The Law of Love

Blog

  • -Every other developed country besides the United States has affordable universal healthcare in some fashion. They have differing degrees of government involvement in the process along with private insurance to various degrees in some countries. 
    -we spend 18 percent of our GDP on healthcare. every other developed country spends not much more than ten percent. if we ran healthcare like any of them, the difference amounts to over a trillion dollars a year. that’s the equivalent of cutting people’s income taxes in half. you can also look at the break down per capita and come to the same conclusions as bernie always does.
    -Highlighting the need for reform: medicare and other government healthcare in the United States are running out of money, despite the common thinking that our payroll and other income taxes will pay for it all.  The problem is so big, that healthcare is the only thing that could potentially bankrupt the country. The debt clock shows that our current GDP and debt is around 20 trillion, but future unfunded liability from healthcare is around 120 trillion. 
    http://www.usadebtclock.com/
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/25/barack-obama/obama-says-medicare-and-medicaid-are-largest-defic/
    http://memepoliceman.com/social-security-medicare/
    -There is speculation on what will happen when Medicare runs out of sufficient money to pay its bills. We might reform the system, put it on our debt, or print money to pay for it. 
    -before obamacare, a commonly cited statistic was that over forty five thousand people died a year without healthcare. after obamacare, that number fell. the exact number is disputed by some, but the consensus is that the number is tens of thousands. for instance, there is no shortage of stories of insurance companies that deny or battle coverage while someone is dying of cancer.  
    http://www.pnhp.org/mortality
    -Despite paying more than other countries, we have significantly worse health outcomes compared to them, even beyond high death rates. 
    Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990
    Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
    Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
    Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
    Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
    Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation
    ​-The current healthcare industry causes people to go bankrupt. One in four of your grandparents will go bankrupt trying to pay for healthcare in this country.  Before Obamacare, half of bankruptcies were healthcare related. If an insurance company fights to pay for your cancer care, for instance, you will face not just the prospects of death, but won’t receive any government assistance until you’re lifetime saving from hard work, become depleted. 
    -The primary way these countries save money is by negotiating and regulating costs (such as drug costs) but some also take out the insurance middleman to reduce administrative costs. 
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries
    ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M
    -This article does a great job breaking down costs that need addressed in a universal plan. 
    https://www.theweek.com/articles/792893/how-pay-medicareforall?fbclid=IwAR1Rds6oKvUJHSo64ApfRcf1Wq5UqKZTp6Nw6QJYwI9RD_mDOhOvQumiQ-s
    -Medicare spends twenty percent less than insurance for any given procedure, and Medicaid reimburses a third less than Medicare. (consider the bigger picture. if we spent a third less than we do now overall, we would be much closer to other countries spending rates)
    -the non-partisan committee for a responsible federal budget gives some examples of reforming Medicare, without cutting benefits, where major savings could be established and medicare become sustainable 
    http://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-reduce-medicare-spending-without-cutting-benefits
    -Insurance companies spend thirty percent on the dollar on profit and administrative costs, while Medicare spends only three percent on administration.  For every doctor, it is not uncommon to see two staff people just to take care of billing. There is also the marketing and legal departments, other issues that are redundant among insurance companies that run up administrative costs. 
    “We have 900 billing clerks at Duke (medical system, 900 bed hospital). I’m not sure we have a nurse per bed, but we have a billing clerk per bed… it’s obscene.” Reinhardt, Congressional Hearing on Healthcare Reform.
    -The main reason we spend so much is because the healthcare industry charges so much for any given procedure.  The last link lists some things that are not the main problem that are commonly cited, as is also listed later on this page. 
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/16/16357790/health-care-prices-problem
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/upshot/united-states-health-care-resembles-rest-of-world.html
    https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180407/NEWS/180409939 
    -Hospitals are a bigger bad actor than insurance companies because they are prone to excessively charging simply because they can.
    -Doctors and other healthcare professionals salaries are included to some extent in the excess.  There is an artificial restriction on the supply of doctors and they earn significantly more than their counterparts in other countries.  There are fewer physicians per person than in most other OECD countries. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. had 2.4 practicing physicians per 1,000 people — well below below the OECD average of 3.1.
    https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/10/25/doctors-salaries-pay-disparities-000557
    -A, or ‘the’, major problem we have five percent of patients that cause half our healthcare expenses. this could potentially be regulated by creating a “high risk” category in the industry, where reimbursement is lower. If we reduced that category of expense by half, we should reduce the overall cost of healthcare by a quarter. (think of the GDP numbers, instead of 18 percent, we’d be closer to other countries) Think of the bigger picture- the average that is spent on each of those patients is $40,000 per year. You could hire a doctor to take car of just five of them and his salary would be paid for.  Trying to manage care like that is easier said than done though. So what happens is we end up having the healthcare industry milk each procedure and charge too much overall.   
    http://www.pnhp.org/news/2014/september/8-facts-that-explain-what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-american-health-care
    -half of people get their insurance through their jobs. a lot of people are satisfied, but not all of them. and there is a general awareness of the waste involved.  
    -here is a public option plan that could cover anyone wanting to join and includes allowing employers to join. this plan, Americare, achieves savings through all the means mentioned above and makes healthcare universal and affordable.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/this-old-bill-could-be-the-secret-to-affordable-universal-health-care/ar-BBDmswj?li=BBnbfcN&srcref=rss
    -here is a dude proposing public options through expanding medicaid and medicare. this sort of pragmatism hasn’t been in the media a lot in recent years, but it’s slowly becoming more mainstream. the second link illustrates some of the politically infeasible aspects of trying to get to single payer. the last link argues for a medicaid public option.  
    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/04/27/the-case-against-single-payer/
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/bernie-sanders-single-payer-universal-coverage
    -https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/08/02/the-health-202-medicare-for-all-is-the-dream-medicaid-for-more-could-be-the-reality/5b61d4ed1b326b0207955ea2/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d9412cfb413d
    https://prospect.org/article/buying-medicaid-viable-path-universal-coverage​
    -the above link shows a slight majority of americans support universal care. there is an even higher support when you raise the proposition that it can be cheaper that way too. 
    -universal care doesn’t have to be single payer or some form of a public option. switzerland does it like obamacare, yet it’s affordable. the main way, as has been discussed, is because of regulating and negotiating with the health industry on costs. 
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/04/29/why-switzerland-has-the-worlds-best-health-care-system/#64f2ee5a7d74
    -would universal care starve research and development, innovation? this article says not, and it says that we spend around a hundred bilion per year on reseach and development. you can see it’s just a fraction of what we spend on our trillions in healthcare. we could double our R and D spending and still cover everyone. 
    http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/november/does_universal_healt.php
    -is the problem malpractice costs? if you count premiums and the amount paid by insurance malpractice companies, and the cost of defensive medicine where doctors use procedures they otherwise wouldn’t to avoid lawsuits, the amount comes out to less than fifty billion dollars. again, this is a small fraction of the trillions we spend in healthcare.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2010/09/07/the-true-cost-of-medical-malpractice-it-may-surprise-you/#12feaa622ff5​
    -If we keep health insurance to any extent, we need to make them non-profit organizations. Because health insurance in this country is for profit, they are going to do everything in their power to avoid paying your healthcare. Their main motivation is higher profits, not your well-being. Denying claims is just one clumsy way of saving money though; the main way is by avoiding unhealthy people altogether.  In other countries, any surplus funds are directed towards lowering premiums. Some of the countries have a health system like our current Medicare, where basic dental and eye health along with some luxurious arraignments are only covered through supplemental insurance beyond the government basic coverage. 
    -none of the existing proposals are the only methods. some free market types have posited that we could have universal catastrophic care (covering care above a certainly yearly deductible), and something for the poor. the free market would drive down costs for everyone else on non-catastrophic issues that arise. A variation on this theme is they could outlaw non-catastrophic insurance and promote health savings accounts that already exist.  Another variation, if lawmakers wanted to play twisted with poor tax payers, they could give them subsidies before their catastrophic coverage kicks in that they can pocket if they don’t use to discourage overuse. (this wouldn’t be politically popular and has questionable ethics, too)
    http://thefederalist.com/2017/03/31/whats-better-medicare-free-market-health-care-system/
    -France is rated number one by the world health organization and has an esteemed tort reformed system. (not that this is the major driver of costs)
    -a universal system probably wouldn’t be like the VA, especially in the USA. most countries aren’t either. that is where the government is employer of healthcare workers. most universal care proposals only rely on the government at most as an insurer, not as taking over everything.  government as employer like the VA is only the case in the UK, but they don’t have significant problems there anyway. the VA isn’t as bad as it used to be either as most veterans are happy with their care.  


