19,20; 28:1-68; Jeremiah 3:6-8; Hosea 1:1-8).

- Although, in some occasions the promise was made unilaterally and unconditionally. An Example: The covenant God made with Noah called for no human response (Genesis 9:9-17).

- Thus, the term of whatever covenant made or cut by God with anyone is usually based on the condition of perfect obedience. The obedience is always measured by whether the person, the covenantee, keeps God's commands—the instructions of God, the Covenanter.

- Consequently, God does cut or establish a covenant with the people who walk in obedience to His commands. Intimacy or secret counsel is shared with such people by God.

- If God established a covenant with a person, a believer, He usually would bless the person, be committed to the covenant and perpetuated the covenant; and caused it to be extended to his or her posterity.

• The covenant of redemption, which was the first covenant. This was the covenant God the Father made or established with God the Son to redeem the fallen mankind, humanity. This covenant was made before the time began:

9 WHO HAS SAVED US AND CALLED US WITH A HOLY CALLING, not according to our works, BUT ACCORDING TO HIS OWN PURPOSE AND GRACE WHICH WAS GIVEN TO US IN CHRIST JESUS BEFORE TIME BEGAN, 10 BUT HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED BY THE APPEARING OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:9,10 NKJV).

READ: Titus 1:2

- This covenant of redemption has a lot of benefits or blessings which are stated in the Bible. Obeying or following or living these principles; that is, practicing them, strengthens your relationship and communion with God.

- In addition, there are principles or rules which God emphasizes for an individual believer to do or practice, pay attention to, and should make to be part of his or her life. Such rules also should not be trivialized or joked with (Judges 13:12).

- Obeying and living by the general principles found in the Bible, practicing the Word, is the foundation of whatever covenant God would establish with you. The covenant would mainly be based on your obedience to those specific rules or commands or instructions given to you by God, as an individual believer.

- Authority to use the name of Christ Jesus to deal with the enemy, the devil and his cohorts (Luke 10:19); And ask whatever we want from God the Father (John 16:23); is given to every believer in Christ Jesus.

- However, the secrets of God's covenant, His ways, are shared with those who walk intimately with Him: "HE MADE KNOWN HIS WAYS TO MOSES, HIS ACTS TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL" (Psalm 103:7 NKJV).

"HE REVEALED HIS CHARACTER TO MOSES AND HIS DEEDS TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL."

Psalm 103:7 (NLT)

• You will not fail in Jesus' name.

- If you are having any ailment in your body as you read this piece, I declare your healing now in the mighty name of Jesus Christ.

- Whatever God had not planted in your life, which is working against your health, such is cursed and totally uprooted in the mighty name of Jesus Christ.

Peace!

TO BE CONTINUED

STEPS TO SALVATION

• Take notice of this:

IF you are yet to take the step of salvation, that is, yet to be born-again, do it now, tomorrow might be too late (2 Corinthians 6:1,2; Hebrews 3:7,8,15).

a. Acknowledge that you are a sinner and confess your Sins (1 John 1:9); And ask Jesus Christ to come into your life (Revelation 3:20).

b. Confess that you believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that you confess it with your mouth, Thus, you accept Him As your Lord and Saviour (Romans 10:9,10).

c. Ask that He will write your name in the Book of Life (Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:8).

- If you took the steps As highlighted above, It means you are saved—born-again. Join a Word based church in your area and Town or city, and be part of whatever they are doing there. Peace!

[chrinopiqua]

The Psychological Insights That Fueled Major Religions

Introduction:

Throughout human history, religions have played pivotal roles in shaping societies, cultures, and individual lives. While many factors contribute to a religion's success, one could argue that each major religion was built around a novel psychological insight that resonated deeply with human nature. Here, we explore these insights, not as a theological discourse, but from a psychological perspective, examining how these insights might have contributed to the spread and enduring appeal of these faiths.

1. Judaism - The Power of Covenant:

Judaism introduced the concept of a covenant between God and humanity, specifically with the Jewish people. This covenantal relationship provided a profound sense of purpose, identity, and community. Psychologically, this insight taps into the human need for belonging, offering a narrative where one's actions and fidelity have cosmic implications. It cultivates resilience, as the collective memory of trials and triumphs becomes a source of strength and moral guidance.

2. Christianity - Salvation Through Grace:

Christianity's core insight lies in salvation through faith and grace, rather than purely through adherence to law or good deeds. This resonates with the human longing for unconditional love and forgiveness. The psychological relief from personal imperfection, coupled with the promise of redemption, provides immense comfort and motivation for personal growth and communal living based on love and compassion.

3. Islam - Submission to a Singular God:

Islam's foundational insight is the simplicity and unity of submitting to one God (Allah). This submission (Islam means "submission" or "surrender") offers psychological clarity in a world often fraught with complexity. The Five Pillars provide structured, daily practices that foster a sense of order, purpose, and community among believers, addressing the human need for direction and belonging.

4. Hinduism - Multiple Paths to Enlightenment:

Hinduism's insight lies in its acceptance of multiple paths to spiritual enlightenment or "moksha." This pluralism speaks to the vast diversity of human personalities and spiritual inclinations. By offering numerous deities, philosophies, and practices, Hinduism addresses the psychological need for individualized spiritual exploration within a collective cultural context, providing comfort in diversity.

