Meal Train for the Lutrick Family

General
1

Hi everyone. Carla, who is someone I know, came home from work around 2 PM this past Sunday to find her husband, Patrick, of over 16 years still in bed, with their two kids, ages 10 and 13, awake in the other room. She thought he was alseep, because the kids thought he was napping, but when she touched him, he was cold. He had suddenly passed away at some point earlier that morning, or during the night.

A co-worker and friend of Carla started a meal train for her and I’m sharing the link here. If any of you can join me and others in donating what you can, be it money, a giftcard, or a meal to this widow and her orphans, may God bless you. And there is an option to donate anonymously if you choose. Eternally grateful in advance.

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and undefiled is this: to come to the aid of orphans and widows in their hardships and to keep oneself untarnished by the world.” (James 1:27)

2 Likes
2

Post deleted by author.

1 Like
3

Post deleted by author.

1 Like
4

The idea that James is putting forward is different than the idea that Jesus put forward when speaking with the Jewish clerics. They asked Jesus what is the highest rule or principle of spiritual or religious life. Jesus didn’t mention either the idea of doing good works for others, or the idea of keeping oneself sinless (untarnished) by being a pious person. Jesus said that the rule of all rules is to love the Lord our God with all of our heart, and all of our strength. Of course there is nothing incorrect about being helpful to others, as everyone is a child of God, and therefore members of our family. Christians in general seem to equate being a good person with the message of Jesus. But there are many atheists who are kind to each other. The very love that we feel for our friends and family…that feeling of love becomes perfected when we feel the same way towards God our eternal Father. From that orientation of the heart, all guidance in the other affairs of our lives will become spontaneously perfect.

5

That’s not all Jesus said in the passage you’re referring to. He said in full:

"Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment.

And the second is like to this: Love your neighbour as yourself.

On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34; Luke 10:25–28)

Jesus also said that love covers a multitude of sins (1 Pet. 4:8).

What James spoke about, which was showing love to widows and orphans by coming to their aid when they have hardships, and keeping oneself untarnished by the world (James 1:27), ties precisely into Jesus’s words above.

6

Respectful greetings, Mathetria!

It is my understanding that the highest love one can have for oneself, or what is referred to as “enlightened self-interest” is to follow the first rule of loving the Lord with all of our heart, and to wish and pray with all of our heart to actually attain that status of spiritual life. Why? Because one who loves the Lord so fully and completely is the most fortunate, the most blessed soul, living in intimate relationship with God 24/7.
If loving God in this way is actual love for oneself, as opposed to cultivating desires for health, wealth, good family life, etc. then it would follow that “And the second is like to this: Love your neighbour as yourself.” means to wish that others also attain this enlightened self-interest of unalloyed love for God. This means that if we really love oursleves, by loving God, we share our love for our eternal Father with everyone. We become a “fisher of men”, as Jesus instructed. This is my understanding.

Otherwise we are in the arena of “good works” which Jesus frowned upon. He siad that we have to chose between serving God and serving Mammon. Being a servant of Mammon simply means thinking that anything other than love of God will make us fulfilled. As Jesus says, he didn’t come to make everyone’s family life nice together, but to tear the family apart in order to liberate the one who is ready to follow him. Jesus made that distinction between good works and real spiritual life, by saying that the pious man who who could not follow Jesus, because he was attached to his wealth, would not see God, because for one who is attached to the things of this world, it is more difficult for them to really know God than it is to pass a camel through the eye of a needle.

In other words, Jesus didn’t come among us to show how to live nicely in this world. He came to set us free from these worldly desires. Whereas a hard-core prisoner doesn’t think about qualifying for getting out of prison; he thinks about turning prison life into a nice social arrangement. Therefore many people who worship God, don’t think, “Not my will, but Thy will be done.” Rather they approach God for making their material arrangments more pleasant.

I am not an authority. I am not very enlightened or devoted. This is just my little understanding.