    Would the USA suffer in the time we wait to see a Doctor?:
    -the idea that we have to wait longer in a single payer system is mostly a myth. according to the Commowealth for most procedures the usa is well below average in wait times. for some specialized care, the usa is towards the top, but still not best.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/universal-healthcare-doesnt-mean-waiting-longer-to-see-a-doctor/281614/
    -a libertarian who supports french healthcare: “For a dozen years now I’ve led a dual life, spending more than 90 percent of my time and money in the U.S. while receiving 90 percent of my health care in my wife’s native France. On a personal level the comparison is no contest: I’ll take the French experience any day. ObamaCare opponents often warn that a new system will lead to long waiting times, mountains of paperwork, and less choice among doctors. Yet on all three of those counts the French system is significantly better, not worse, than what the U.S. has now.”
    http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/07/why-prefer-french-health-care
    http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/december/reasons-matt-welch-on-french-health-care
    -the idea that canadians come here because of wait times is mostly a myth. only 20 for every 18,000 canadians come here on purpose for healthcare. it’s not clear why they choose to do so (maybe there’s a wait issue, maybe they respect the USA more given its reputation for quality in some areas of healthcare), but it’s clear the numbers are miniscule. the atlantic article above does say canada is the only country worse in wait times, so there could be that, so a slight extent. the only reason canadians are worse, though, is because they choose to not fund healthcare as much as other countries or the usa does- a political decision that can be remedied here, and isn’t a problem any where else. 
    https://www.vox.com/2016/10/9/13222798/canadians-seeking-medical-care-us-trump-debate
    https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html

