There was a study done. Christian elements and jesus are a core phenomenon of ndes, they happen at a much greater frequency than nonchristian ndes, not just hsppening more but at a higher rate. Ndes of other faith are so rare and unreliable qualitatively and open to interpretation that we can't draw too many conclusions about them. All one has to do is search for Christian v non-Christian ndes and you'll see how hard it is to find non Christian ones and then reading them how obscure they are. Quantitatively and qualitatively different. And as I said most atheists come back believing in God. If ndes are more objective than conventional wisdom says, then perhaps we can draw fairly conclusions about their content.

Well as to 95 percent of our universe being beyond our grasp, I wouldnt say that proves anything beyond our 4d world but its certainly a possibility. I personally think it has something to do with the afterlife or the gradient of existence. Of course thats just my belief but my only point is what you say isn't proven. Im not even sure id say its implied

As to cause and effect logic, I agree its implied there exists a cause other than our universe as its cause. We have no science to indicate our universe always existed and thermodynamics indicated something of greater energy caused the universe and the cause and effect thing implies a transcendent existence.

So all to say I dont think we can prove beyond our 4d based on what you said but I agree its implied

I think ndes and nde science straight forwardly indicates something beyond our 4d. I might even say its more than implied, its a matter of deductive logic. Actually now that I think about it it might be inductive logic. Not sure id have to think about it

That quote so much reminds me of double. being stuck needing to use words responsibly, against an opponent who finds shelter not feeling obligated to do the same

On debating maga...

"It's always been baked in to the maga agenda. Never believe that maga are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The maga have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."

SatanLucy wrote:

Do you really get a sense that the Democratic Party cares about progress over power at this point???

Government is about power. So it only does progress when necessary to keep power, and sometimes not even then.

Well said

The catholic church has an economically liberal bias

I know many conservative Catholics will cite pope's who say socialism is bad and leave it at that as if that nullified these quotes. If a person wants to easily reconcile them, its to say socialism is bad but a basic social safety and social contract is a necessity.

Catholic Social Teaching Quotations

Populorum Progressio (§23)

"Private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute or unconditioned right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities."

Populorum Progressio (§23), quoting St. Ambrose

"You are not making a gift of your possessions to the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all, and not only to the rich."

Populorum Progressio (§22)

"Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth. All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty."

Populorum Progressio (§84)

"Government officials, it is your concern to mobilize your peoples to form a more effective world solidarity, and above all to make them accept the necessary taxes on their luxuries and their wasteful expenditures, in order to bring about development and to save the peace."

Populorum Progressio (§33)

"Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating the work of individuals and intermediary organizations. It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity."

Laborem Exercens (§14)

"It has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone."

Rerum Novarum (§45)

"Let the working man and the employer make free agreements, and in particular let them agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of natural justice more imperious and ancient than any bargain between man and man, namely, that wages ought not to be insufficient to support a frugal and well-behaved wage-earner. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil the workman accept harder conditions because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice."

Populorum Progressio (§59)

"What was true of the just wage for the individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free competition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an economic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject to the demands of social justice."

Rerum Novarum (§44)

"To labor is to exert oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various purposes of life, and chief of all for self-preservation. Hence, a man's labor necessarily bears two notes or characters. First, it is personal, inasmuch as the force which acts is bound up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts, and, further, was given to him for his advantage. Secondly, man's labor is necessary; for without the result of labor a man cannot live, and self-preservation is a law of nature, which it is wrong to disobey.

Now, were we to consider labor merely in so far as it is personal, doubtless it would be within the workman's right to accept any rate of wages whatsoever; for in the same way as he is free to work or not, so is he free to accept a small wage or even none at all. But our conclusion must be very different if, together with the personal element in a man's work, we consider the fact that work is also necessary for him to live: these two aspects of his work are separable in thought, but not in reality.

The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all, and to be wanting therein is a crime. It necessarily follows that each one has a natural right to procure what is required in order to live, and the poor can procure that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work."