5. Buddhism - The End of Suffering Through Insight:

Buddhism presents the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path as a guide to ending suffering by understanding impermanence and the non-self. This insight directly tackles human existential angst, offering not just a philosophical viewpoint but practical steps towards mental peace. The emphasis on mindfulness and detachment offers a psychological toolkit for navigating life's inevitable pains.

6. Confucianism - Harmony Through Ethical Living:

While more philosophical than religious, Confucianism's insight into human psychology is the achievement of harmony through ethical conduct and defined social roles. This resonates with the human desire for social order and personal significance within a community. By promoting virtues like filial piety and respect, Confucianism provides a framework where one's personal fulfillment is inextricably linked to societal well-being.

7. Taoism - Flowing with the Natural Way:

Taoism's insight is the art of living in harmony with the Tao, encouraging an acceptance of life's natural flow rather than resistance. This psychological approach fosters peace of mind, flexibility, and a reduced stress response to life's challenges. It offers a way to live that aligns with the rhythms of nature, promoting a profound sense of balance and tranquility.

Conclusion:

Each of these religions, with their unique psychological insights, has not only shaped spiritual landscapes but also provided frameworks for understanding and coping with the human condition. These insights offer ways to find meaning, cope with adversity, connect with others, and ultimately, understand oneself in the cosmos. They highlight how deeply intertwined psychology and spirituality are, suggesting that the success of a religion might very well hinge on how well it speaks to the core of human experience.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

by Nathan Eshelman | Reformed Presbyterians are called Covenanters. The RP Testimony says, "Covenanting in the New Testament takes the form of confessing Christ and His Lordship. In view of the continued emphasis of the covenantal relationship of God to men in the New Testament, it is appropriate for churches and nations to covenant to be the Lord’s and to serve Him. The statements or documents produced in these acts of covenant response are…

[companiesnext19]

Demystifying Share Purchase Agreements: Understanding, Advantages, and Key Clauses

Understanding a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA): An SPA is not just a legal formality; it serves as a cornerstone in the business acquisition process. The buyer, in essence, takes on the company's obligations and assets, making due diligence imperative. Prior to finalizing the SPA, a term sheet is often created to discuss key clauses, simplifying the negotiation process.

Advantages of a Share Purchase Agreement (SPA):

Clarity of Transaction:

Provides transparency in the transaction, clearly delineating the proportion of shares allocated to the buyer or entity.

Rights and Liabilities:

Legally prescribes the rights and liabilities of all parties, ensuring clear definitions of roles and responsibilities.

Warranties:

All parties are covered by specific warranties outlined in the agreement, enhancing legal protection.

No Third-Party Involvement:

Being a legal contract between specific parties, the SPA eliminates the involvement of any third party.

First Point of Reference:

Serves as the primary point of reference in case of breaches or misunderstandings between parties in the future.

Major Clauses of Share Purchase Agreement (SPA):

Parties to the Agreement:

Clearly defines the seller, purchaser, and the company whose shares are being transferred, referred to as covenanters or guarantors.

Background:

Provides a factual background, leaving no room for errors, outlining the relationship between parties, the objective of the transaction, and details about the shares being transferred.

Consideration and Sale of Shares:

Details the structure of the sale consideration, specifying the number and value of shares, payment details, and pricing formula.

Conditions Precedent and Subsequent:

Exhaustively covers approvals, authorizations, and permits required before and after the execution of the transaction, including representations, warranties, and obligations.

Closing:

Establishes the closing mechanism, outlining the timeframe and actions to be taken on closing day, with a provision that closing occurs upon the satisfaction of condition precedents.

Covenants by the Parties:

Includes both negative and positive covenants, providing security to each party regarding their past and proposed actions related to the SPA.

Representations and Warranties:

Captures the capital structure of the company, the purchaser's right to contract, purchase, and ability to fulfill obligations, ensuring credibility of information.

Confidentiality:

Ensures that parties receiving confidential information keep it confidential and refrain from using it for prejudicial purposes.

Indemnification:

Specifies the limits of liability and the process for reimbursement of indemnity claims, a crucial clause in case of disputes.

Dispute Resolution and Arbitration:

Sets out the process for resolving disputes, either through the courts or via arbitration, with the decision of the arbitrator being final and binding.

Conclusion: In essence, the Share Purchase Agreement is a comprehensive document that not only confirms mutually agreed-upon terms and conditions but also specifies the intricacies of the share transfer process. From the type of shares being transferred to the price paid, the SPA is the cornerstone that ensures a smooth transition of ownership, laying the foundation for a successful business transaction.

[revlyncox]

Love, Liberation, and New Visions: Wisdom from bell hooks

Love is more of a practice than a sentiment. This sermon was offered to The Unitarian Society in East Brunswick on February 11, 2024.

Love is an important practice for Unitarian Universalists. Indeed, love is at the center of the way UU values are described in the proposed revision to Article II of the UUA bylaws. As Valentine’s Day approaches, and we are bombarded with images of romantic love that may or may not be healthy, this is a good time to re-orient ourselves to our deepest values; we remind ourselves about what love means in concrete terms. 

A few years ago, the world lost one of its great sages who wrote about love. The author, feminist, poet, professor, and social activist known to her readers as bell hooks died in December of 2021 at the age of 69. She used her great-grandmother’s name as a pen name. She would write it in all lower case, and said that was so readers would focus on (quote) the “substance of books, not who I am.”

