Bringing Jesus, Paul, Hermetics, the Tao, Idealism, Quantum Physics, and Consciousness Together

I have come to see that what Jesus, Paul, and the writer of Hebrews are pointing toward is not a religion of belief layered on top of an otherwise material universe, but a radical reorientation of how reality itself is understood. Hebrews says it plainly—almost dangerously so—that what is seen was not made from things that are visible. That statement alone collapses the assumption that matter is primary. It suggests that the world we touch, measure, and name is not the source of itself, but the expression of something deeper, unseen, and already present. Paul intensifies this by insisting that the unseen is not only real, but more real than the seen—eternal rather than temporary, foundational rather than derivative.

When I read those words now, I no longer hear future-oriented theology about heaven versus earth; I hear ontology. I hear an ancient intuition that consciousness, meaning, and relational being are the ground of existence, and that matter is what consciousness looks like when it takes form. Jesus stands squarely in this same vision. His kingdom does not arrive with observation. It is not spatial, political, or architectural. It is hidden, like yeast in dough or a seed in the soil. It is within, among, already present, yet largely unperceived.

This is not because the kingdom is unreal, but because our way of seeing has been trained to privilege surfaces over depth, appearances over source. Jesus calls people to awaken—to see with a different eye, to hear with a different ear, to trust that the invisible currents shaping reality are more reliable than the fear-driven narratives produced by the visible world. In this sense, faith is not belief in the improbable, but alignment with the deeper layer of what is.

Paul lives entirely from this alignment. He can speak of dying while alive, of weakness as strength, of losing in order to gain, because he has relocated his sense of reality away from appearances and into the unseen field from which appearances arise. The seen is not denied, but it is dethroned. It no longer gets the final word.

When this Pauline and Hebraic vision is placed alongside modern quantum insight, something remarkable happens. Physics tells us that particles arise from invisible fields, that reality at its most fundamental level is probabilistic, relational, and observer-involved. Matter is no longer the solid bedrock it once seemed, but a pattern of activity emerging from something we cannot see. This does not prove theology, but it does rehabilitate ancient wisdom that materialism dismissed too quickly.

Idealism names what scripture intuited: consciousness is not a byproduct of matter; matter is an expression within consciousness. Hermetic wisdom says the same thing symbolically—what is above is reflected below, what is within gives rise to what appears without. Taoism speaks of the Tao as nameless, formless, unseen, yet endlessly generative, flowing into ten thousand things without ever being exhausted. None of these traditions are saying identical things, but they are circling the same truth from different angles, using different languages to gesture toward what cannot be directly grasped.

The unseen, in this vision, is not empty space. It is fullness. It is potential. It is the womb of form. When Jesus heals, forgives, or restores, he is not interrupting nature; he is revealing it. He is showing what reality looks like when fear loosens its grip and consciousness re-enters coherence with its source.

This is why love sits at the center of everything for him. Love is not a moral add-on; it is the natural expression of a reality that is fundamentally relational rather than competitive, participatory rather than mechanical. The cross, seen through this lens, is not a transaction to appease an offended deity, but an exposure of what happens when awakened consciousness collides with egoic power structures rooted in fear and control.

Resurrection, then, is not merely a miracle within history, but a declaration about the nature of reality itself—that life, meaning, and unity are more fundamental than death, fragmentation, and violence. Paul’s insistence on setting the mind on things unseen is not escapism; it is realism of the deepest kind.

To live oriented toward the unseen is to live from the source rather than the surface, from eternity rather than immediacy, from trust rather than anxiety. The world does not disappear when one lives this way, but it loses its tyranny. Appearances no longer dictate identity. Circumstances no longer define worth. Fear no longer masquerades as wisdom.

What emerges instead is a quiet stability, a grounded compassion, a freedom that does not depend on outcomes. This is why the gospel, for me, is no longer about getting out of this world, but about finally seeing it for what it is—a participatory expression of an unseen, conscious, loving reality in which we already live and move and have our being. When the unseen becomes primary, the seen falls into its proper place, and life itself begins to make sense not as a test to pass or a belief to defend, but as an invitation to awaken, remember, and align with what has always been true beneath the surface of things.

 

A short note on how I use A.I. in my writing

I post this because I want to maintain integrity in my writing and thought process. In case anyone notices a change of style in this blog. The ideas and musings are mine. 