    What can we conclude on wait times?:
    -wait times is mostly a red herring- if we want decent access to doctors we shouldn’t limit the supply of doctors like we have in the usa. let the free market work more in this regard.
    -every other developed country is either single payer or has some sort of government involvement majorly. and they all are almost half as costly. most countries to save money by regulating costs. this is probably why specialized care wait times has been hurt some in other countries. but the fact that the usa is not the best in that regards, shows that it can be done better than here and with government involvement that covers everyone. and, all it means is we shouldn’t be too gung ho on over regulating specialized care.
    -other countries are like us. to the extent that there are wait times, it’s mostly for people who dont need urgent care. the more urgent your situation, the faster you get seen. that’s how it’s done here too. any delay to the less urgent isn’t significant enough to justify all the good points of single payer or a government involved method.
    -there might be some limitation to access if we open up access to doctors to the remaining ten percent of uninsured just by demand going up some, but ten percent more people would not cause a significant shift in outcomes, and most states have less than that uninsured. There would be no lines under a universal health care system in the United States because we have about a 30% oversupply of medical equipment and surgeons, whereas demand would increase less than 10%. and, is it all that moral to make your own care better by denying it to someone else? especially when you can just find a way to take care of them that doesn’t really affect you, but you simply choose not to?

    thought experiment on the affordability of universal care:
    here are some interesting facts that can help someone do thought experiments:
    *healthcare costs three and a half trillion in the usa. 
    *employers cover half the costs currently 
    *state governments spend 600 billion currently on healthcare and the federal government spent 1.1 trillion, and depending on how the system is designed, this money would be available one way or another
    *the average income in the usa is around forty or fifty thousand for a person
    *the top ten percent of tax payers pay half the income taxes and of course the rest of people pay the rest
    *the richest people pay a trillion in taxes and the rest pay another trillion
    *almost every other developed country pays half as much as the usa does on healthcare
    *healthcare costs ten k in the usa per captia and half that elsewhere
    *someone making average income pays about six grand in taxes
    using thought experiments, we could assume employers would cover half the costs of healthcare in a universal system, or 1.8 trillion. federal and state government spend about 1.7 trillion. both of these equal 2.5 trillion, and that leaves a trillion in additional revenue that needs to be made up. All we would need to do is increase taxes on that current two trillion in revenue at fifty percent more, producing a trillion in additional revenue.  Someone who pays 6k in taxes will now pay 9k, only three thousand more. If we got overall spending down to the level of the rest of the world at half the cost, current revenue by governments and businesses would be sufficient and no increase would be needed.  If we cut overall spending by a quarter, taxes would increase a small amount. 3.5 trillion * .25 = 2.7 trillion. or in other words taxes would only go up ten percent for people, or 600 dollars for an average income person. If we kept them paying obamacare premium numbers, their cost would be 450 per month, which is not that unreasonable for healthcare. ​A political point would be that increasing taxes might not sit right politically with people, but paying a premium if healthcare is done that way, is not that far fetched. 




    …………………………
    Below is basic information regarding gun control, including science, policy, and law. 