Laborem Exercens (§14)

"Property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of 'capital' in opposition to 'labour'—and even to practise exploitation of labour—is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labour; they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession—whether in the form of private ownership or in the form of public or collective ownership—is that they should serve labour, and thus, by serving labour, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them.

From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production."

Octogesima Adveniens (§23)

"Legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equality. If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an over-emphasis on equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good."

Populorum Progressio (§58)

"In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no longer able to govern international relations. Its advantages are certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to country: prices which are freely set in the market can produce unfair results."

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (§32)

"Given these conditions, it is obvious that individual countries cannot rightly seek their own interests and develop themselves in isolation from the rest, for the prosperity and development of one country follows partly in the train of the prosperity and progress of all the rest and partly produces that prosperity and progress."

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (§39)

"Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, grounded on the principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. Avoiding every type of imperialism, the stronger nations must feel responsible for the other nations, based on the equality of all peoples and with respect for the differences."

It's fair to think think a loving god would make itself unequivocally known to humans but thats just one possibility. Is it possible that a perfectly loving God might be ambiguous in his existence? If that's possible, then reasonable unbelief would still exist despite a loving god existing.

Also I know it gets crickets a lot but I think near death experiences very reasonably point to god existing. The large majority of atheists come back after an nde believing God. The ones who didn't convert simply were given no knowledge one way or another on the god question. Of course these points hinge on the credibility of the science of ndes but I think the credibility is strong but thats another debate.

Science and religion concur that there are realms of being that transcend our four-dimensional frame of reference, both refer to the existence of realms of being whose nature isn’t known. Are you saying you do not believe in the existence of other dimensions of reality, are you argueing that there is nothing that falls outside oh our understanding of four dimensional reality?

Why do you say there is science that says there are realms outside our four dimensions?

I agree but I wonder how you'd answer it

Do you think "space" exists, how about "time", "mathematics", "consciousness", in what way do these things exist.

What are the characteristics that something that exists must possess, that God does not possess?

Interesting questions

I think reasonable unbelief could occur even with a perfectly loving god. Of course we might disagree with how a perfectly loving god might manifest. And if there's a way for a perfectly loving god to manifest while slowing reasonable unbelief, that could disprove the premises

This is the real truth...

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ?is=AE5b9xncRKimfNbX

Then there's the child custody and child support bias women are favored

Men being murdered more

If men are shooting other men in the foot, id still say women are privileged to not have to deal with all that

I always thought if I could get a pension through teaching plus summers off, that could justify a whole hell of a lot

Clinton was a reference to Hilary Clinton. All three that I asked about were who trump ran against in all three of his presidential bids.

Is illegal immigration such a huge deal that it justifies the trump train wreck?

Simply asserting that trump does what Biden doesn't isn't an argument.

Simply asserting that Harris is taken seriously isn't a real argument. It's just vibes. Trump is a disaster and Harris is at least competent and knowledge enough to be considered in her own right against such a low standard like trump. I often have to remind everyone myself included that no one has standards when it comes to trump but so many people suddenly want to have standards when it comes to his competition

Biden passed the computer chips act, the infrastructure bill, the green energy bill. It wasn't long term silutuin but he subsidized Obama care more than usual for the pandemic, he allowed more people who are disabled to have investment accounts that are tax free. He didn't run up the deficit more than any president like trump. He lowered the deficit. He didn't try allowing mercury pollution like trump, he supports common sense gun control like unlike Trump. He wouldn't allow people to be employed by him if they insisted on killing people by not getting vaccinated. He keeps the sciences funded. He puts people with qualifications in charge of the government instead of hacks. He didn't cause disorder by wrecking the federal government that ended up costing more long term like Trump did.

There's a lot more but thats off the top of my head. What's so terrible about him and the other contenders that justifies the trump train wreck?

Except the question was about the three people he ran against not the left in general

See above

I've noticed on here a Lotta people who voted for trump yet dont want to do much to do defend the guy. Which is understandable. What's less understandable is that they try claiming Biden and Harris were worse, not so much that trump is good. So, tell me, how were Biden and Harris worse than trump?