My writings have emerged through a long process of study, contemplation, lived experience, and dialogue. Over the years, I have engaged scripture, philosophy, theology, and consciousness studies not as fixed systems to be defended, but as living conversations to be entered. Reflection—both inward and outward—has always been central to how I think and write.

In recent years, I have also made intentional use of an AI language model as a dialogical and editorial instrument. Its function has been neither to originate ideas nor to determine conclusions, but to serve as a reflective conversational field—a mirror through which language could be clarified, coherence tested, and insights already forming within me more precisely expressed. This process did not replace authorship; it supported articulation.

The ideas, interpretations, and perspectives presented in these writings arise from my own worldview and spiritual journey. They reflect a vision shaped over time through questioning, integration, and the willingness to move beyond inherited dogma toward a more expansive understanding of faith, consciousness, and the divine. Responsibility for the content, meaning, and implications of these writings rests entirely with me.

Clarity deepens through dialogue. As with any honest intellectual or spiritual journey, expression evolves as understanding matures. The refinement of language in these writings reflects that natural progression, not a departure from voice or intent. I acknowledge the dialogical tools involved in this process in the interest of transparency, while affirming that what is expressed here is authentically my own.

Dark Energy and the Sacred Depth of Reality

For most of human history, we assumed that what we could see was what existed. Stars, planets, bodies, rocks—matter felt solid, real, and sufficient. But modern cosmology has quietly dismantled that assumption. Today we know that everything visible—every atom in every galaxy, including our own bodies—accounts for less than five percent of the universe. The remaining ninety-five percent is composed of what we call dark matter and dark energy: unseen, unmeasured directly, inferred only by their effects. And it is precisely here, in what we cannot see, that the most profound questions arise.

Dark matter behaves like mass, shaping galaxies and holding them together through gravity, yet it does not interact with light. Dark energy, on the other hand, behaves like a pressure inherent to space itself, accelerating the expansion of the universe. Neither fits comfortably within our classical understanding of matter or energy. We do not know what they are. We only know what they do. And that distinction matters.

This is where the conversation becomes philosophical rather than merely scientific. In every domain of inquiry, when something is known only by its effects and not by its substance, we are already operating in metaphysical territory. Gravity itself was once such a mystery. Consciousness still is. We know consciousness exists because of its effects—experience, awareness, intention—but we cannot locate it as an object among objects. We infer it, not because we see it, but because nothing makes sense without it.

It is at least reasonable, then, to ask whether dark matter and dark energy are not “things” in the way atoms are things, but expressions of a deeper substrate of reality—one that is closer in nature to consciousness than to inert substance. In fact, this may be the most parsimonious explanation available. If consciousness is fundamental rather than emergent, then it would not be surprising that the universe is mostly composed of something that behaves nonlocally, invisibly, relationally, and structurally—just as consciousness does.

Matter clumps. Consciousness contextualizes. Dark matter provides structure without visibility. Consciousness provides coherence without mass. Dark energy expands space itself. Consciousness expands experience itself. These are not proofs, but they are resonances—and resonance matters when exploring ultimate questions.

What many call “God” has historically been treated as a being within the universe, albeit a powerful one. But this framing collapses under both theology and physics. A god who is merely another object is not ultimate. The more ancient, mystical, and philosophically coherent understanding of God is not as an entity among entities, but as Being itself, or more accurately, as the ground of being. In modern terms, we might say: the field from which all phenomena arise.

If consciousness is that field—and if dark energy and dark matter are manifestations of it at the cosmological scale—then God is not something added to the universe. God is what the universe is doing at its deepest level. Creation is not an event in the past; it is an ongoing expression of consciousness unfolding into form, structure, relationship, and experience.

This aligns remarkably well with the mystical strands of Christianity that were largely sidelined by orthodoxy. The Logos is not merely a historical figure but the organizing principle of reality itself. Christ is not just savior from sin but the revelation of what has always been true: that the divine is not separate from creation, but hidden within it, waiting to be recognized. Sin, in this framework, is not moral failure but forgetfulness. Salvation is not rescue from punishment but awakening to participation.

Dark energy may be the cosmological analog of grace: an unearned, omnipresent force that carries everything forward without resistance or demand. Dark matter may be the unseen scaffolding that allows form to arise at all. Together they suggest that reality is not built from dead particles alone, but from a living, intelligent depth that precedes and sustains matter.

