The Fall of the New Rome

Is the United States the new "Rome"? If so, can America be saved, or must it fall victim to the forces of fascism, corporate plutocracy and tyranny? Is there a way out, to return to democracy and freedom? This blog explores the political, social and spiritual issues that affect the US today.

Is America repeating the mistakes of ancient Rome?

T.M.Elkins

T.M.Elkins is a freelance journalist whose work has appeared in alternative journals such as Serpentine, local newspapers in the New York area, and at OpEd News.com. Originally from New Jersey, she currently resides in Germany.

In 2001, a book published by a small publishing company in the US came and went without receiving much fanfare. Nestled among the many glossy get-rich-quick, positive thinking and self- help books that one commonly finds in Christian bookstores, "When the Empire Strikes Out: Are We Repeating the Pattern of Past Civilizations? ", with its serious title and earnest, analytical tone, could not have seemed less untimely.

After all, America had just experienced a whole decade of growth, peace and self-indulgence. The economy was booming, after a few "setbacks" like the dot com bubble that burst in 2000. The Soviet Union, long considered America's archenemy, had collapsed. The cold war was over, and Clinton had promised a "peace dividend". What could go wrong?

The book's author, William R. Goetz, delved into a theory with which most Americans are unfamiliar- Sir John Glubb's theory of the rise and fall of empires- and what this theory could mean to Americans- namely, that the United States was in the throes of its imminent collapse and death. Needless to say, the book was not terribly popular. Truth never is.

At the time, I found a copy in my local Christian bookstore, and read it with great eagerness. Goetz explains how Sir John Glubb's famed book The fate of empires and Search for survival . The Fate of Empires and the Search for Survival outlined seven phases in the life span of an empire, from the first, the Age of Outburst, to the last, the Age of Decline and Collapse.

Goetz's book applied this theory to the history of the United States, and came to the almost inevitable conclusion that the United States was heading for disaster.

The parallels between the last days of Rome and the last few decades of the United States are appallingly clear. Of course, we have all heard of the decadence of Rome's final years. In Caesar and Christ, Will Durant described Rome's final days as follows:

"Prostitution flourished. Homosexualism was stimulated by contact with Greece and Asia: many rich men paid a talent ($3,600) for a male favorite; Cato complained that a pretty boy cost more than a farm. Marc Antony surrendered to such sensuality that his subjects lost respect for his authority. He surrounded himself with dancers, musicians, courtesans and roisterers, and took wives and concubines whenever a fine woman struck his fancy."

The worst ruler, Nero "divorced one wife, murdered his own mother, killed a pregnant second wife, then in regret found a youth who closely resembled her, had him emasculated, married him and used him in every way like a woman." Has it gotten so bad in the US yet? Thankfully, America has not yet produced a new Nero, but the many sexual scandals (including Bill Clinton's famed cigar incident with intern Monica Lewinsky) should give us cause to consider.

Goetz quotes Henry Cabot Lodge in The History of Nations: "Perhaps the most significant mark of the corruption of the age is the frequency of divorce and the general aversion to marriage..... immorality was the rule." Another sign of a society in decline is the division of wealth: "(There were) two predominant classes in the state... the mass of beggars and the (incredibly wealthy). The "economic and social disintegration", as Lodge put it, caused the Romans to become lazy, overly fond of luxury and adverse to hard work. The indolence of its citizens, the endless internal struggles brought about by societal disunity, and the financial burden of providing free bread for thousands- these were the first cracks in Rome's invincible facade. Add to this the assimilation of thousands of barbarians into Rome, the frequent invasions from without and the many foreign wars designed to bring in much-needed funds to pay for the bloated military, public welfare and luxurious decadence of the Roman aristocracy, and you have the makings of disaster.

To be sure, the long, slow decline of Rome has long been a favorite of historians, and innumerable books have pondered the causes for her fall. While few have read all of Edward Gibbon's momentous seventeen- volume work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the gist of the book's chronicle of Rome's downfall can be summed up in what Gibbons describes as the five significant factors in her inglorious end: a rapid increase in divorce, a craze for pleasure, a bloated military coupled with ignorance of enemies within, an increase in violence and a decline in religious morals. This, yet again, reads like a perfect description of American society today.