I think some people want to just vote for someone like trump, then they refuse to do anything to defend themselves. I think it's mostly just tribalism

That's one of the best analysis of MAGA I've ever seen

If you mean **proven U.S. crude oil reserves**, the United States has roughly **40–50 billion barrels** of proven reserves. The U.S. currently consumes about **20 million barrels of petroleum products per day**, which is about **7.3 billion barrels per year**.

At current consumption rates:

* **50 billion barrels ÷ 7.3 billion barrels/year ≈ 7 years**

However, that's a very simplified calculation because:

1. The U.S. continues to discover and develop new reserves.

2. Not all petroleum consumption comes from U.S. oil production.

3. Production rates, prices, and technology affect how much oil is economically recoverable.

4. The U.S. both imports and exports oil.

If instead you mean **how long the U.S. could keep producing oil at current production rates**, U.S. production is around **13–14 million barrels per day** (about 5 billion barrels per year). Using 50 billion barrels of proven reserves:

* **50 billion ÷ 5 billion/year ≈ 10 years**

But historically, these estimates don't count future discoveries and technological improvements, so the U.S. has been producing oil for over 160 years despite repeatedly being told it had only a few decades left.

In practice, the U.S. is unlikely to simply "run out" on a specific date. Production would gradually decline as fields become less productive, while alternatives and imports fill the gap.

Your reasoning is logically strong if we distinguish love from approval, trust, or lack of boundaries.

In the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the command to "love your enemies" is significant because enemies are precisely the people who have not met any condition that would make them easy to love. If love were only owed to those who behave well, then the command would simply be "love your friends."

For example:

1. You can love someone while refusing to enable destructive behavior.
2. You can love someone while ending a harmful relationship.
3. You can love someone while seeking justice for wrongdoing.
4. You can love someone while not trusting them.

Many Christians understand love in this context as willing the good of the other person—desiring their redemption, healing, and ultimate good—even when they are acting as an enemy.

This is also consistent with passages where Jesus forgives those crucifying him, yet still condemns evil and calls people to repentance. Love does not erase consequences.

One nuance some theologians raise is that while our obligation to love is unconditional, the experience of relationship and intimacy is not. A parent may love a child unconditionally, but the closeness of the relationship can be damaged by the child's actions. Likewise, Christians often argue that God loves all people, yet fellowship with God can be affected by how people respond to Him.

So your insight could be stated this way:

If Christians are commanded to love even their enemies, then Christian love is unconditional in the sense that it is not dependent on the other person's worthiness or behavior. However, unconditional love does not mean unconditional approval, trust, intimacy, or freedom from consequences.

That distinction resolves much of the debate.

What you're (linate) doing is essentially laying out several possible explanations:

1. **The command reflected God's actual moral standard for a particular circumstance.**

* This is the traditional reading many conservatives have taken.

* They would argue that rebellion against parents was viewed as a serious threat to the covenant community, not a minor offense.

* They often point out that the law in Deuteronomy 21 concerns a persistently rebellious son brought before the elders, not a child being executed for ordinary disobedience.

2. **The command was a civil law rather than a timeless moral law.**

* Similar to laws about property, warfare, and judicial procedures.

* The enduring principle would be "honor your parents," while the specific penalty belonged to ancient Israel's legal system.

* This is a common distinction in many Christian traditions.

3. **The law was an accommodation to a particular culture and historical setting.**

* Some theologians argue that God worked gradually within ancient societies rather than immediately abolishing every harsh institution.

* They see a trajectory in Scripture moving toward greater mercy and dignity, culminating in Jesus.

4. **The text may not perfectly reflect God's will.**

* More progressive Christians and some scholars take this route.

* They see Scripture as containing genuinely human elements and occasional misunderstandings about God.

5. **Jesus' use of the law in Mark 7 may be rhetorical.**

* In Gospel of Mark 7, Jesus is primarily accusing his opponents of hypocrisy.