None of this requires abandoning science. In fact, it may require taking science more seriously than materialism allows. Materialism assumes that matter is fundamental, despite overwhelming evidence that matter is derivative, relational, and dependent on observation and information. Consciousness, on the other hand, refuses to be reduced. It remains irreducible, omnipresent in experience, and indispensable to any account of reality.

To say that dark energy and dark matter are consciousness is not to anthropomorphize the universe. It is to acknowledge that the universe behaves more like a mind than a machine. Dynamic, relational, self-organizing, creative. And if that consciousness is what people across cultures have intuited and named as God, then perhaps theology has always been trying—imperfectly—to describe what physics is only now beginning to glimpse.

In that sense, God is not hiding from us. God is hiding as us, as space, as energy, as the unseen majority of reality itself. And awakening is not about believing the right things, but about remembering what has always been true: we are not strangers in the universe. We are the universe becoming aware of itself.

 

Beyond Defense: Reframing Apologetics Through a Non-Nicene Christology

I have never been particularly enamored with Christian apologetics, at least not in its dominant forms. Much of what passes for apologetics today feels less like an honest exploration of truth and more like a carefully constructed legal defense—one that only works if the jury agrees in advance to a specific set of presuppositions. The classic examples, such as the “liar, lunatic, or Lord” trilemma, reveal the problem clearly. They assume not only that the Gospel texts preserve Jesus’ words verbatim, but that those words were framed in a modern, literal, metaphysical register. That assumption is rarely argued for; it is simply smuggled in as a starting point. Once that foundation is questioned, the entire structure wobbles.

My difficulty with traditional apologetics is not that it affirms too much about Christ, but that it affirms too little—at least at the wrong level. Nicene Christology, as defended by apologetics, often reduces Jesus to a metaphysical exception rather than a revelatory disclosure. Jesus becomes the singular divine anomaly, ontologically distant from humanity, rather than the one in whom the true nature of humanity and divinity is unveiled. Apologetics then exists to protect that exception, to fence it off from scrutiny, rather than to invite reflection on what Jesus reveals about God, consciousness, and ourselves.

My Christology is high, but not juridical. It is high in the sense that Christ reveals the Logos—the divine consciousness, the creative and indwelling presence that has always been at work in the world. Jesus is not Lord because a set of propositions about him passed historical verification; he is Lord because his life discloses what reality itself is like. He reveals a God who is not primarily a judge requiring satisfaction, but a Father whose nature is love, presence, and participation. This kind of Christology does not need to be defended by manuscript counts or harmonized resurrection timelines. It stands or falls by whether it illuminates reality and awakens recognition.

In this light, apologetics must be reimagined. Instead of asking, “Can we prove Christianity is true?” the better question is, “Does the Christ-event disclose what is already true?” Apologetics becomes less about winning arguments and more about clarifying vision. Scripture is not a divinely dictated transcript to be defended at all costs; it is a witness—layered, interpretive, and profoundly human—pointing toward encounters with the divine. The Gospels do not function as courtroom evidence so much as iconography: they invite contemplation, not cross-examination.

A reimagined apologetics begins with lived experience rather than abstract certainty. It acknowledges that transformation, not intellectual assent, is the real test of truth. Jesus’ authority is not established because he fulfilled predictive checklists or left an empty tomb that defies alternative explanations, but because his way dissolves fear, exposes false gods, and calls humanity out of its forgetfulness. In this sense, Christ is Victor—not over divine wrath, but over death, alienation, and the illusion of separation.

Such an apologetic does not collapse into relativism, nor does it retreat into mysticism detached from history. It simply refuses to confuse modern categories with ancient meanings. Jesus need not be reduced to “liar, lunatic, or Lord,” because those are not the only options available to a first-century Jewish mystic operating within a symbolic, participatory worldview. Prophet, revealer, wisdom-teacher, embodied Logos—these categories are not evasions; they are historically and theologically richer.

Ultimately, the apologetics I can affirm is not one that defends Christianity against all challengers, but one that invites honest seekers into deeper coherence. It does not demand belief before understanding, nor does it threaten disbelief with cosmic consequences. It trusts that truth does not need coercion. If Christ is truly the Logos—the light that enlightens everyone—then apologetics is not about guarding the light, but about removing the veils that prevent us from seeing it.