7

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I think we may be talking past each other, because Scripture doesn’t present a contrast between loving God and doing works of mercy. Jesus Himself teaches that love of God expresses itself in love of neighbor: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15), and “Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40).

James is not introducing a different principle from Jesus—he is applying Jesus’s two greatest commandments to concrete life. Caring for widows and orphans is love of neighbor, and love of neighbor flows directly from love of God. The early Church lived this out in Acts 2:45 and Acts 6:1–4.

Jesus never frowned upon works of mercy; He only condemned works done for show. He consistently praises feeding the hungry, giving alms, caring for the poor, and showing compassion (Matthew 6, 25; Luke 10).

So James 1:27 is not “worldly arrangement”—it is the practical shape of the love Jesus commands. Loving God with our whole heart necessarily overflows into loving our neighbor, especially the vulnerable. That is why loving our neighbor—whether a widow and her children or anyone in need—is not a distraction from the Gospel but an expression of it.

8

Very interesting. I confess that I am not versed in the teachings of the Bible, but am coming at this discussion from another scripture of the the far east.

My understanding is that scripture requires commentary by realized authorities who are coming in a line of disciplic succession from the prophets and original teachers presented in the Bible, so that we can apply the teachings in our lives according to the times and circumstances that we are in. I know that the Catholic Church does rely on the commentaries of such authorities. But I have not studied them.
The scriptures that I aspire to follow state that love of God is the goal of human life. Whether one is Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Jew, the goal is love of God. He may be called by different names, such as Allah or Jehovah… but that is due to the language of the culture in which the teachings are introduced. I am told that Jesus didn’t speak English or Greek or Latin…but a language called Aramaic.

According to the ancient Vedic literatures, written in the Sanskrit language, the first principle of spiritual teachings is that spirit and matter are two different energies. The material body is animated by the presence of the spirit. And when the spirit leaves the body, we see that the body no longer displays the symptoms of life. In other words, conciousness is a symptom of spiritual energy. And material energy, consisting of earth, water, air, etc., is never conscious. But, when the spirit resides within a material body, the consciousness of the spirit experiences life through the medium of the material mind and senses.
This experience of the spirit or soul, through the agency of the material form induces the spirit soul to identify with the flesh, as “me”, even though scripture says, “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust”.

And, those who identify with the body and material mind as “me”, hold the conviction that the purpose of life is the saisfaction of the mind and senses. I believe that this is what Jesus meant when he said that we are either a servant of God or a servant of Mammon. We also see in the lives of the saints (in all traditions), that as one begins to experience the fulfillment of the spirit by being closer to God, one becomes proportionately indifferent to the demands of the flesh. They are not practicing asceticism; rather their enjoyment is unlimitedly greater than that of the materialist. And that is one of the symptoms of love of God. In this way, love of neighbor becomes a spontaneous by-product of love of God. Everyone becomes considered as a family member, because God is the eternal Father of all of us.

However, the question, or subject of eternal life is the central teaching of all religions. The soul is eternal. Eternal means without beginning and without end. I believe there is one text in the Old Testament in which God says, “Before you were in your mother’s womb, I knew you.”

I think there is one verse in which Jesus says, “Let the dead bury their dead.” Life in the material realm is never perfect. Everyone takes birth, grows old, becomes diseased, and dies. But the goal of religion is eternal life of the spirit. We can feed each other. We can give education. We can open hospitals. We can feed the poor. We can give them clothing. All these needs arise out of living in the material world, within a material body. Therefore, the greatest gift that one can receive is knowledge of the spirit, and knowledge of the constitutional relationship of the spirit to our eternal Father…which is to love Him with all of our heart and strength. And this is the gift that Jesus is teaching. Jesus also says, “Strait is the gate…and narrow the way…and few are those who make their way therein.”
Taking care of each other is natural for a person who loves God. But real taking care of each other consists not merely of feeding or clothing someone’s body, but giving them the gift of the holy spirit, so that they can draw closer to God, and thereby attain eternal life.