The frivolity, hedonism, obsession with convenience (so that even walking five minutes is considered an undue burden) are one side of America's decline. Home-grown terrorists, school massacres, a sudden rash of child abductions by predatory pedophiles and the splintering of society are the darker side.

Selfishness and individualism cause children to be seen as a burden, instead of a blessing. Abortion, as in modern times, was also practiced in ancient Rome, along with infanticide. While most Americans think of Europeans as "liberal", many of the late term-abortions performed stateside would be illegal in Ireland, Poland or Germany. America has the dubious distinction of being one of the few countries on earth that allows abortions up to the last week of pregnancy, without restrictions.

American hedonism has also brought us the "Great Recession" we are now seeing: a nation that, for decades, consumed without producing, bought what it couldn't afford and demanded more wages for itself, while consuming cheap goods from overseas, is destined for defeat.

When he wrote his book in the last years of the nineties, Goetz could hardly have seen just how horribly wrong America's short- sighted economic policies could have gone- we now see Washington sending trillions of dollars to rich banking billionaires, while a whole generation of kids will spend their formative years living in tents, sleeping in motels or in their parents' cars. Meanwhile, the open borders with Mexico means that the modern day "barbarians" will continue their invasion. Millions of American citizens, out of work, are depending on extended unemployment benefits and food stamps; at the same time, America's wealthy elite would rather hire illegal immigrants than US citizens.

On the political level, we see other signs: the growth of a centralized, bloated bureaucracy, an inefficient, bloated military, the increase in expensive overseas battles, and a buildup in debt and ongoing corruption. No nation has ever successfully fought two wars on two fronts simultaneously and survived. The last two to try were Napoleon and Hitler, and both were defeated. The arrogance of our nation's leaders to think that they could succeed at such a task is astounding.

Interestingly, in chapter ten, Goetz enumerates the many threats facing America, many of which have, in the following years, come to pass. The Chinese have already committed many of the attacks that Goetz described a decade ago, including infiltration of the food supply (the melamine poisoning), shutting down power grids (which happened in 2003) and attacking the economic system through hacking (which happened last year). China's "information warfare" program is the second largest in the world- after the US. Because of America's dwindling number of native-born IT specialists (another product of the failed school and University system), we can expect the quality of China's program to soon exceed that of the US, if it hasn't already.

In When Nations Die, Jim Nelson Black writes: "As I examine the parallels between American society and other great empires in history, I am often stunned by the way our civilization mirrors the fallen giants of the past." If we want to see the future, we need only look at the past. Goetz's book now seems chillingly prophetic in its warnings. Too bad America's leaders were too busy playing golf, conducting sexual affairs or attending campaign fundraisers to pay attention to his dire warnings.

Conservatives often argue that there are no successful socialist countries. But by the same logic, there are also no successful purely capitalist countries. Virtually every prosperous nation operates with some mix of markets and government programs rather than adhering to either extreme.

It's not as though every country outside the United States has failed. There are many successful countries, and most of them have stronger social safety nets than the U.S. The debate is rarely about capitalism versus socialism in a pure sense; it's about where to draw the line between the two.

The United States is exceptionally prosperous, but that isn't solely because we have less government involvement. Our wealth is also the result of abundant natural resources, strong institutions and laws, favorable geography, and historical advantages, including emerging from World War II in a uniquely strong economic position while many competitors were devastated.

It's also worth noting that comparisons based only on taxes can be misleading. Once you include what Americans spend privately on healthcare, along with defense spending and other costs that many countries fund through taxes, the overall burden looks much closer to that of other developed nations. If you also include private spending on things like childcare and other services that are publicly funded elsewhere, Americans may actually spend more overall. That's one reason living in the U.S. is so expensive.

The bottom line is that while the United States has the world's largest military, we also spend substantially more overall than many other successful countries. At the same time, there are no modern examples of highly successful laissez-faire capitalist economies. Finally, it's important to remember that much of America's prosperity has also been financed through enormous government borrowing. Our national debt means we have, in many respects, borrowed from the future to help create the standard of living we enjoy today

The title of this thread is there aren't successful laissez faire countries

Conservatives often argue that there are no successful socialist countries. But by the same logic, there are also no successful purely capitalist countries. Virtually every prosperous nation operates with some mix of markets and government programs rather than adhering to either extreme.

It's not as though every country outside the United States has failed. There are many successful countries, and most of them have stronger social safety nets than the U.S. The debate is rarely about capitalism versus socialism in a pure sense; it's about where to draw the line between the two.