As an author and an academic, bell hooks was successful and influential. She taught at various universities such as Stanford, Yale, and City College of New York before returning home to Kentucky to join the faculty of Berea College in 2004, where she was a Distinguished Professor in Residence in Appalachian Studies. 

With over 30 published books on topics ranging from racism to pedagogy to a culture of place, there is a lot we can learn from bell hooks, yet in honor of the upcoming holiday and our exploration of love in the proposed Article II, concentrating on her book All About Love: New Visions seems the logical place to begin. Written in 1999 and published in 2000, this was her first in a series about love that also included “Communion,” “The Will to Change,” and “Salvation.” While the book All About Love does address romantic love, hooks makes the specific point that romance isn’t the only or the most important kind of love, and that all love is better understood as a practice rather than a sentiment. 

In practicing a love ethic, hooks said that love is best understood as a verb. Inspired by M. Scott Peck and The Road Less Traveled, hooks advocated for clear, operational definitions of love. She wrote, “To truly love, we must learn to mix various ingredients–care, affection, recognition, respect, commitment, and trust, as well as honest and open communication” (From “Chapter One: Clarity: Give Love Words”). We might be surprised that, as a poet, hooks was less caught up in creating metaphors and images that described the inner experience of feeling affection than she was fierce in insisting that we can all learn how to love well. Yet, as a poet, she knew that words need to have meaning in the living world. 

Dr. Takiyah Nur Amin made the point in this week’s Braver/Wiser devotional newsletter that Unitarian Universalism is a lived faith. Our actions matter. She also talked about the theological importance of Black Unitarian Universalist history, because much of what our Black UU ancestors have to teach is written in their lives rather than in essays. She writes:

If you’re seeking sacred Black “text” in our tradition, you have to examine the way our Black ancestors lived. You have to seek out the Black folks who were in Unitarian and Universalist or UU congregations, and the work that they were doing in community—whether it was suffrage, or trying to educate Black children, or their working towards social action or civil access. Our “text” is embodied in the lives of people like Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, Joseph Jordan, David Eaton, and countless others.

(Dr. Amin continues)

One of the things I love about this tradition is that our faith is covenantal and not confessional—meaning that to some degree, our tradition cares little about what you stand up and say you believe. The evidence of your Unitarian Universalism is embodied in the depth of your relationships: how do you live in relationship to self and other? (I don't just mean human other: to the plants, to the animals, to the stars…) The proof is in the pudding, for UUs. It’s not about what you have to say. How are you living?

I encourage you to read Dr. Amin’s whole reflection. How we live means how we show up for our values in the public square, and how we treat the people around us, and how we steward the resources with which we have been entrusted, and how we commit to growing as people. It’s all love. 

Here at TUS, one of the ways we practice love is by adhering to the right relations covenant. This document is on display in the hall, and I’ll read it to you:

Right Relations Covenant

As members and friends of this Unitarian Universalist congregation, we affirm that our community is founded on openness, trust, respect, and love. In our time together–in meetings and conversations and worship and work–we covenant with one another to freely explore our values and honor our diversity as a source of communal strength. Therefore, I will:

accept responsibility for my individual acts and interactions;

in all encounters, speak for myself, from my own experience;

allow others to speak for themselves;

listen with respect and resilience;

not criticize the views of others or attempt to pressure or coerce others;

not interrupt–except to indicate that I cannot hear;

participate within the time frames suggested by the facilitator;

communicate with kindness and clarity in service of justice and peace in our community

Love is one of the values named right in the first sentence of the Right Relations Covenant. Love is operationalized, it’s about the ways we behave, and the ways we demonstrate respect. One of the things I notice about this covenant is that it requires us to slow down. We allow others to speak for themselves; that takes time. We listen with respect and resilience; that takes time. Deep and healthy relationships require an investment of the gift of time. 

Love, in a community setting, asks us to communicate about our perspectives, needs and wants; and also asks us to recognize the perspectives, needs, and wants of others. With kindness and consideration, we understand that our own perspective does not equal a demand that all operations be geared toward making us comfortable at the expense of others’ ability to participate. Love calls us to show up in service to others, to express appreciation, to look carefully for the pieces that are missing that would help us create a place where all can, as bell hooks says, “live fully and well.” 

Love makes room for repair. One of the things that sets a covenant apart from a list of rules is that it stretches to accommodate our human-ness. People make mistakes. A covenant should be constructed to take this into account, and to invite people back into relationship as we acknowledge our mistakes and work toward making amends. In this morning’s story, bell hooks (in the voice of Girlpie) reminds us that “there is no all the time right. But all the time any hurt can be healed. All wrongs forgiven. And all the world made peace again.”

We come together in community from a variety of backgrounds, bringing all kinds of experiences and heavy emotions from other parts of our lives; of course we will sometimes make mistakes and have conflicts. Our brushes with misunderstanding, when we navigate them skillfully, can be the sandpaper that softens our sharp corners and helps us to smooth out the pathways for forward movement. 

This is sharply different from how many of us were raised. There are plenty of settings without room for forgiveness or repair. We might say that these are places without grace, though I know that can be a tricky word. There are families where perfection, or at least a convincing illusion of perfection, is expected at all times, and failure to produce that perfection results in isolation and rejection. There are cultural expectations on some of us to be right, and where being right is more important than being collaborative. 