It comes to mind to consider the question of exactly what Jesus meant by the term serving “mammon” as oposed to serving God. Perhaps you can share some of your understanding with me, as I feel that you are versed in scripture.

9

Thank you for sharing more of your background. It helps clarify why our approaches differ. Since you mentioned that you are not versed in the Bible and are coming from Vedic literature, I think it’s important to note that Jesus’s teaching cannot be interpreted through categories drawn from other religious systems. In Christianity, “love of God” and “love of neighbor” are not two separate levels of spiritual life, nor is love of neighbor merely a by‑product of interior devotion. Jesus explicitly binds them together as one reality (Matthew 22:34–40).

Regarding your question about “Mammon”: in Scripture, Mammon does not mean “the material body” or “identifying with matter.” Jesus uses the term to refer specifically to wealth, greed, and the pursuit of worldly gain as a rival master to God (Matthew 6:24). The contrast He makes is not between spirit and matter, but between trust in God and trust in riches. That is why He warns against storing up treasures on earth, and why He praises acts of mercy toward the poor (Matthew 6, 25).

This is also why James 1:27 is not a “worldly arrangement.” Caring for widows and orphans is not a distraction from spiritual life; it is the concrete expression of the love Jesus commands. In Christian teaching, loving God with our whole heart necessarily overflows into loving our neighbor—whether a widow and her children or anyone in need. The apostles and the early Church lived this unity openly (Acts 2:45; Acts 6:1–4).

So while I appreciate the Vedic perspective you’re drawing from, the biblical meaning of “Mammon,” “love of God,” and “love of neighbor” has to be understood within the framework Jesus Himself gives, not through a different religious tradition.

10

I beg you to consider: You have described Mammon in the teachings of Jesus as: "wealth, greed, and the pursuit of worldly gain as a rival master to God (Matthew 6:24). What is it that would cause a human being to desire the accumulation of wealth and material gain, even to be greedy in that way? It can only be because they believe that this is the way in which we can become satisifed, fulfilled. With wealth and worldly gain, one cannot satisfy the hunger of the spirit for a living sense of communion with God. But one will pursue such things because of a desire to satisfy the desires of the flesh. Everyone desires fulfillment, and a sense of pleasure, regardless of whether one is theistic or atheisitic. But whereas a spiritually inclined person will be able to find a sense of fullfillment through his/her relationship with God, the atheisitic materially inclined person will be perpetually “on empty” and never feel fulfilled. Therefore the desire for “more” arises. More wealth, more possessions, more social power, etc. Even the millionaire tends to think that all he needs is another few million. And therefore the need for competition and exploitation arises…as opposed to the desire to be of service to “neighbor”.

In this sense, it is the identification of the spirit with matter that causes a person to be a servant of Mammon. You are very fixed in your philosophical understanding of scripture. But what I am saying is only a matter of common sense extrapolation, and not a different interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. The spiritualist finds his satisfaction in God and in sharing with all of God’s children; and the materialist seeks his satisfaction in the acquisition of wealth, power, and the greedy pursuit of “storing up treasures on earth”, simply because he believes “I am this material body”, and in this way I can make my myself happy. The spiritually inclined, like Saint Francis, walks away from wealth as the temptation of the devil (mammon) because he has found his fulfillment in his realtionship with God. As far as I can see we are both saying the same thing. But you are using different words. One who is truely close to God, doesn’t do good works among his fellow men because he feels that he “should”. Rather he is motivated by the spontaneous impulse of the spirit which arises in the heart of one who abides in the sense of a living relationship with God. Because he is spiritually satisfied, he simply takes what he requires to keep body and soul together. But the materialist, who is devoid of spiritual satisifaction, becomes a slave to the dicates of the flesh, thereby a servant of lust, greed and anger - and in this way, a servant of mammon.