* His argument is, in effect: "You claim to uphold the Law of Moses, yet your traditions undermine one of its central commands."

* The focus of the passage is their inconsistency, not necessarily a fresh endorsement of every civil penalty in the Torah.

What I find interesting is that your conclusion is actually quite modest: *"I wouldn't necessarily write off the whole Bible based on difficulties like this."*

Historically, that's how many believers have approached Scripture. They acknowledge there are texts involving slavery, warfare, capital punishment, and other morally difficult issues. Rather than assuming one difficult passage disproves everything, they ask whether the broader narrative, teachings, historical claims, and spiritual insights still have explanatory power.

The opposite approach—"if I find one passage I struggle with, the whole thing must be false"—is not the only rational response. It's a possible response, but not the only one.

The real question becomes: **Which explanation of the difficult passages best fits the total picture of Scripture, especially the character of God as revealed in Jesus?** Different Christian traditions answer that question differently, but that's usually where the debate ultimately leads.

You have a compelling point on the issue of if god required disobedient children to be executed. Its possible that that's the standard of god maybe that's the seriousness of sin. Maybe only serious infractions should have warranted death not just any old infraction. It's also possible that this was only a civil law to enforce a moral law of respecting parents. God would still be responsible for commanding it but like requiring rape victims to marry the rapist or for enemies be put to death or women enemies be sold for profit maybe god perhaps rightly thought accomadating the culture was necessary even to that extent. Maybe the text wasn't accurate and jesus wasn't saying it was God's law but that even by this supposed command of god those jews weren't being consistent.

I am doing fancy footwork but I wouldn't necessarily write off the whole Bible based on difficulties like this

What im noticing is that im spitting the deepest mysteries of the universe here, reconciling the Bible, nde science, classic philosophy, and basic science of the humanities... yet everyone responding isn't being fully awakened to these deepest truths, they're filtering it based on their preconceived views of the world.

# Why Are We Here? Why Must We Die?

*"Life is the arena where faith, love, and free will become real. Death and suffering are not good in themselves, but they create the conditions in which the deepest forms of love, trust, courage, and dependence on God can emerge."*

Why are we on earth?

Why do we suffer?

Why must we die?

These questions have accompanied humanity throughout history. Philosophers have wrestled with them, religions have built entire worldviews around them, and every person eventually confronts them in moments of grief, illness, loss, and mortality.

Modern society often offers two unsatisfying answers. One is that life has no ultimate purpose and that consciousness is merely a temporary accident of matter. The other is that the purpose of life is to maximize pleasure, comfort, wealth, or achievement.

Yet neither answer seems adequate to the deepest experiences of the human heart.

The moments we cherish most are rarely moments of comfort alone. They are moments of love, sacrifice, courage, forgiveness, wonder, meaning, and transcendence. We admire not merely the successful but the faithful. Not merely the powerful but the compassionate. Not merely those who avoid suffering but those who endure it with grace.

Perhaps this points toward a deeper truth.

Perhaps life is not primarily about comfort.

Perhaps it is about transformation.

## We Are Called Not Merely to Exist, but to Become

One of the most profound insights of Christianity is that God desires not slaves, pets, or robots, but children capable of freely participating in divine love.

Love cannot be forced.

A robot can obey perfectly but cannot love.

Love requires freedom.

Freedom requires choice.

Choice requires alternatives.

And alternatives create the possibility of suffering, failure, sacrifice, and loss.

The Christian tradition teaches that humanity was created in the image of God but not yet fully united with God. We are called not merely to exist but to become.

This theme runs deeply through the early Church. Irenaeus described humanity as being created immature, destined to grow into spiritual maturity through relationship with God. Athanasius spoke of humanity's participation in the divine life. Maximus the Confessor envisioned creation itself as moving toward union with God.

The Orthodox tradition calls this process *theosis*—the gradual transformation of the human person into deeper communion with God through grace.

This vision differs from a purely legal understanding of salvation. The goal is not merely to be declared righteous. The goal is to become righteous. Not merely to be forgiven, but to be transformed.