    GUN SCIENCE
    -where there is more gun control, there is less murder. this is the scientific consensus, as shown with the literature review. being a literature review makes this a lot more informing than just being a single study; we see the consensus forming. also included is a link to a poll of scientists but a literature review itself makes the claims even stronger.
    https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence
    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423-story.html
    -where there are more guns, there is more murder, across geographic regions from localities and larger. this is also a lot more informing because it a literature review of lots of studies. what’s more, people are shown not to kill with other weopons instead of guns, as is often argued, because if they did there would be no correlation here.
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
    -women are five times more likely to be killed if their significant other has a gun. this is a practical point in illustration of the guns v murders correlation. same in individual lives as general trends
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447915/
    -you are more likely to be murdered if you have a gun, as well as those close to you
    https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858
    -States with more gun control have fewer mass shootings
    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/433017-states-with-stricter-gun-control-regulations-have-fewer-mass?fbclid=IwAR0f5l5eW7d-rX4ZoE8R2MOe6VBvLJVrfQQRFwd2b7anlBIM_wgsYYx-uQk
    -only around two hundred and fifty killings are done in the name of self defense per year. people like to pretend defense is such a huge thing, but the odds of being murdered is is closer to forty times higher. the odds of being shot and not necessarily killed are upwards of four hundred times higher. 
    -we have half the worlds guns in the usa but a small percent of the worlds population
    -Police are more likely to kill unjustifiably in low gun control and high gun areas due to their increased fear, and police are more likely to be shot themselves in those areas.
    http://justicenotjails.org/police-shootings-gun-problem/
    https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/more-guns-more-dead-cops-study-finds-n409356​
    -Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States’ gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. 
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries
    -High school kids in the USA are eighty two times more likely to be shot than the same kids in other developed countries.
    https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.0767
    -states with more gun control have fewer youth who die from guns
    ​https://abc30.com/5396718/?ex_cid=TA_KFSN_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d2d172f8e73cc000164c229&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2T40EdBsGdPZk_VCL8Bi5RDJsNtpF2Ud9NIYiB74njS72zrcqudw1idWY
    -it is claimed that most murders are gang related, but this looks to be factually incorrect in the link. even if higher numbers floating around on the internet are true, our murder problem still there if you take out the gang murders from consideration. the numbers here can be arrived at with basic math. 
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/evan-defilippis/do-we-have-a-gang-problem_b_5071639.html
    -this really isn’t just a mental health problem. we don’t have more people with mental health problems than other countries…. just more people with guns.  the study controls for mental health factors v other factors. 
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/9/16618472/mental-illness-gun-homicide-mass-shootings?fbclid=IwAR3nS6e4bHyakjB-_GkXvWZKNqnWfDfx-LwBVnuAUXewEzgB_7AnMGdgXVk#
    -we dont have more crime than the rest of the world, just a lot more people getting shot and killed. you aren’t more likely to be mugged here, for instance, but you are more likely to be mugged and shot in the process. again a gun problem. showing it’s not just deviants being deviants as some suggest but an emphasis on the gun problem.
    https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
    -You can tell this is a gun problem, not just a bad person problem as the gun lobby says, also by comparing non-gun homicides of similar countries as the USA, and then adding guns to the mix: non-gun homicides are slightly on the higher side but within normal range, while gun homicides go wildly higher. If this was a bad person problem at its core, there would be a wildly higher amount of non-gun homicides as well, but that’s not the case. Included is an article describing this phenomenon and a link with a picture. 
    https://i.imgur.com/skcT8qr.png
    https://www.reddit.com/r/gunpolitics/comments/71n1u2/gunnongun_homicide_rates_in_oecd_countries_for/
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/canada-gun-control-debate/566102/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_term=2018-07-28T09%3A00%3A12
    ​-people like to say assault rifles are not that dangerous, because there are only a few hundred murders with them per year out of only around ten or so thousand of gun murders. the thing is though, the percent chance an assault rifle will be used to kill someone is significantly higher than the chance other guns will be used to kill someone. ///  you can do the math yourself. there are 2.5 million assault rifles in circulation. 374 rifle deaths per year. there are 11000 gun homicides. there’s a gun for every person in the usa, 340 million. what’s the math say? 374 divided by 11000 is 3.4 percent of deaths are from rifles. 2.5 milliion divided by 340 milliion is less than a percent. so what does this mean? despite rifles being less than a percent of guns, they cause 3.4 percent of deaths. that is, a rifle has a higher percent chance of being used to murder than a non rifle. most guns that are used in murder are hand guns, but assault rifles are more likely to be chosen over a hand gun when faced with that choice. just like, as an analogy, people are more likely to speed in a sports car, but most cars that speed are not sports cars.  
    -people like to throw around number of defensive gun use. the idea is that not all defensive gun uses result in a killing. the most common number in literature is tens of thousands, though the number vary wildly. the only thing is, even if you are more likely to use a gun in self defense than being murdered, you are still more likely to be murdered than someone who doesn’t have a gun. also, a lot of those thousands of defensive uses are not all that critical…. downplaying their significance. and, a lot of those ‘defensive’ uses were actually situations that were people instigating and escalating a situation that wouldn’t otherwise exist, as the link below illustrates. even if we used the higher numbers, is it all that convincing that there are tens of thousands more near murders in a nation with already a globally disproportionate number of murders? it holds true, that we could give lots more people guns, and that may increase defensive use… but it would come at the cost of more murder, too.
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/​
    -for more on giving an overview of the gun issues, see the following
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts​
    -in the usa, the number of murders has overall gone down in recent decades. the thing is, while the number of guns went up, the number of people owning them went down. also, this is just one measure: all the other measure include all the countries and localities where gun levels are proportionate to murder rates.
    -for more information on gun policy in the usa and other countries: http://www.gunpolicy.org 
    -australia. they enacted major gun reform around twenty years ago after a mass shooting. they bought back a bunch of guns and enacted other gun control. their mass shootings stopped. this almost surely is not an anomloy. their homicides dropped by up to fifty percent. the idea is a lower murder rate came with a lower percent of people owning guns (note that this is different than the specific gun ownership rate because if less people own more guns that could cause the percent owning to go down but the overall rate could be the same). misinformation attempts like to point that overall murder went up slightly after reform, but the rate did not and went down. also, the number of guns have gone up closer to previous level but the gun ownership rate is still lower. it is true that global murder went down, and some of that correlates with australi’s rate… but global reductions arent as drastic s australia’s.
    https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
    -japan. they literally have barely any murders, and barely any guns. they have a rigorous process for allowing guns