And this is how a Catholic, or Muslim, Hindu or Jew can instrospect and measure how close his heart is to God. If he is remains mad after the material things of this world, his membership in one church or another is merely an official designation. He hasn’t yet begun the real journey.

As Jesus says, “Strait is the gate and narrow the way…and few are those who enter therein.” “You say that you have done this in my name, and that in my name…but I tell you that I never knew you.”

11

Thank you for expanding your thoughts. I agree with you that people often pursue wealth because they hope it will satisfy a deeper hunger, and that spiritual fulfillment changes one’s relationship to material things. That part is certainly true. But where our approaches differ is in the framework we are using to understand Jesus’s words. Jesus’s warnings about the narrow gate and “I never knew you” are not about detachment from matter in a universal religious sense. They are about fidelity to Him and obedience to His commandments within the biblical covenant.

You are interpreting Jesus through Vedic categories—spirit vs. matter, identification with the body, spontaneous impulses of the spirit, and so on. Those ideas belong to the Sanskrit tradition you follow, but they are not the categories Jesus Himself uses. In the Bible, “Mammon” does not mean “identifying with matter” or “believing I am the body.” Jesus uses the term specifically for wealth as a rival master (Matthew 6:24). His contrast is not between spirit and matter, but between trust in God and trust in riches.

Likewise, in Christianity, love of God and love of neighbor are not two separate levels of spiritual life, nor is love of neighbor merely a spontaneous by‑product of interior devotion. Jesus explicitly binds them together as one reality (Matthew 22:34–40). That is why He praises concrete acts of mercy—feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the poor (Matthew 25). These are not “materialist” actions; they are the visible form of the love He commands.

Saint Francis did not walk away from wealth because he believed he was “identifying with matter.” He walked away from wealth because he wanted to follow Christ more closely, and Christ warns against the spiritual danger of riches. In Christian teaching, wealth in itself is not evil; what matters is whether it is used in service of God and neighbor or allowed to become a rival master.

So while I appreciate the parallels you are drawing, we are not actually saying the same thing. You are interpreting Jesus through a Vedic lens, and I am interpreting Jesus through the biblical lens He Himself gives. The meaning of “Mammon,” “love of God,” and “love of neighbor” has to be understood within Jesus’s own teaching, not through a different religious tradition.

And this brings us back to the original point: James is not introducing a different principle from Jesus. When James speaks of caring for widows and orphans and keeping oneself unstained by the world (James 1:27), he is applying the very twofold commandment Jesus Himself gave—love of God with the whole heart, and love of neighbor as oneself. James is giving the practical shape of the love Jesus commands, not a different idea.

This is also why Peter says that “love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8): the more we live the love Jesus commands, the more the heart is purified and kept unstained by the world. James is describing that same reality in practical form.

12

At this point in the conversation, I just have to accept that we disagree, and let the matter go. This is a Catholic web site. I think your concepts are based on the concepts of the church.
The ideas that we have in common is that God is the creator, the supreme controller, the supreme proprietor of all that be, and that our constitutional position in relation to God, is that we are His eternal servants, and our lives are meant to be orchestrated for His pleasure.
The material nature of earth, water, the elements, etc. are dead matter, and will never be otherwise. Material nature is not conscious, and can never be made conscious. All the forms of material nature, including this body, is temporal. when the soul leaves the body, the body composts back into the elements from which it came.
Whereas spirit is eternal. It is conscious.
In the spiritual world, the heavenly host lives eternally with God. And their only activity is to serve Him and glorify Him with feelings of love.
And we are here in the material world, born with sinful propensities based on selfishness and self-centered propensities. Therefore this self-centered orientation expands into disagreement, family problems, societal problems, national problems, international problems, and wars.
The only cure for our spiritually diseased condition is love of God.
All religions teach this basic understanding. But the packaging is different according to time, place and culture into which the teachings are introduced, whether, Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jew, or indigenous peoples. It is all about recognizing that God is great and we are small dependent creatures. He wants our love. And he sends His representatives to advise us in this way. Hare Krishna! (God bless you!).