Earth, therefore, is not primarily a courtroom.

It is a school.

A workshop.

A hospital.

A training ground for eternity.

## Why Suffering Exists

This raises the most difficult question of all.

If God is good, why does suffering exist?

Christianity does not teach that suffering is good in itself. Disease, violence, grief, injustice, and death are tragic realities.

Yet Christianity does teach that God can bring good out of suffering.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus rejects the assumption that a man was born blind because of his own sin or the sin of his parents. Instead, he teaches that God's works would be revealed through the man's healing. Christianity does not always explain suffering by identifying a cause. Sometimes it points toward a future redemption.

This perspective suggests that suffering is not always punishment. Sometimes it becomes the arena in which faith, hope, courage, compassion, and trust are formed.

Certain virtues can only emerge in a world where suffering is possible.

Courage requires danger.

Forgiveness requires injury.

Compassion requires suffering.

Faith requires uncertainty.

Perseverance requires struggle.

Sacrifice requires cost.

Without the possibility of loss, these virtues become abstractions rather than realities.

The cross stands at the center of Christianity precisely because Christ does not bypass suffering. He enters into it.

The pattern of Christian life is not avoidance of suffering but transformation through it.

## The Science of Happiness and the Wisdom of the Saints

Interestingly, modern psychology has increasingly rediscovered truths that spiritual traditions have taught for centuries.

Researchers consistently find that lasting well-being is not primarily derived from pleasure, wealth, or status.

Beyond basic needs, happiness correlates much more strongly with:

* Meaning

* Relationships

* Gratitude

* Service

* Purpose

* Forgiveness

* Community

* Spirituality

Psychologists often distinguish between *hedonic happiness* and *eudaimonic happiness*.

Hedonic happiness concerns pleasure and comfort.

Eudaimonic happiness concerns meaning, virtue, growth, purpose, and fulfillment.

Again and again, studies suggest that people who orient their lives around meaning report deeper and more enduring satisfaction than those who pursue pleasure alone.

This mirrors the teachings of Christ.

"Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."

The paradox is striking. Happiness often arrives indirectly. The people most obsessed with happiness frequently fail to find it. Those who devote themselves to love, service, purpose, and meaning often discover happiness as a byproduct.

The saints understood this long before psychologists began measuring it.

## The Witness of Near-Death Experiences

Near-death experiences introduce another fascinating dimension to this discussion.

Interpretations vary, and caution is warranted. Yet researchers have documented remarkable consistencies across thousands of reports from different cultures and backgrounds.

People frequently describe:

* Profound love

* A sense of interconnectedness

* Life reviews emphasizing the impact of their actions on others

* Reduced fear of death

* Increased compassion

* Reduced materialism

* Greater spiritual awareness

Perhaps the most striking feature is the life review.

Many experiencers report reliving not only their own actions but also their effects upon others. Acts of kindness, cruelty, generosity, neglect, love, and indifference are experienced with startling clarity.

Whether one interprets these reports spiritually, psychologically, or some combination of both, their message is remarkably consistent.

What mattered most was not status.

Not wealth.

Not achievement.

Not power.

What mattered most was love.

Again and again, experiencers describe discovering that the deepest significance of life lies in how they treated other people.

This resonates profoundly with Christian teaching.

Christ summarized the law as love of God and love of neighbor.

The Apostle Paul declared that faith, hope, and love remain, but the greatest of these is love.

The convergence is difficult to ignore.

Ancient spiritual wisdom, modern happiness research, and many near-death experiences all point toward the possibility that reality itself may be oriented around love.

## The Desert Fathers and the Inner Battle

The Desert Fathers understood that the greatest battlefield is often not external but internal.

Retreating into the deserts of Egypt, Syria, and Palestine, they confronted the passions that distort human freedom.

Pride.

Anger.

Greed.

Fear.

Vanity.

Attachment.

Their goal was not self-hatred but purification.

They recognized that true freedom is not the ability to do whatever one wants.