Switching gears to a practice of love in which we can discuss our differences honestly is a profound paradigm shift for many people. It is disconcerting to be asked to acknowledge conflict or hurts if our experience is that these conversations lead only to punishment and rejection rather than to a deeper relationship that comes from mutual understanding. If our previous experience is that discomfort is a one-way ticket to exclusion, the discomfort necessary in hearing other perspectives, in admitting that we don’t know everything, in accepting responsibility–all of that discomfort is hard to tolerate if we have been taught that discomfort and danger are the same thing. The active, flexible, living practice of love is necessary to create the spaces where we can be bold, authentic, and caring. 

This brings me to another point raised in All About Love, which is that the authentic practice of love is congruent with liberation. The true practice of love cannot coexist with abuse or with systems of domination. In the contrast I made just now between the loving community and the settings where no mistakes are tolerated, one of the ingredients that gets in the way of love is fear. As hooks writes in Chapter Six:

“Fear is the primary force upholding structures of domination. It promotes the desire for separation, the desire not to be known. When we are taught that safety lies always with sameness, then difference, of any kind, will appear as a threat. When we choose to love we choose to move against fear–against alienation and separation. The choice to love is a choice to connect–to find ourselves in the other.”

As an antidote to fear, hooks calls us to choose to be known, to choose to be our whole selves and to embrace the practice of other people being their whole selves, different from us. This is what we need to cultivate hope and to overcome the nihilism of isolation, despair, and fear. She quotes Cornel West, who says:

“Nihilism is not overcome by arguments or analyses, it is tamed by love and care. Any disease of the soul must be conquered by a turning of one’s soul. This turning is done through one’s own affirmation of one’s worth–an affirmation fueled by the concern of others.” (Quoted in All About Love, Chapter Six)

Cornel West is also known for reminding us that “justice is what love looks like in public.” For both West and hooks, love is a practice in our personal relationships and in our societal structures. Listen to West here, talking about “affirmation of one’s worth.” This is Humanist language, ready to unleash the potential of the inherent worth and dignity of every person, which necessarily includes dismantling the structures that dehumanize. West and hooks agree that making that turn is fueled by active care and concern, by practices of nurture and affirmation and support. The project of caring for one another and the project of humanizing the spaces we inhabit and the project of cultivating justice and mercy in the public sphere are all the same project. They are all aspects of love. 

I want to back up a little bit and talk about liberation, because it’s not a framework that everyone is used to. Liberation is not single-issue based, and it is not about more powerful people making good things happen on behalf of less powerful people. Liberation is a vision for a different way of being. Putting this in love terms, bell hooks says, “A love ethic presupposes that everyone has the right to be free, to live fully and well.” 

Liberation requires an assumption of agency, particularly the agency of people who are most impacted by oppression. Black liberation theologians like James Cone and Latin American liberation theologians like Gustavo Gutiérrez are also illuminating here. In liberation theology movements, our deepest sources of hope and inspiration are not separate from the world, but are present with us in the struggle for liberation. Liberation means freedom from oppression, living into a world that practices the inherent worth and dignity of every person, moving toward economic justice and collective concern for collective well-being. 

Liberation is a vision in which all of us need all of us. Our thriving is connected. Liberation is not about benefactors or saviors, but about people acting together for the collective good, because none of us are truly self-sufficient. Put another way, liberation is about right relationship, at every scale of relationship. And so, full circle, liberation is about love. When we behave in our relationships in a way that brings about mutual care and shared thriving, that is the love in operational terms that bell hooks spoke of. 

Liberation is a vision, it is a practice we can create on a small scale, even as we acknowledge that the larger society is not yet free. According to bell hooks, systemic oppression, accepted in the larger culture, is a major obstacle to our practice of true love. In All About Love, she explores the obstacles of patriarchy; gender roles and expectations that prevent people from being honest with others and themselves; norms of systemic oppression that turn what could be mutually caring relationships into power struggles. In other writing, she explores how racism gets in the way of relationships and in the way of the feminist movement. Systems of oppression overlap and interlock. Every aspect of a worldview that diminishes the agency, dignity, and worth of some for the benefit of others gets in the way of the practice of love. And practicing love in defiance of those systems–being authentic and demonstrating care and cultivating courage in relationships–the practice of love helps dismantle oppression. 

We cannot practice a love ethic without letting go of racism, patriarchy, classism, wealth inequality, xenophobia, and other oppressions. “Awakening to love can happen only as we let go of our obsession with power and domination,” writes bell hooks. She goes on to say, “To bring a love ethic to every dimension of our lives, our society would need to embrace change.”

Embracing change is, of course, difficult. The pandemic has invited us into a period of profound change, and it’s hard. Our society has the opportunity to improve building requirements for clean air, to normalize masking, to increase access to paid sick leave and to quality health care. We know that no one person’s health is an isolated phenomenon; what happens to one of us affects all of us. Pretending that everything is back to normal is more tempting than making the societal changes we need to take care of each other. 