 

Imago Dei and Imputed Righteousness 2: Return to Eden

When I ask how Paul’s first-century audience would have understood ideas like righteousness, law, and grace, I’m not trying to dismiss the language Paul used. I’m trying to understand how that language would have landed before centuries of theological scaffolding were built around it. Paul did use accounting language. Genesis does say that Abraham’s faith was “accounted” or “reckoned” as righteousness. That isn’t a later invention or a mistranslation—it’s there in Genesis 15, and Paul deliberately echoes it.

But words don’t exist in a vacuum. They live inside worldviews.

When Abraham’s faith is “accounted as righteousness,” the text isn’t describing a moral substance being transferred into him, as though righteousness were a commodity moved from one account to another. The Hebrew and Greek terms both point more toward recognition, regard, and acknowledgment. God sees Abraham’s trust and names it for what it is: covenantal alignment. Abraham is not made righteous by an external transaction; he is recognized as faithful within relationship.

Paul’s first-century audience—both Jewish and Gentile—would not have heard this as a legal fiction. They lived in a relational, participatory worldview. Righteousness meant being rightly aligned, rightly situated, rightly oriented within God’s purposes. It was about belonging and faithfulness, not about pretending someone was something they were not.

This is why Paul insists that Abraham was reckoned righteous before the law, before circumcision, before Israel even existed as a nation. He’s not constructing a loophole in a moral system. He’s pointing back to something older and deeper: righteousness precedes law because righteousness is not created by law. Law can guide, expose, and restrain, but it cannot generate being. It cannot create a new kind of human. That was never its role.

Grace, in Paul’s world, would not have been heard as “undeserved favor toward the guilty” in the later, moralized sense. Grace was gift. It was generosity. It was benefaction that created a new relational reality. Grace did not excuse people from transformation—it enabled it. It drew people into a new way of life by changing their sense of identity and belonging.

This is where repentance takes on its original meaning. Metanoia is not self-loathing or fear-driven remorse. It is a change of mind, a shift in perception. Paul says it is the kindness of God that leads to repentance because kindness reveals truth. When fear loosens its grip, the mind can finally see clearly. Repentance is awakening, not appeasement.

All of this begins to make sense when we return to the creation story. Humanity is blessed before it does anything. God declares creation “very good” before there is any moral drama to resolve. To be created in the image of God is not to be stamped with a superficial likeness, but to be imbued with divine consciousness—to participate in God’s way of knowing, creating, and relating. Humanity is the place where divine awareness becomes localized within creation.

The problem that emerges later is not the loss of that image, but forgetfulness of it. Consciousness narrows. Fear replaces trust. Separation replaces participation. Sin is not an ontological corruption so much as a misidentification. We forget who we are and begin living from that forgetfulness.

Seen this way, righteousness does not need to be imputed because nothing essential was ever missing. What needs to happen is remembrance. When God “accounts” righteousness, God is not overlooking reality; God is naming it. Faith is not mental assent to propositions. Faith is trust—trust in God’s character, trust in God’s kindness, trust that God is love and not transactional.

Looking back, I can see that this insight was already present in my own life long before I had language for it. Twenty-five years ago, when my wife and I were far more evangelical and fundamental than we are today, we believed we heard from the Spirit that “faith is obedience.” At the time, we probably understood that in moral terms. But the phrase itself says something deeper. It does not say obedience produces faith. It says faith is obedience.

If faith is trust, then obedience is simply alignment with what one trusts. And if what one trusts is that God is love—unconditional, non-transactional love—then obedience is not rule-keeping. It is living congruently with love. It is allowing love to shape perception, desire, and action.

This reframes everything. God is not negotiating with humanity. God is not managing a ledger of moral debts and credits. God is love, and love does not operate transactionally. Grace is not God overlooking our humanity; it is God affirming it. Repentance is not changing behavior to gain acceptance; it is changing perception because acceptance has already been given.

When faith is understood this way, behavior follows naturally. Not perfectly, not mechanically, but organically. We live differently when we believe differently about who we are and who God is. Ethics emerge from awareness. Transformation flows from recognition. Righteousness is not imposed from outside but expressed from within.