The United States is exceptionally prosperous, but that isn't solely because we have less government involvement. Our wealth is also the result of abundant natural resources, strong institutions and laws, favorable geography, and historical advantages, including emerging from World War II in a uniquely strong economic position while many competitors were devastated.

It's also worth noting that comparisons based only on taxes can be misleading. Once you include what Americans spend privately on healthcare, along with defense spending and other costs that many countries fund through taxes, the overall burden looks much closer to that of other developed nations. If you also include private spending on things like childcare and other services that are publicly funded elsewhere, Americans may actually spend more overall. That's one reason living in the U.S. is so expensive.

The bottom line is that while the United States has the world's largest military, we also spend substantially more overall than many other successful countries. At the same time, there are no modern examples of highly successful laissez-faire capitalist economies. Finally, it's important to remember that much of America's prosperity has also been financed through enormous government borrowing. Our national debt means we have, in many respects, borrowed from the future to help create the standard of living we enjoy today.

Sure there are people with childish conceptions of god and jesus so what do atheists do? They hold god up to those childish conceptions. instead of the mature approach of asking if god is or could be real what would he be like? Basically they strawman god instead of steelmaning god

I thought id tickle the atheists with this one. Recently ive gone from saying philosophical evidence for god counts as evidence to saying it doesnt count. My reasoning is that only loosely should philosophy alone count as evidence... in concrete terms scientifically and legally and even philosophically evidence needs to be empirical to count as evidence. But that goes the other way too... philosophy alone doesnt count as evidence that god doesn't exist. To be sure, there are scientific principles that could go either way on the god question, but interpreting the concepts is philosophical in nature mostly.

Plus science says we can't prove a negative, we say we can't disprove god. Its kinda weak to say we have evidence for something that can't be disproven

Actually some insightful wisdom hunter be spitting (if its really from him)

I'm not running for office. But if I were, these are some of the lessons I'd take away from what happened in NY yesterday. 1. Authenticity is measurable. Voters can smell a focus group from a mile away. 2. Endorsements from the current Democratic leadership now read like warnings. The establishment wing of the party is no longer a sword. It's a question mark. 3. Conviction beats caution. The candidates who said hard things about rent, about who pays for what, about Gaza, they won. The triangulators lost. 4. Cost of living is everything. Everything else is wallpaper. 5. The middle is not a strategy. It's an empty room. Voters reached past the establishment to grab someone who actually believes something. 6. Don't fear the base. Court it. The Democrats who ran from their own voters lost. The ones who ran toward them won. 7. If you want to lead a party you have to be willing to fight inside it. Mamdani didn't ask permission. He took the field. The lesson under the lessons: the country is tired of being managed. People want to be led.

https://nypost.com/2026/06/23/us-news/house-passes-bill-barring-investors-from-buying-up-single-family-homes-trump-expected-to-sign-it-at-the-capitol/

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/poll-us-boomers-support-tax-100500119.html

It's interesting that boomers overwhelmingly would want to increase taxes on the younger generation to fund their social security, but it might be even more interesting that the article chose to frame it as boomers v the young to catch headlines and maybe sour the public on saving social security instead framing it as what the best options might be. like eliminating the cap on taxable income. The article should have talked about how boomers rank the various options to fix the program

Step 1: Remove filters in Reflecting Pool because Obama put them in.

Step 2: Give your criminal neighbor who runs "Greenwater Services" a $20 million no-bid contract to paint the pool.

Step 3: Fill the pool with water from the Potomac River, the phosphates from which cause algae blooms.

Step 4: Freshly sealed pool and extreme heat result in a super scum event

Step 5: Direct National Park Service to dump hydrogen peroxide into the pool which causes the paint to peel.

Step 6: Deploy US National Guard to stop people from taking photos of the swamp as a perfect metaphor for the administration.

Step 7: Blame someone else.

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."

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."

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

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.

# 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.

??

"I can't believe people think having to work for basic needs is synonymous with freedom. It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."

Whereas you believe that God watches evil and is unwilling or unable to stop it

We are not the same

Giving more tax cuts to the wealthy?

Yeah leftists have a lot of interventions to try to make life more affordable. Some r good ideas and some are not.