Out of love, we advocate as best we can in the public square, and we remain true to our capacity to change in the service of love in our own environments. As we as a congregation live into being a hybrid community–a place where people can remain connected even if their disabilities or their caregiving responsibilities make it hard to travel on Sundays–we are going to remember again that change is hard. Practicing welcome and inclusion is hard. Demonstrating our values in the way we do things, even if it’s not familiar or comfortable, is hard. Again, if you are used to comfort being the same as safety, it may not feel like love to do the things that are unfamiliar so that we can be inclusive and flexible. Love asks us to change so that all of us can live fully and well. 

Fear gets in the way of love, and practicing love gives us the courage to overcome fear. Choosing love means choosing authenticity, choosing the possibility of accountability and forgiveness, choosing collective wellbeing instead of power and domination, choosing mutual thriving instead of an ethic of control. Choosing love means choosing connection. It is not easy, and we are capable of doing hard things. Choosing love means we will not be doing hard things alone.

May it be so.

[mariacallous]

Oh god, Reeves is back, and now the question (in conversation with the Institute for Family Studies) is: Is Marriage Dying or Just Changing? 

Editor’s Note: This article is an edited version of the transcript for the video, "Is Marriage Dying?" which Richard Reeves made with Big Think. It has been published here with permission.

There has been a general decline in marriage over recent decades. But behind that general decline lies a more interesting story. Marriage is diversifying, with different people tying the knot for very different reasons. But marriage is also dividing, especially along class lines.

To understand these marriage patterns, it is important we try to understand why people get married in the first place. There are perhaps five main reasons to marry: God, money, love, pregnancy, or status:

For some people marriage is simply a religious matter, a covenantal relationship. Marriage is a sacrament, especially in the Christian tradition. 

For many more people there's still an economic element to getting married. (On that note, let me give an early recommendation of Melissa Kearney’s forthcoming book, The Two-Parent Privilege: How Americans Stopped Getting Married and Started Falling Behind.)

There is obviously also companionship and love: you fall in love and want to spend the rest of your life with someone. So, for many there's primarily a romantic element to marriage. 

Another reason for getting married, much less common today than in the past, is because of an unintended pregnancy, the so-called, "shotgun wedding." There was a sense that if you were bringing a new life into the world, then that should be done within marriage, and that remains true to some extent today.

Marriage is also a signal of status (what Andrew Cherlin calls the “trophy marriage”), and this may be more common today than in the past—being married is a way of signaling success and status within a society. 

So there are now a range of reasons, including religion, romance, economics, and status, that might lead people to the marital state. But it is clear that the “standard” model of marriage as breadwinner and childrearer is passing away. 

For women, the traditional model of marriage was an economic necessity particularly if she was planning to have children—to be with a man who would be the provider. Obviously, that has changed today. Women account for 40% of sole or primary breadwinners in U.S. households. 

For men, marriage was a way to attach himself to children. If he was going to have children, he had to do that with a woman who would raise those children, and so he had to provide for them. So, there was a complementarity inherent in the traditional view of marriage, but which, of course, was founded on a very deep economic inequality between men and women. 

That inequality was a driving force of the women's movement, especially for people like Gloria Steinem, who said the point is to make marriage into a choice rather than a necessity, and to actually free women from the economic bondage of marriage. “Being able to support oneself allows one to choose a marriage out of love and not just economic dependence,” Steinem said in 2004. That inequality and dependence has been successfully shattered by the women's movement. 

Today, the very institution of marriage, which is central to human societies, has been fundamentally transformed. It's an institution that is now entered into on the basis of egalitarian principles. Women have huge exit power—they are twice as likely as men to file for divorce. As a result, women are no longer stuck in bad marriages, which is a huge achievement for humanity. 

But for men, of course, the old role of providing while their wives raise the children has largely gone out of the window, too. Men's role in marriage and what it means for a man to be "marriageable," to use a slightly ugly term from social science, is very different now from in the past. When it comes to marriage, women are increasingly looking for something more than just a paycheck. 

It's a bit like the kaleidoscope has been shaken, and the patterns haven't quite settled yet. You see lesbian and gay couples being able to opt into marriage. Within a couple of years of the Supreme Court decision, we saw almost 3 out of 5 lesbian and gay couples choosing to get married. You also see a big class gap opening up: fewer working-class and lower-income Americans are opting into the institution. What we now have is what my colleague Isabel Sawhill describes as "a new fault line in the American class structure." No one expected that Americans with the most choice and the most economic power—and especially American women with the most choice and economic power—would be the ones who were continuing to get married and stay married. 

There's been a very slight decline in marriage for those with four-year college degrees, but a really big decline for those with less education. The typical college-educated American woman is almost as likely to get married as her mother was, and if anything, a little bit more likely to stay married. 

One of the other big changes has been a significant rise in the age at first marriage, up to around 30. I think about my parents who married at 21, having met at 17, which was pretty common back then. Actually, as late as 1970, most women who went to college in the U.S., which was a minority of course, were married within a year of graduating. That's a world that's very difficult to fathom now, as both men and women now enter the labor market, become economically successful, and often establish themselves economically before getting married. Today, you do all that first, then you marry. Marriage has become more like a capstone, to use another of Andrew Cherlin’s descriptions, where marriage is a signal of everything that has led up to the ceremony, rather than the beginning of a journey. 

We can no longer tell a single story about marriage in America in the way we could 40 years ago. We need to tell different stories based on class and race and geography. We've seen a real divide opening up in marriage in the United States. 