13

Thank you for the thoughtful exchange. I agree with you that God is the Creator, that we are meant to serve Him, and that love of God is the true cure for the human heart. Those are real points of common ground.

Where we differ is simply in the interpretive framework. You are approaching these questions through Vedic metaphysics—spirit vs. matter, the eternality of the soul, and the universality of religious expression. My approach has been strictly within the biblical categories Jesus Himself uses: the covenant, the commandments, the meaning of love of God and love of neighbor, and the way the apostles apply His teaching in the early Church.

I appreciate the conversation, and I’m glad we were able to clarify where our perspectives overlap and where they diverge. God bless you as well.

14

Of course we are all blessed by God, as He has sent His son to us for our reclamation. Therefore “the ball is in our court” so to speak. In this sense spiritual advancement is a question of induvidual acceptance.
One of the questions that lingers in my mind, is the commandent of Jesus: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
My thought is that giving food to someone that is hungry, or clothing and medicine to those in need…this is certainly pious activity. But loving others, without exception, in terms of race, religion, social status, nationality, etc. as much as we love ourselves, or caring for them as much as we care for ourtselves…Well, what would this look like? If someone we never met needed a kidney transplant, would we donate a kidney without a second thought? If we loved them as much as we love ourselves…yes we would. If America declares war on Iran, and begins killing the citizens of Iran by dropping bombs on them, or if America supports Isreal in their genocide of men, women and children in the Gaza strip…if we love them as much as we love ourselves, do we comply when the American government wants us to serve in the armed forces?
To really love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves, unconditionally, my conviction is that a change has to take place within our hearts. And that change has been clearly stated by your good self: “love of God is the true cure for the human heart.” In other words, love of others to the degree that we care for ourselves, is the symptom of one who has a mature and rich living sense of communion with God. It consists of more than giving a TV dinner to a stranger at Christmas time. It takes more than being an official member of the church. It means that one has been reclaimed, remade from within by the blessings of the the Holy Ghost.
And for this reason, my conviction is that no one can love neighbor as much as we love ourselves by trying to be obedient to the commandment of Jesus. One can only live on that platform if they have been “reborn” so to speak, in the spiritual sense. Of course, there is no harm in doing some good work, from the comforts of our homes. But who is not our neighbor on this planet. Or did Jesus simply mean the man living next door? I have conviction that he meant everyone on this earthly planet. So the second commandment is as difficult to obey as the first. Just comtemplate for a moment: “To love the Lord thy God with all of they mind, all of they heart, and all of thy strength.” Does this mean going to church on Sunday? Or does it mean 24/7? Does it mean after I have taken care of my personal needs and desires? Or does it mean that I have no desire other than to serve the Lord with my all of my thougts, words and deeds with a spontaneously joyful loving heart? I know that I am filled with desires for my own satisfaction, even though I aspire to be a lover of God. Therefore my conviction is that I have met hardly a one in this world who loves God with all of his heart, and all of his strength. In other words, most of us are complete beginners on the path of spiritual life. We are official members of the church, but we have hardly begun to come to the standard that Jesus is describing. What are your thoughts brother Mathetria?

15

Thank you for your thoughtful message. Since you raised the question of what Jesus meant by “love your neighbor as yourself,” I want to share the way Jesus Himself explains it.

Jesus says that we are indeed commanded to love our fathers, mothers, spouses, children, and neighbors — but only “as ourselves.” That is the measure He gives. But God is to be loved in a completely different degree: with our whole selves, with every capacity for love that exists in the human heart — the love of a son, the love of a husband, the love of a friend, and even the protective love a father has for his children. All of those forms of love, taken together, express the total love we owe to God. Neighbor‑love is real and commanded, but it is not identical in degree to the love we owe to God.