    POLICY AND COMMON SENSE POINTS
    -here are some ideas for gun control ranked by experts as more to less effective, with a comparison to how much public support each has. this is important because experts say gun control can be effective, and this shows examples.
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur​
    -i read a story about a boy who got a gun out of his house to shoot some bullies who followed him home. they were challenging him. he admits he wouldn’t have did this if he didn’t have access to a gun. ive seen with my own eyes an adult do in a pretty exactly the same situation… it’s not just limited to kids. remember again that men are five times more likely to kill their significant other if they have a gun. guns cause escalation when the situation otherwise wouldn’t. a gun is critical.
    -the world isn’t magically split into those who will stop at nothing to get a gun and those who aren’t. preventing some from being allowed a gun will sometimes prevent them from getting one. when they go off on their significant other or get into a tussle, as the examples and trends show…. they are less likely to kill someone.
    -40% of gun sales involve no background check. 90% of people support background checks. 70% of the NRA does. most people want better gun control. congress isn’t doing anything, it stands to reason, because they are beholden to the gun lobby.
    -barely anyone is hard core per the second amendment. everyone has limits. no machine guns, no grenade launcher, some like the current set up. the thing is, the current set up is arbitrary, there is nothing magical about it.
    -the idea of rigid approach to gun control is atypical from a historical perspective as shown in the following section, and a world wide perspective. barely any other countries enshrine such fundamental rights to gun, and these countries aren’t those who we’d otherwise want to emulate or be compared to. people just cling to what they have been taught. before the NRA got involved politically, most people wanted to ban hand guns in the recent century.
    -the best approach forward is to enact the ideas in the examples link from experts. then, gradually buy back guns like australia did and follow some of their lead on other gun control. eventually we can start treating guns as a privilege instead of a right. we can be like japan and then only allow some people who especially think they need a gun to have one. 

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    -the phrase “bear arms” historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.
    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/48302
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/antonin-scalia-was-wrong-about-the-meaning-of-bear-arms/2018/05/21/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a538d9dbd6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a09534fd49a0​
    –“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.
    -when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn’t talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too. 
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/second-amendment-guns-michael-waldman/
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856​
    https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
    https://thedoctorweighsin.com/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-guns/
    ​https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-madison-played-politics-and-gave-us-the-2nd-amendment
    -From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun
    ​-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control
    -here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era: 
    -stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
    -public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned 
    -anyone who didn’t swear loyalty to the state couldn’t have a gun. it’s far fetched to say as today’s conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
    -the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington’s first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
    -all guns had to be registered and inspected 
    -some states regulated the use of gun powder
    -some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
    -some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
    -only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia 
    -several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
    -indians and blacks were barred from having guns 
    -the supreme court historically didn’t touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote “fraud” on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.
    -drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.
    -half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn’t generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.
    http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Quotes.htm
    -all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone’s rights, and find other reasonable exceptions
    -the bill of rights and this amendment was originally designed as a safeguard against the federal government. that’s why some hard core conservatives say states should be free to regulate as they see fit. others, say the fourteenth amendment incorporated parts of the bills of rights including the second against the states as fundamental “liberty” interests. each amendment can be incorporated on an individual basis depending on the merits of whether the amendment represents a fundamental ‘liberty’ interest. the issue still exists though, that how can you incorporate something as a fundamental right if it was never there to begin with?
    -what does “arms” mean? if we want to be originalists and faithful to orginal intent, there is a difference between military grade weopons and the muskets they had when the amendment was passed
    -you would have to use the word “keep” in the amendment to spin your way into individual rights. this ignores all the historical and amendment itself context, and ignores straighforward reading of the words taken together. 
    -the following shows that courts have only since recently started applying strict principles for an individual right to a gun since the case Heller. (because that ruling deviates from prior precedent) the line between fundamental rights, non-fundamental rights, and privileges can be blurry in practice. but the rules have meaning…. there will now be a stronger expectation to let people have guns. if the legal system starts treating a gun like the right to water, a lot of bad policies and outcomes are possible even perhaps despite the fact that everyone knows these shouldn’t be treated the same way. the legal system may expect things to get bad with a person before we can do anything about it, which again is a standard atypical from history or globally. “reasonable suspicion” someone is violent may not be sufficient, “probable cause” may not be. “beyond a reasonable doubt” probably would be, but it’s hard to say someone is like that for their whole life. a good example is the fact that people on ‘no fly’ lists for airplanes can still buy a guy- there’s a different legal standard even though everyone knows the person is too shady to be doing things like fly planes, and buy guns. expanded background check and treating guns like cars would simply weed out the incompetent, undisciplined, and unmotivated, violent, and mentally disturbed…. if promoting the use of guns causes more murder, do we really want these sorts of people having guns? granting fundamental rights for legal purposes instead of a practical right will cause excessive litigation to deprive people from guns on an individual basis when they shouldn’t have had them to begin with. thus, because Heller got the law wrong, society is approaching a system where people can be unfit to have guns but still society still be forced or otherwise prone to allowing them to have guns anyway.
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/12/appeals-court-gun-control-must-meet-toughest-test/