Americans, today, are much less likely to see marriage as something that you need to do to be a complete person or have a good life. In fact, fewer than 1 in 5 Americans now believe that it's essential to be married to have a fulfilling life. That's a huge cultural change.  

The model of marriage that was founded on economic dependency for women is completely obsolete. This is progress. But while we have created models of the family that are more equal and fair, they are often not such stable unions. The challenge we now face is to find ways to create more stability in our family life, without sacrificing the goal of equality. What we should be asking is how do we have strong relationships within which people can raise kids well? Marriage can still play a role here, of course. But there are alternative models, too. With 40% of children being born to unmarried parents, and most of those born to mothers without a college degree, there will need to be.

Because what matters above all is parenting, the way we raise our kids. It is possible to imagine a renewed future for marriage based around egalitarianism between men and women, but a shared commitment to kids. I think that’s for us to create. (That’s an argument I made in my 2014 Atlantic essay, “How to Save Marriage in America.”)

If marriage is to survive, it will be in this new model founded on shared parenting, not as a restoration of the old one based on economic inequality.

Richard V. Reeves is a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male Is Struggling, Why It Matters, and What to Do about It (Brookings Institution Press, 2022). Watch the video this essay is based upon, "Is Marriage Dying?" here.

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or views of the Institute for Family Studies.

[mindfulldsliving]

Remnant Theology and the Book of Mormon: Divine Promise and Modern Faith

The Book of Mormon is replete with prophecies and promises directed towards a faithful remnant, echoing similar themes found in biblical scripture.

Exploring Remnant Theology in the Book of Mormon Is the idea of a divinely chosen remnant piquing your curiosity, especially within the context of the Book of Mormon? This theological concept, deeply embedded in Latter-day Saint teachings, represents the belief that a faithful subset of Israel was preserved to fulfill God’s covenant. The Book of Mormon not only embraces this narrative but also…

[generalb2]

Psalms 1: 3 Expose

“He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither—whatever he does prospers” (Psalm 1:3). What a picture of steadfastness, resilience, and abundance. Yet this verse doesn’t stand alone; its weight, its promise, is rooted in the foundation laid in the preceding verses.

The psalmist begins with a warning: “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.” Notice the progression—walk, stand, sit. It’s subtle yet profound. At first, you’re simply walking alongside worldly distractions, a fleeting moment of compromise. Then, you’re standing still, entertaining those voices longer than you should. Finally, you’re seated, entrenched, and at ease among things that corrode your soul. To avoid this descent, you must choose separation—a willful act of turning away from the easy sway of the world.

But the psalmist doesn’t merely call us to abandon; he calls us to embrace. “His delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law, he meditates day and night” (Psalm 1:2). This delight isn’t a begrudging duty; it’s an intimate, unquenchable thirst for God’s Word. It’s not about flipping pages mechanically or checking off a devotional box—it’s about a heart so captivated by the divine truth that it ruminates on it continually, like a melody that lingers in your mind long after the music has stopped.

Now comes verse 3, the crescendo, the promise, the reward. The one who delights in God and resists the pull of sin becomes “like a tree planted by streams of water.” Notice the language: this tree isn’t haphazardly growing wild; it is planted—deliberately positioned in a place of constant nourishment. Its roots stretch deep, drinking in the living water that never runs dry. The seasons may change, storms may howl, and droughts may threaten, but this tree remains steadfast, its leaves unwithered and its branches heavy with fruit at the appointed time.

This is no coincidence; this is divine providence. The prosperity mentioned here isn’t about material wealth or worldly success; it’s about flourishing in God’s purpose. Whatever this person does prospers because it aligns with the will of the One who planted him. The prosperity is not circumstantial; it is covenantal. It’s not fleeting; it’s eternal.

So, Let’s reflect. Is your life a tree with roots anchored by streams of water, or are you a dry, withering shrub struggling to survive in an arid wasteland? The answer lies not just in verse 3 but in your adherence to verses 1 and 2. Your counsel, your company, your meditations—they all shape the soil in which you’re planted.

When someone asks, “What do you gain from praying, from reading Scripture, from delighting in God?” it’s tempting to measure your response by human metrics. But think instead of what you’ve lost. You’ve lost the restless wandering of a soul searching for meaning. You’ve lost the exhaustion of chasing fleeting pleasures that leave you empty. You’ve lost the bitterness that poisons relationships and the fear that paralyzes your steps.

In their place, you’ve gained roots—deep, steady, unshakable roots. You’ve gained a source of nourishment that never runs dry, no matter how barren the landscape around you. You’ve gained fruit—not for yourself alone but for others to taste and see that the Lord is good. And most of all, you’ve gained a leaf that will never wither—a life that reflects the glory of God, enduring through every season.

Psalms 1:3 is the overflow of verses 1 and 2. To be planted by streams of water is not an accident; it’s a choice. To yield fruit is not a fluke; it’s a promise. To prosper is not the world’s definition; it’s heaven’s affirmation. The question is: what soil are you standing in, and where are your roots stretching?

[vinceleemiller]

Faithfully His or Adulterously Divided | James 4:4-5

Have you ever felt the tension of being torn between two loyalties? One path pulls you toward comfort, popularity, and worldly approval, while the other demands total devotion to God. That tug-of-war is more common than we admit, which we will discover in our text today.