True freedom is becoming the kind of person capable of choosing what is good.

Many modern people spend enormous energy attempting to control the external world while neglecting the internal one.

The Desert Fathers reversed this priority.

Their wisdom remains surprisingly relevant. The greatest obstacles to peace are often not external circumstances but the disordered desires and fears within ourselves.

## Thomas Merton and the True Self

Centuries later, Thomas Merton expressed similar insights in language accessible to the modern world.

Merton distinguished between the false self and the true self.

The false self is constructed from ego, achievement, social approval, comparison, fear, and status.

The true self is rooted in God.

Much of human suffering arises because we spend years constructing and defending an identity that was never our deepest reality.

We chase success, recognition, possessions, and validation while remaining strangers to our true selves.

Merton believed that spiritual growth involves the gradual surrender of the false self and the discovery of the true self hidden in Christ.

This vision closely parallels both the Desert Fathers and the Eastern Christian understanding of the image of God within every person.

## Why We Must Die

Death remains humanity's deepest mystery.

Yet perhaps death serves a role that earthly life alone cannot accomplish.

As long as we imagine ourselves self-sufficient, we may never fully recognize our dependence upon God.

Death exposes the limits of every earthly achievement.

Eventually wealth cannot save us.

Intelligence cannot save us.

Status cannot save us.

Even health cannot save us.

Death forces us to confront the deepest questions.

Who am I?

Why am I here?

What endures?

What is ultimately real?

Christianity answers these questions not merely with a philosophy but with a person.

Christ.

Humanity's encounter with sin and death creates the possibility of a relationship with Christ that could not otherwise exist.

We can admire a teacher without needing salvation.

We can appreciate wisdom without depending upon it.

But when confronted with our mortality, our limitations, and our need for redemption, Christ becomes not merely a teacher but a healer, redeemer, and savior.

In this sense, death is not simply an ending.

It is the final surrender of the illusion of self-sufficiency.

The resurrection proclaims that death is not the destination but the doorway.

## A Vision of Human Existence

When the insights of Christian spirituality, Eastern theology, happiness research, philosophy, and near-death studies are viewed together, a coherent picture begins to emerge.

Human beings appear uniquely oriented toward love, meaning, relationship, growth, and transcendence.

The deepest forms of happiness arise not through acquisition but through self-giving.

The greatest spiritual traditions emphasize transformation more than comfort.

Near-death experiences repeatedly point toward the centrality of love.

The saints speak of purification, healing, and union with God.

All of these perspectives converge upon a common insight:

We are not merely created good.

We are invited to become good.

Perhaps life is neither a meaningless accident nor merely a test.

Perhaps it is a process of becoming.

A journey in which faith, love, and free will are gradually woven together.

A school in which souls learn to love.

A workshop in which character is forged.

A hospital in which hearts are healed.

A pilgrimage toward union with God.

If so, then suffering, loss, and death are not accidental obstacles to learning love.

They are among the very conditions that make its deepest forms possible.

The purpose of life is to freely learn love.

The arena in which that learning occurs is a world marked by faith, sacrifice, suffering, and mortality.

And the destiny of that love is union with God.

The recurring themes in most of his posts are just terrible analogies taken to extremes

It'd be interesting if doctors of psychology would do a case study on remy's mind

??

What do you suppose changed that caused someone like trump? We have had considered conservatives for centuries but Trump is an incompetent dysfunctional demagogue. I think maybe it's that affordability and the plight of normal people got so bad people wanted an outsider so they chose the one who is a con man that talks big but can't measure up substantively. The masses follow hopes and dreams and vague ideas of getting rid of waste fraud and abuse hoping to be able to help everyone else that way but all they get is chaos cause Trump is incompetent

See above

How do inventors get fairly compensated for their ideas? Wouldn't doing away with patents just make the rich richer when they can steal ideas? Do you have the same views of trademarks and things like books and movies and songs? How do artists get compensated and incentives to create?

"Experts say ai is unlikely to replace government beurocrats, as it's not soulless enough"