But what are the rights solutions? It seems as far as I can tell is do nothing and hope somehow the economy that is making things worse will just magically get better. Or to the extent that I see solution attempts it's just throwing money at rich people. As if that'd fix anything

"Let's assume God wants to tell the human race about hell. It's a big deal, hell is. Affects a lot of people.

So here's what God does:

1. He doesn't warn humanity of it from the get-go, but rather tells Adam and Eve that the consequence of their fall was that they were now mortal, and that they would now have to toil on the earth and then die.

2. He makes sure to never mention it in the entire Jewish canon. Never. Once.

3. Then, he makes sure that rival mythologies of pagan cultures believe in some kind of a fiery underworld as punishment for wickedness.

4. Still doesn't tell the Jews about it.

5. Then, he makes sure that in the centuries and decades prior to God's coming to earth as a man, the competing Greco-Roman mythologies start to mingle and mix together. Jews start kind-of, sort-of believing in hell, too, now, even though their scriptures were silent on it. Rather than teach folks about hell himself, God allows pagans to do it.

6. God comes to earth as a man to set the record straight.

7. Now, God-as-man makes sure to refer to hell almost exclusively using the term "Gehenna", which was actually a nearby valley.

"That'll clear things up, then, won't it?" God says to himself. "No room for confusion there. Onto other things."

8. God goes back to heaven.

9. God's new followers break into the scene and one of them preaches the first post-resurrection sermon. To God's chagrin, he completely forgets to mention hell.

10. God notices that his new followers are conspicuously omitting the hell message all over the place. Confounded, he anoints a new leader, to once again set the record straight.

11. This new guy, Paul, goes around the whole Roman world, one end to the other. Get this — he never mentions hell. Never. Not once in any of his sermons or letters.

12. Now irate, God finally makes one last ditch effort to send the message clearly.

He goes to Patmos and tells this guy: 'Please. Set the record straight about hell, would you?' John says, 'You got it, God. How'd you like me to do it?'

Knowingly, with a clever smile, God says, 'Do it like this, K?

'Put it towards the end of the most confusing letter you can imagine... Use dramatic imagery, you know, the kind nobody could believe literally. You know, flying dragons, giant beasts with horns, cosmic prostitutes. Get creative. The point is to make sure some parts are literal and some are figurative. That'll keep them guessing. Oh, throw in a bunch of Jewish and Greco-Roman symbology, just to confuse those guys in the twenty-first century.'

'You got it, Lord.'

And so you have it: hell exists.

With a body of textual evidence like this, clearly God has gone to great lengths to make sure his people are under no illusions about it."

-Peter Bradford Martin 🤍

Particularly subsidize human produce.

The government subsidizes farm animal food such that most of our crops are for farm animals. Meat is already a social ill in terms of efficiency and environmental effects. Why prop it up? If meat gets even more expensive who cares? Meat should only be a very small part of the human diet anyway.

Food Deserts are where grocery stores dont locate in urban areas cause its not profitable enough. So local people dont get access to basic nutrition. But why make every possible governmemt intervention as by definition wrong? Why frame every decision that affects the livelihood of citizens through purely economic lenses?

Arguments like causality or from design are formidable points. But theres equally formidable arguments against these. In philosophy and law and science theres the concept that purely philosophical evidence isnt even evidence. When an idea presents itself like these with being consistent with a proposition then its merely showing its not inconsistent Philosophically.

Arguments for christian miracles are weak evidence and evidence for god from the phenomenon of nde science is strong. But society is so stuck in religious and worldly ways that these points arent usually brought up in these discussions

Yeah 65 is a perfect temp. In fact 60 to 70 is perfect. I dont think most people realize that its their favorite temp too... most people act like they want it to be 85 then they complain about how hot it is when it gets there, and they talk about how perfect it is when its in the 60s

Most people arent self aware enough to realize all this

This will be way more of a vanity run than last time. She thinks that since she might be popular with a plurality of democrats that she'll be popular with most of them, let alone most Americans, sounds like a vanity and power trip more than anything

She can't even articulate why shes best other than maybe orange man bad and her poll numbers are good enuff to maybe pull the dem nomination

The socialist govenor of NYC balanced a budget with a deficit of 12 billion. Republicans were saying the only fix was to use austerity measures in NYC

the word “bailout” can be misleading in this context.