Welcome to the Daily Devo. Our text today is James 4:4-5

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? — James 4:4-5

James confronts his audience with a bold accusation: "You adulterous people!" This isn’t just harsh language; it’s a profoundly intentional analogy that draws on the imagery of a covenant relationship—much like a marriage. Throughout Scripture, God is portrayed as the faithful husband of His people (Isaiah 54:5; Hosea 2:19-20) and His people as His beloved bride. Adultery, then, is a metaphor for spiritual unfaithfulness and a heart divided between love for God and love for the world.

God desires an exclusive, covenantal relationship with His people, not out of need but out of love. Yet, when we align ourselves with the world’s values, priorities, and allure—when we give our hearts to anything other than Him—we betray that sacred relationship. It’s like a spouse giving their affection to another which shatters trust and intimacy.

James even adds that "friendship with the world is enmity with God" because the world’s system is fundamentally opposed to God’s truth. The world seeks self-promotion over humility, indulgence over righteousness, and independence from God rather than dependence on Him. To side with the world is not a neutral choice—it’s a declaration of hostility toward the very heart of God.

Here's the truth for today:

You are faithfully God's or adulterously divided.

But James is not going to leave us in despair. He reveals the depth of God’s relentless love: “He yearns jealously over the spirit He has made to dwell in us.” This jealousy is not the sinful jealousy of humans but the pure and holy jealousy of a God who created us for Himself. The kind of jealousy burns with a desire to protect, restore, and reclaim. God’s jealousy is a passionate commitment to our ultimate good and His eternal glory. Even when we stray, He calls us back with an undying love, longing for our hearts to be wholly His.

In this vivid analogy, James invites us to examine where our affections lie: Are we honoring our covenant with God, or are we dividing our loyalty with the world? God's jealous love reminds us that He will not settle for half-hearted devotion—He wants all of us.

So are you giving all of you to him, like he was given all for you?

Friend, have you felt that tug-of-war in your heart? The pull of the world promising comfort, approval, and success—but leaving you empty? God’s Word reveals that divided loyalties lead to enmity with Him. Yet, in His relentless love, God still calls us back, offering us the gift of reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

The truth is, we’ve all been unfaithful. Our sin separates us from God, and no amount of effort can bridge that gap. But God, in His mercy, made a way. Jesus, the perfect Son of God, came to restore what was broken. He lived a sinless life, died on the cross in your place, and rose again to offer you new life—free from the weight of sin and the grip of the world.

Today, God is inviting you to leave behind the emptiness of divided loyalties and come into a relationship with Him through Jesus. He yearns jealously for you, not to condemn but to restore, to reclaim your heart for Himself. Will you respond to His call? Will you give your whole heart to the One who gave His all for you?

Pray this prayer with me if you’re ready to surrender your life to Him: Lord, I know I’ve been unfaithful. I’ve sought the approval of the world and turned away from You. Forgive me. Thank You for sending Jesus to die for my sins and to rise again, offering me new life. Today, I give You my heart and my life. Help me to live faithfully for You from this day forward. Amen.

If you’ve prayed this, welcome to the family of God! Lean into His Word, connect with a Bible-believing church, and grow in your newfound faith. Remember, God’s love for you is unwavering, and He will walk with you every step of the way.

You are faithfully His—no longer divided.

#FaithfulnessToGod, #FriendshipWithTheWorld, #UndividedHeart

ASK THIS:

Where in your life are you tempted to prioritize worldly approval over God’s truth?

How does God’s jealous love challenge your view of faithfulness?

What does spiritual adultery look like in your daily decisions and relationships?

How can you realign your heart to live fully devoted to God this week?

DO THIS:

Examine one area of your life where you’ve prioritized worldly values over God’s truth, and take a specific step to realign it with Him today.

PRAY THIS:

Lord, forgive me for the times I have divided my heart between You and the world. Help me to live faithfully, giving You my whole heart and devotion. Amen

PLAY THIS:

Faithfully.

Check out this episode!

[apenitentialprayer]