And when Jesus is understood this way, the commandment becomes clearer. Loving our neighbor “as ourselves” does not mean giving a kidney to every stranger or resolving every geopolitical conflict personally. It means treating every person with the same dignity, mercy, and goodwill we desire for ourselves — the same measure we use for our own life. Jesus shows this in the parable of the Good Samaritan: the Samaritan cares for the wounded man with the same care he would hope to receive if he were lying on the road. That is the heart of the commandment.

This is exactly why James speaks the way he does in James 1:27. When James says that “pure and undefiled religion” consists in caring for widows and orphans and keeping oneself unstained by the world, he is not introducing a new idea. He is giving the practical expression of Jesus’s two commandments. Caring for widows and orphans is the concrete form of loving one’s neighbor “as oneself.” Keeping oneself unstained by the world is the moral fruit of loving God above all things. As Peter says, “love covers a multitude of sins” — the more we live the love Jesus commands, the more the heart is purified and kept free from the world’s corruption.

So I agree with you that this kind of love requires an inner change. But in the biblical framework, that change comes from grace, from the Holy Spirit remaking the heart from within. Jesus does not ask us to manufacture this love by sheer effort; He asks us to receive it from Him. And when His grace is alive in a person, the commandment becomes possible: loving God with the whole heart, and loving neighbor with the same measure we use for ourselves. James is simply showing what that looks like in daily life.

God bless you.

16

“Jesus does not ask us to manufacture this love by sheer effort; He asks us to receive it from Him. And when His grace is alive in a person, the commandment becomes possible: loving God with the whole heart, and loving neighbor with the same measure we use for ourselves.”

100% in sink with my understanding. Being a disciple of Jesus isn’t simply about following a checklist of instructions. It is about having a heartfelt sense of connection so intimate that the heart of Jesus alchemically requalifies our own heart. In this sense we become like instruments or extensions of the heart of Jesus. And this is what Jesus means when he tells us that there is no other way to come close to God other than through him. He is not talking about being an offical member of a church, or undergoing a ceremony (although those things can be helpful). Rather, he is talking about surrender of the heart through total submissiveness to his omnipresence 24/7. In this understanding I think we find our meeting point. This is the “gate” through which we have to enter the kingdom. Thank you for sharing with me in this way, Peter

17

I’m glad we agree that the love Jesus commands is not something we manufacture by effort, but something that comes from receiving His grace. That is exactly what He explains in the passage I shared earlier: we are commanded to love our fathers, mothers, spouses, children, and every neighbor “as ourselves,” but God is to be loved in a completely different degree — with our whole selves, with every capacity for love that exists in the human heart. Jesus is teaching the order and measure of love: neighbor‑love is real and commanded, but it is not identical in degree to the total love we owe to God.

And once that distinction is clear, the rest follows naturally. The change of heart you describe — the heart being re‑qualified, renewed, and made capable of true love — is exactly what Scripture calls the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus does not ask us to generate this love by sheer effort; He asks us to receive it from Him. “We love because He first loved us.” When His grace is alive in a person, loving God with the whole heart and loving neighbor with the same measure we use for ourselves becomes possible.

And this is also where Jesus’s own explanation of the narrow gate fits in. In the passage I mentioned, He says the gate is “narrow” not because it is mystical or metaphysical, but because it requires obedience, sacrifice, and self‑denial — renouncing sin, renouncing selfishness, and refusing the “wide road” of comfort and self‑indulgence. The gate is narrow because few choose the sacrifices required to enter it. In other words, the gate is the concrete path of choosing God’s will over our own. It is entered through grace, but it is walked through the daily choices of a heart that has been remade by that grace.

This is precisely why James 1:27 speaks the way it does. Caring for widows and orphans is the concrete expression of loving one’s neighbor “as oneself,” and keeping oneself unstained by the world is the fruit of loving God above all things. James is not introducing a new idea — he is showing what Jesus’s two commandments, and Jesus’s narrow gate, look like when they are lived out in daily life. The gate Jesus speaks of is entered through grace, and James simply describes the life that grace produces.

God bless you.