There are two different questions here:

1. Did New York State transfer money/resources to NYC to help close the budget gap?
2. Yes. By that definition, critics call it a bailout. The state helped NYC avoid deeper cuts or tax hikes. (New York Post)
3. Is NYC already a net fiscal contributor to New York State overall?
4. Also yes, according to multiple fiscal analyses. NYC taxpayers contribute more in taxes to Albany than the city receives back in state spending and services. (islg.cuny.edu)

So your intuition is basically:

“If NYC already subsidizes the rest of the state overall, then getting extra state support isn’t necessarily an outside rescue — it may partly be NYC recapturing some of the value it already generates.”

That’s a legitimate argument and one many NYC officials make. Even critics of Mamdani often acknowledge NYC is the economic engine of the state. (NYC Comptroller's Office)

At the same time, critics would reply:

1. Even if NYC is a net contributor overall, the city government budget itself still had a structural gap.
2. State aid still shifts fiscal pressure upward to Albany.
3. If the state repeatedly covers city shortfalls without long-term reform, the underlying spending problem may persist.

So the disagreement is partly semantic and partly about framing:

1. Critics: “The state had to rescue the city budget.”
2. Supporters: “The state is returning resources to the region that already funds much of the state.”

Both contain some truth depending on the level of analysis.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-backed-30-minimum-wage-plan-could-backfire-unexpected-ways-experts-warn?fbclid=IwdGRjcARwoKhjbGNrBHCgKGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHmXAHG3j8by3bhwXoagErgSnECZSzse0HXzjIJJqj5oK2f79qHe7t6-cvqcr_aem_5bBo-CizPqQ12bTmmIyWWA

Sweet spot is probably 12.50 territory for minimum wage

The government should give tax credits to alternative energy. Except, they shouldnt give them just for certain technologies like electric cars. Conservatives are right about that, they shoukdnt be picking winners and losers. If the government picked wrong they be subsidizing an inferior technology. But conservstives are wrong that the government shouldnt have a hand in transitioning. Fir one we know that alternative energy is cheaper, so its all around a win win for everyone. Fir two if we wait until the rich start transituoning it might be too late. By the time they start feeling the pinch of prices, evrryone else will feel it even more, the whole time we could have been transitioning everyone else will be feeling pinched

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/openai-sued-chatgpts-alleged-role-guiding-fsu-shooter-rcna344443

I dunno thats a tough one. I could see chatgpt having moral responsibility in aiding the crime but im not sure about legal. The question comes down to whether the ai engaged in 'aiding and abetting' the shooter, and i do see that that could potentially involve giving advice to a shooter. I dunno how clear the shooters intentions should have been to the ai bot. The prosecutor says an actual human would be charged with a crime for what the ai did, and that might be true.

I could see arguing that the shooters intentions were clear and even if they weren't clear to the bot the intentions should have been clear, as itd be clear to any human. I suppose itd boil down to whether ai should be held to the same standard as a human. And even if that standard isnt even considered at all, strictly speaking the bot gave advice to the shooter, point blank, though i do think the standard involved should be considered in the deliberation

First ask every government agency except maybe social security to find ten percent of its spending that can be cut. This is a modest doable amount and is a way better strategy than trump and musks ax to the budget strategy.

Heres ai generated ways to raise revenue through tax increases for the rest

| Proposal | Very Rough Annual Revenue

| 2% wealth tax above $10M | ~$700B–$1.6T

| 1% wealth tax on $500k–$10M | ~$350B–$700B

| 20% increase in income taxes on top 10% | ~$250B–$450B

| 10% increase on 80th–90th percentile | ~$40B–$100B

| Estate tax expansion + 20% increase | ~$50B–$120B

| End stepped-up basis above $1M | ~$20B–$80B annually equivalent

| **Total** | **~$1.4T–$3.0T+ annually**

Increasing someone's income taxes twenty percent might sound like a lot but its actually modest... if their original effective tax rate is 25 percent, its only a 5 percentage point increase

Of course, regulating the cost of government Healthcare programs is essential as is finding ways to cut waste, fraud, and abuse. While the governments at it they should do so in the private sector too given so much savings can be found. We dont need universal healthcare, we need to just get the cost thsts already provided under control. This healthcare approach would supercharge our economy and cost savings.

But with or without tackling healthcare the deficit can very feasible get managed with incremental moves. Its not beyond repair yet, which is a significant statement to make in itself

.... from Hillary's emails

Amiright??