    -the following is a common set of quotes from the founding fathers. if you google each of the stronger looking ones here or that you find around the internet, you will see them taken out of context or misquoted.  for example, here is the proper context of washington’s first point, where he was simply addressing the need for a militia (see the second link below for even more context)- in other words, the people should be armed and disciplined for a militia if the State has a plan for a militia… so the question remains, if they are not disciplined for a militia, why should we assume they should have a right to otherwise be armed? Washington even went so far as to say it was a condition in having them be armed and disciplined for a militia, that there be some sort of formalized plan, a “requisite” condition:
    “”Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
    A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
    The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.””
    https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
    https://gawker.com/the-famous-pro-gun-quotes-the-founding-fathers-never-1567962573
    http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/jan/03/louie-gohmert/louie-gohmert-says-george-washington-said-free-peo/

  • Christianity versus other major religions on their emphasis on struggle and the greater good through love and then compared to near death experiences and the science of happiness

    —## Christianity, Near-Death Experiences, and the Science of Happiness### Christianity’s Distinctive Emphasis: Love Through Struggle

    Among the world’s great religions, Christianity stands out in the way it unites three dimensions of human life:

    1. **Embracing struggle as formative** – “We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope” (Romans 5:3–4).

    2. **Exalting love as the highest good** – “The greatest of these is love” (1 Corinthians 13:13).

    3. **Orienting life toward the common good** – “Look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:4).

    This threefold pattern is not only theological but also deeply resonant with both **near-death experience (NDE) reports** and **the science of happiness**.* **NDEs** often include a *life review* where the central question is not about status or achievement, but about love—how one’s actions affected others, for good or ill. Many experiencers say they were asked: *“Did you learn to love?”* Struggles and failures, far from wasted, are shown as sources of empathy and growth.* **Positive psychology**, the science of happiness, reinforces this by showing that *meaningful struggle, loving relationships, and contribution to the common good* are the strongest predictors of long-term well-being—not wealth, comfort, or pleasure. Martin Seligman’s research on **PERMA** (Positive emotion, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning, Accomplishment) echoes Christian themes: the deepest flourishing comes not from avoiding suffering but from transforming it through purpose and love.

    Thus, Christianity’s cruciform pattern—self-giving love born in struggle for the good of others—forms a bridge between ancient faith, NDE testimony, and modern science.

    —### Comparison with Other Traditions####

    **Islam**Islam emphasizes **submission to God’s will** and moral obedience. Suffering is seen as a **test** of faith and patience (Qur’an 2:155–157). Love exists in Islam—Allah is “the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful”—but the central value is *obedience and justice* rather than *love as the essence of God* (contrast 1 John 4:8).* **NDE Resonance:** Some Muslim NDEs emphasize awe, judgment, and the majesty of God.* **Happiness Science:** Islam’s focus on discipline and duty aligns with research showing that *self-control and moral frameworks* foster resilience, but its emphasis is less on relational love and more on faithful submission.####

    **Buddhism**Buddhism identifies suffering (dukkha) as the core problem of existence and prescribes the Eightfold Path for liberation. Compassion (*karuṇā*) is key, but the ultimate goal is **detachment from craving and ego**, transcending suffering rather than transforming it.* **NDE Resonance:** Many experiencers describe states of **oneness** and release from ego, which sound Buddhist.* **Happiness Science:** Buddhist mindfulness aligns with findings on present-moment awareness and reduced anxiety. But positive psychology suggests that *deep relationships and acts of love* are stronger predictors of happiness than detachment alone—here Christianity’s relational model adds something distinct.####

    **Hinduism**Hinduism offers multiple spiritual paths: knowledge (jnana), duty (karma), devotion (bhakti). Bhakti traditions especially emphasize love for God, but struggle is often explained through **karma**—as consequences to be worked out—rather than as an arena of redemptive love.* **NDE Resonance:** Some Hindu NDEs involve encounters with Yama (the Lord of Death) or cosmic order, reinforcing karma and duty.* **Happiness Science:** Hindu practices like yoga and devotion enhance well-being, but the Christian focus on love’s *transformative power in suffering* resonates more closely with findings that *purpose in adversity* is a core predictor of happiness.####

    **Judaism**Judaism emphasizes **covenant faithfulness**: living justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God (Micah 6:8). Struggle is central—Israel literally means “wrestles with God”—but the focus is on covenantal fidelity rather than suffering as redemptive. Love of neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) is crucial, though in Christianity it becomes the **summation of the law** (Mark 12:30–31).* **NDE Resonance:** The seriousness of moral accountability resonates with Jewish ethics.* **Happiness Science:** Judaism’s communal rituals and rhythms align with research showing that belonging and sacred practices enhance well-being, though Christianity goes further in making *self-giving love* the very telos of existence.—

    ### Christianity’s Harmonization of NDEs and Happiness Research

    Christianity offers a uniquely **integrated vision** that harmonizes spiritual testimony and psychological science:

    **Love as Reality’s Core:** NDEs consistently reveal that love is the very fabric of reality. Science of happiness confirms that loving relationships are the single best predictor of life satisfaction. Christianity proclaims, “God is love” (1 John 4:8).*

    **Struggle as Formation:** Christianity reframes suffering as meaningful, echoing both NDE reports of growth through pain and psychological research showing that *post-traumatic growth* can lead to deeper purpose and joy.*

    **The Common Good:** Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25:31–46) matches NDE life reviews where what matters most is *how we treated others*. Positive psychology likewise finds that serving others increases happiness more than serving oneself.—

    ### Insight and ConclusionWhere other religions emphasize **obedience (Islam), detachment (Buddhism), cosmic order (Hinduism), or covenant (Judaism)**, Christianity uniquely synthesizes **love, struggle, and the common good**.

    NDEs and the science of happiness both converge on this point: a life well-lived is one where suffering becomes the ground of empathy, where love shapes every action, and where joy arises from giving oneself for others.In this light, Christianity does not merely offer doctrines—it reveals the deep structure of existence: that **life is practice in love**, and that both our happiness now and our eternal destiny turn on how fully we learn it.—

  • Empathy in the Afterlife: How near death experiences Teach About the Consequences of Our Actions

    .

    Empathy in the Afterlife: How NDEs Teach About the Consequences of Our Actions

    I’ve been reflecting on the nature of life reviews reported in near-death experiences (NDEs), and I find that many accounts are far more subtle than the moralistic interpretations we often impose on them. The key element seems not to be moral lessons in the conventional sense, but raw empathy—an experiential awareness directed by the experiencer themselves. Life reviews are deeply personal, and I’d argue they are largely products of the experiencer’s own will, which explains the wide variation in their depth, scope, and meaning.

    For example, one account shows an experiencer witnessing the effect they had on a single tree they tended. The focus was not on a moral imperative to care for all trees, but on the empathetic awareness of the positive impact of their actions on another living being. There is no external rule being imposed; the meaning is internal, relational, and specific. This reflects the non-coercive nature of love: just as love does not compel but invites, the life review reveals consequences without demanding universal application.

    Consider a more extreme scenario: a murderer witnessing the moment they harmed someone. At first glance, it may appear to be a standard moral arc—“he did wrong, he feels bad, he will change.” Yet in many accounts, the victim becomes the true centerpiece. The experiencer, no longer confined to their earthly identity, experiences heightened awareness, feeling the impact of their actions on others. Here, the “lesson” is less for the perpetrator and more for the victim, illustrating that life reviews are phenomenological and relational, not prescriptive. The transformative insight comes from empathy and self-awareness, not coercion or fear of judgment.

    This aligns closely with biblical teachings. Luke 6:31 states, “Do to others as you would have them do to you,” emphasizing empathetic, relational living over rigid rules. Proverbs 21:2 notes, “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart.” Life reviews function similarly: the experiencer witnesses the heart of their actions—the relational impact—without external enforcement.

    During an NDE, the experiencer is still partially tethered to their earthly life. The life review can therefore be seen as a preview of full post-mortem awareness, a “demo” of how our choices resonate in the broader web of relationships and existence. Many reports describe transformation that is profound yet incomplete, consistent with the idea that growth through empathy requires engagement, reflection, and free will.

    I would also suggest that NDEs and life reviews may not be intentionally designed, but could be unintended consequences of modern medical capabilities. Ancient humans who died without resuscitation would likely not have experienced these tethered glimpses. Expecting a systematic, universal philosophical truth from such highly personal phenomena may therefore be unrealistic.

    Yet patterns do emerge: life reviews repeatedly highlight empathy, relational awareness, and the consequences of actions. From a philosophical perspective, they resemble relational ethics in practice—instead of abstract rules, they offer direct experience of how choices affect others. This mirrors the Christian understanding that love is meant to be practiced freely, grounded in faith, and internalized through lived experience rather than enforced externally. Deuteronomy 30:19 underscores this: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Now choose life…” NDE life reviews are invitations, not mandates, allowing transformation through freely chosen love and awareness.

    The subtle, experiential nature of life reviews shows us that awareness itself carries transformative power. By witnessing the ripple effects of our actions, we cultivate empathy and understanding, which naturally guide us toward more compassionate living. This is consistent with mystic and Christian teachings alike: transformation occurs not by intellectualizing morality but by experiencing the relational impact of love and choice.

    In summary, NDE life reviews illuminate:

    1. Empathy over moralism – understanding consequences, not following rules.
    2. Subjective relational insight – focused on the unique impact of one’s life.
    3. Tethered, partial experience – transformative but context-bound.
    4. Non-coercive, faith-based growth – love and moral alignment are meaningful only when chosen freely.
    5. Emergent patterns – interconnectedness, compassion, and relational ethics as subtle, personal truths.