Paul, read in his own context, is not announcing a legal workaround for human failure. He is announcing the unveiling of a new way of being human—one rooted in trust, participation, and indwelling divine life. What later theology turned into courtroom language was, at its heart, a relational and ontological awakening.

And perhaps that is what the story has been pointing toward all along: not a God who fixes us from the outside, but a God who invites us to remember who we have always been—very good, indwelt, and loved.

 

Imago Dei and Imputed Righteousness

I have come to believe that many of the doctrines that later theology tried to explain—especially concepts like imputed righteousness—were never meant to be abstract legal mechanisms. They arose, I suspect, from an early intuition embedded in the creation story itself. Genesis opens not with deficiency, but with blessing. Humanity is spoken into being, commissioned, and entrusted before doing anything at all. There is no probationary period, no moral test to pass before approval is granted. Humanity is blessed, given purpose, and then declared “very good.” That declaration matters. It tells us something fundamental about the nature of being human.

Creation does not begin with lack. It begins with goodness.

When God declares creation “very good,” this is not mere poetic flourish. It is an ontological statement. Humanity is not introduced as morally broken, spiritually empty, or existentially flawed. We are introduced as complete, capable, and already participating in divine intention. From this vantage point, righteousness does not need to be added later as though something essential were missing. What later theology calls “imputed righteousness” may be better understood as a way of trying to recover what was already true but had been forgotten.

This becomes clearer when we consider what it means to be created in the image of God. I no longer see this image as a superficial resemblance or a functional role alone. To be created in the image of God is to be imbued with divine consciousness. In the ancient world, an image was not a likeness in the modern sense; it was a manifestation of presence. An image carried the essence and authority of what it represented. Humanity, as the image of God, is the locus where divine awareness becomes localized within creation.

Consciousness, then, is not incidental. It is central. Our capacity to know, to imagine, to create, to reflect, and to love is not accidental biology—it is participatory divinity. The Logos is not merely a theological concept or an external savior who appears later to correct a failure. The Logos is the animating intelligence already present within creation and within humanity itself. Divine consciousness is not imposed upon us from without; it is the depth of who we are.

Seen this way, the so-called fall is not a collapse of being but a narrowing of awareness. Humanity does not lose the image of God; it forgets it. Consciousness contracts into fear, separation, and survival. The divine presence does not depart, but it becomes obscured beneath misidentification. We begin to see ourselves as isolated selves rather than participants in a larger divine life. The problem is not corruption of essence but distortion of perception.

This reframes repentance entirely. When Paul writes that it is the kindness of God that leads to repentance, he is not describing moral pressure or divine threat. He is describing awakening. The Greek word metanoia does not mean remorse or self-condemnation. It means a change of mind—a shift in how reality is perceived. Repentance is not about convincing God to forgive us; it is about allowing our perception to realign with what has always been true.

Kindness leads to repentance because kindness disarms fear. When fear loosens its grip, the mind becomes capable of seeing clearly again. And when we see clearly, we recognize ourselves not as abandoned creatures scrambling for approval, but as indwelt beings already participating in divine life. Repentance is the return to a wider field of awareness, a remembering of identity rather than a rejection of humanity.

From this perspective, righteousness is not something transferred to us because we are lacking. It is something that emerges when belief aligns with reality. When we believe that we are indwelt by the Logos—when we truly trust that divine consciousness animates our being—our actions begin to reflect that belief. This is not moral striving; it is congruence. We act according to what we understand ourselves to be.

Ethics, then, are not enforced from the outside. They arise naturally from awareness. Love does not need to be commanded when one knows oneself as participating in Love. Compassion does not require threat when one recognizes shared being. Transformation does not come from discipline imposed by fear, but from insight born of grace.

This is why grace is so often misunderstood. Grace is not God overlooking our humanity; it is God affirming it. Grace is not a legal exception; it is a revelation. It tells us that we are not starting from zero, that we are not spiritual failures in need of divine tolerance. Grace reminds us of our original goodness and invites us to live from it.

In this light, salvation is not rescue from worthlessness. It is awakening from forgetfulness. Sin is not the presence of evil substance within us, but the misidentification of who we are. Salvation is not escape from being human; it is the fulfillment of humanity. It is the re-integration of awareness—the remembering that divine life has always been closer than breath.