A Trinitarian Conviction for Human Dignity

The Church proclaims the equal dignity of all people, regardless of their living conditions or qualities. This proclamation rests on a threefold conviction, which —in light of the Christian faith— gives human dignity an immeasurable value and reinforces its intrinsic demands. The Indelible Image of God The first conviction, drawn from Revelation, holds that the dignity of the human person comes from the love of the Creator, who has imprinted the indelible features of His Image on every person (cf. Gen. 1:26). The Creator calls each person to know Him, to love Him, and to live in covenantal relationship with Him; while calling the person also to live in fraternity, justice, and peace with all others. In this perspective, dignity refers not only to the soul but also to the person as an inseparable unity of body and soul. Accordingly, dignity is also inherent in each person's body, which participates in its own way in being in imago Dei (in the Image of God) and is also called to share the soul's glory in the divine beatitude. Christ Elevates Human Dignity The second conviction follows from the fact that the dignity of the human person was revealed in its fullness when the Father sent His Son, who assumed human existence to the full: "In the mystery of the Incarnation, the Son of God confirmed the dignity of the body and soul which constitute the human being" [Dignitas Personae, §7]. By uniting Himself with every human being through His Incarnation, Jesus Christ confirmed that each person possesses an immeasurable dignity simply by belonging to the human community; moreover, He affirmed that this dignity can never be lost. By proclaiming that the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor, the humble, the despised, and those who suffer in body and spirit; by healing all sorts of illnesses and infirmities, even the most dramatic ones, such as leprosy; by affirming that whatever is done to these individuals is also done to him because he is present in them: in all these ways, Jesus brought the great novelty of recognizing the dignity of every person, especially those who were considered "unworthy." This new principle in human history —which emphasizes that individuals are even more "worthy" of our respect and love when they are weak, scorned, or suffering, even to the point of losing the human "figure"— has changed the face of the world. It has given life to institutions that take care of those who find themselves in disadvantaged conditions, such as abandoned infants, orphans, the elderly who are left without assistance, the mentally ill, people with incurable diseases or severe deformities, and those living on the streets. A Vocation to the Fullness of Dignity The third conviction concerns the ultimate destiny of human beings. After the Creation and the Incarnation, Christ's Resurrection reveals a further aspect of human dignity. Indeed, "the dignity of this life is linked not only to its beginning, to the fact that it comes from God, but also to its final end, to its destiny of fellowship with God in knowledge and love of Him. In light of this truth, Saint Irenaeus qualifies and completes his praise of man: 'the glory of God' is indeed 'man, living man,' but 'the life of man consists in the vision of God' [Evangelium Vitae, §38b]. Consequently, the Church believes and affirms that all human beings —created in the Image and likeness of God and recreated in the Son, who became Man, was crucified, and rose again— are called to grow under the action of the Holy Spirit to reflect the glory of the Father in that same image and to share in eternal life (cf. Jn. 10:15-16, 17:22-24; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 1:3-14). Indeed, "Revelation . . . shows forth the dignity of the human person in all its fullness."

- Dignitas infinita, or "On Human Dignity" (§17-21)

[ufamsetobije]

Tomislav Antić - Svjedočanstvo   ☩JMT☩@SecretFire79SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE IS WRONG: A Catholic Perspective The Catholic Church's teaching on sexuality is rooted in profound theological, moral, and anthropological truths. Far from rejecting the beauty of human sexuality, the Church celebrates it as a sacred gift designed to unite a husband and wife in mutual self-giving and to bring forth new life. The following in-depth discussion unpacks the key points presented above, contextualizing them for today’s generation. Why Does the Church Teach That Sex Before Marriage is Wrong? The Sacredness of Sex The Church’s teachings affirm that sex is not a bad or dirty thing but rather a holy and beautiful gift. This belief is grounded in the Bible, where sexuality is celebrated, such as in the Song of Songs, a poetic exaltation of love and intimacy. Pope St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body further emphasizes that sexuality, when expressed in accordance with God’s plan, becomes a profound act of love and communion. Sex is sacred because it mirrors God’s love—free, total, faithful, and fruitful. In marriage, sex becomes an act of self-giving that unites spouses and participates in the divine act of creation. Outside the context of marriage, sex risks losing its sacred character, becoming transactional or self-serving rather than self-giving. --- The Covenant of Marriage The Bible defines marriage as the union where "two become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). This union involves not only physical intimacy but also a lifelong covenant of mutual fidelity and support. The Church teaches that the act of sex consummates and seals this covenant. Engaging in sexual intimacy outside marriage undermines this covenantal understanding of sex. It divorces the physical act from its deeper spiritual and relational meanings, reducing it to a fleeting pleasure rather than an expression of lifelong commitment. --- The Dangers of Premarital Sex 1. Emotional and Spiritual Harm: Premarital sex often leads to feelings of abandonment, guilt, and emotional pain, especially when the relationship ends. The emotional bond created by sex, designed to be lifelong, becomes a source of hurt when broken. This pain is amplified because sex involves the whole person—body, mind, and soul. 2. Objectification: When sex occurs outside marriage, it risks becoming a self-centered act where one person uses another for physical or emotional gratification. This contradicts the Catholic call to love others as we love ourselves (Mark 12:31), treating them as ends, not means. 3. Societal Consequences: The normalization of casual sex contributes to broader societal issues, including broken families, rising rates of sexually transmitted diseases, and a culture that devalues commitment and fidelity. --- How Much Physical Intimacy is Too Much? The Church acknowledges that physical affection is a natural part of romantic relationships. However, such expressions should reflect chastity and respect for the dignity of both individuals. Guidelines for Physical Intimacy: Affectionate Gestures: Holding hands, hugging, and brief kisses are generally appropriate. Avoid Sexual Arousal: Any action that involves genital contact, intense sexual passion (e.g., French kissing), or leads to orgasm is considered inappropriate outside marriage. Guarding Against Near Occasions of Sin: Couples should avoid situations (like being alone in private settings) that could lead to temptation. The goal is to cultivate a relationship based on respect, friendship, and shared faith, preparing for a possible future marriage without compromising chastity. --- What if I've Already Had Sex Before Marriage? God’s Mercy is Greater Than Any Sin The Church teaches that no one is beyond God’s forgiveness. As sinners, we are all called to repentance and renewal. St. Augustine, one of the greatest Church Fathers, struggled with sexual sin before his conversion, yet he became a model of holiness and a doctor of the Church.

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

by Ron DiGiacomo | It is not merely according to covenantal promise, forgiveness and imputed righteousness that we receive our inheritance in Christ but as justified sinners who by grace have been adopted in union with the Son. Believers are fitted for heaven because of all the entailments of union with the last and faithful Adam who as Son is very God…