What later theology often framed as moral repair, I now see as ontological remembrance. What was treated as legal standing, I see as relational and conscious alignment. The gospel, at its deepest level, is not about appeasing a distant God but about unveiling the indwelling presence that has always been there.

When this understanding takes root, life begins to change—not because it must, but because it cannot help but do so. The mind shifts, the heart opens, and behavior follows. Not out of obligation, but out of recognition. What was true in the beginning begins to express itself again, and the declaration “very good” is no longer something we read—it becomes something we live.

Reframing the Jesus message for late Gen X, Millennials, And Gen Z

Father God is far bigger than the theological boxes we have built to contain Him, and faith begins to fracture when those boxes are mistaken for God Himself. For many who are deconstructing, the crisis is not a loss of belief but a refusal to keep worshiping a limited picture of the divine. One hopeful path forward is the humble recognition that orthodoxy, while meaningful, may not have captured the fullness of truth—and that God remains larger, kinder, and more mysterious than any system designed to explain Him.

Here is clear bullet points designed to resonate with late Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z—people shaped by authenticity, justice concerns, trauma awareness, and distrust of coercive systems. The tone assumes curiosity, not rebellion, and invites reflection rather than argument. Most of all this could lead to a more authentic faith.

---

A Kinder, Gentler Jesus

• Jesus consistently reveals God as compassionate, relational, and restorative, not violent or transactional
• He forgives before repentance (e.g., Zacchaeus, the woman caught in adultery), signaling grace as the starting point, not the reward
• His harshest words are directed not at sinners, but at religious systems that burden people with fear and control
• Love of neighbor, enemy-love, and mercy are presented as the core of spiritual maturity
• This Jesus feels less like a gatekeeper—and more like a healer, awakener, and guide

---

Questioning Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA)

• Penal Substitution teaches that God required violence to forgive, raising moral and psychological questions
• This model emerges clearly much later in Christian history, not in the earliest centuries
• The Gospels emphasize healing, liberation, reconciliation, and victory over death, not divine appeasement
• The cross can be understood as:
• God entering human suffering
• Exposure of violent systems
• Solidarity with humanity
• Love refusing retaliation
• A loving God who must punish in order to forgive feels in tension with Jesus’ own teaching

---

Rethinking Hell & First-Century Views of Gehenna

• Jesus spoke of Gehenna, not “hell” as later imagined
• Gehenna referred to:
• A real valley outside Jerusalem
• A symbol of destruction, corruption, and consequence—not eternal torture
• First-century Jewish listeners did not hear Jesus describing an endless afterlife punishment
• Eternal conscious torment develops centuries later, shaped by Greek philosophy and imperial theology
• Jesus’ warnings function more like:
• “This path leads to ruin”
• “Untransformed lives carry real consequences”
• Justice is portrayed as restorative, not vindictive

---

The Late Adoption of the Orthodox Canon

• The New Testament canon was not finalized until the 4th century
• Early Christians read many texts—letters, gospels, teachings, and hymns
• Canon decisions were influenced by:
• Theology
• Geography
• Politics
• Imperial unity after Constantine
• The Bible is a library, not a dropped-from-heaven manual
• Acknowledging this history does not weaken faith—it invites maturity and humility

---

The Diversity of Early Christianity

• The early Jesus movement was not monolithic
• There were multiple streams of Christian thought:
• Jewish-Christian
• Mystical
• Pauline
• Johannine
• Wisdom-oriented communities
• Different groups emphasized:
• Transformation vs. legalism
• Inner awakening vs. external conformity
• Union with God vs. rule-based religion
• What later became “orthodoxy” was one voice among many
• Unity was eventually enforced diversity was not originally a problem

---

Why This Matters for Gen X, Millennials & Gen Z

• Many are deconstructing not Jesus—but harmful versions of God
• Trauma-informed spirituality matters:
• Fear-based religion wounds people
• Love-based transformation heals people
• Younger generations value:
• Authenticity over certainty
• Meaning over dogma
• Compassion over control
• A Jesus who restores dignity, invites growth, and awakens love is deeply compelling
• Faith becomes a journey of becoming whole, not passing a test

---

A Reframing That Resonates

• Jesus didn’t come to rescue us from God
• He came to reveal God
• Not to threaten us into obedience
• But to awaken us into love
• Not to build an empire of fear
• But to form a humanity healed, free, and fully alive