    Ultimately, life reviews reflect the non-coercive nature of love and the divine design for human life: to practice love, observe consequences, and grow through awareness, empathy, and freely exercised faith. The transformative power lies not in being told what is right, but in experiencing the effects of our choices and choosing, consciously, to align with love.

  • Keys points in the process of growing in holiness from eastern Christianity

    This is one of the most beautiful parts of eastetn christian spirituality, because it takes sin seriously but also shows a hopeful path of transformation. This presents the process from the orthodox faith but the general process can be applicable to any christian. Here’s the **Orthodox path of healing from the passions** (summarized from the Fathers, especially Evagrius, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. John Climacus):

    —## **1. Awareness of the Passion (Recognition)*** The first step is *naming the struggle honestly*.* Example: *“The seven deadly sins. The Church calls these disordered passions, a misuse of desire. I don’t want to justify it, even if I don’t fully understand.”** Saints warn that **denial or justification** is more dangerous than falling itself.

    —## **2. Struggle (Asceticism)*** With awareness comes *ascesis* (discipline): fasting, prayer, confession, and watchfulness over thoughts.* The goal isn’t instant victory, but to resist being ruled by the passion.* Even repeated falls are part of the struggle — as long as you get up and return to God.

    —## **3. Purification (Cleansing the Heart)*** Over time, the sacraments and ascetic struggle weaken the hold of the passion.* The imagination quiets, compulsions soften, and the heart regains freedom.* Example: the sins no longer feels irresistible; temptation still arises but is manageable.

    —## **4. Illumination (Virtue Blossoms)*** The energy once misused in passion becomes a virtue.

    * Lust → pure, self-giving love.

    * Gluttony → joyful moderation.

    * Pride → humble confidence.

    * Here a person no longer fights the same way; they live in the *light of Christ*.

    —## **5. Theosis (Union with God)*** In rare cases (saints, monastics, martyrs), passions are so purified that the person radiates holiness in body and soul.* Sometimes God reveals this through incorruptibility or miracles.* This isn’t because they “never sinned,” but because grace *fully healed* their nature.

    —### ✝️ The key insight:* Disordered passion, isn’t overcome by sheer willpower.* It’s healed through **grace + ascetic effort**, inside the life of the Church.* The metric isn’t: *“Did I ever fall again?”* but *“Am I repenting, confessing, and letting Christ heal me?”*

    —👉 So, in Orthodoxy, a person who struggles with sin isn’t “disqualified.” They are at **step 1 or 2 of the same ladder the saints climbed**. What matters is humility and willingness to keep climbing.

    Western christian saints also have similar paths to holiness. St. Teresa of Avila wrote the book Interior Castle with a similar path of sanctification. And St John of the Cross wrote Dark Night of the Soul. Both these saints, and even the great humanitarian saint Mother Teresa, wrote about how dark nights of the soul lead to growing in holiness.

  • Loving Relationships: Finding Fulfillment in God and One Another. Insights on single life, married life, parenthood, church life, and friendships.

    We are created for relationship. Both Scripture and countless NDE testimonies affirm that love and connection are at the very heart of existence. In fact, the message of the gospel is that God reconciles us to Himself through Christ so that we can live in love with Him and with one another. People who have had near-death experiences often report that, in the presence of God, what matters most is not wealth, status, or achievements, but the love we’ve given and received in relationships.

    That love flows into four key areas of life: single life, married life, church life, and parenthood.

    1. Single Life

    • Singleness can be a gift, though it often comes with struggles. Sometimes you can’t fix other people—so you must focus on allowing God to shape you first.
    • Many singles worry too much about “the next phase” of life, but Scripture reminds us that today is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2). God has a purpose for you now.
    • Contentment is crucial: the grass isn’t greener on the other side. Married people often long for singleness, while singles long for marriage. Paul even said that each has its advantages (1 Cor. 7).
    • Don’t focus on “finding the one”—focus on becoming the one. Before finding your partner, you must discover your purpose and identity in God. Ephesians 2:10 says you were “created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand.” There may be accidental parents, but there are no accidental children. You are here on purpose.
    • When you make God the center of your life, He can then be the center of any future relationship.
    • Who you marry (apart from following Christ Himself) is the single most important decision you will make. Prepare wisely: get your life in order before entering a lifelong covenant.
    • Remember: marriage doesn’t fix you—it magnifies who you already are. If there are problems in dating, they won’t disappear in marriage; they’ll multiply.
    • The goal is to find satisfaction in God first, so that your future relationship flows from wholeness, not from emptiness.

    Near-death experiences often highlight a profound truth: in the presence of God, what endures is not our social status, relationship title, or marital status, but the love we’ve shared and the character we’ve developed. Singles may find encouragement in this perspective—your value is not measured by your relationship status but by how fully you embody God’s love now. NDE accounts frequently describe a sense of timelessness and eternal connection with God, reminding us that singleness is an opportunity to cultivate a heart that loves freely and intentionally. Biblically, Jesus affirms that in the next life, people are “neither married nor given in marriage” (Matt. 22:30), indicating that earthly relational roles are temporary, while love itself is eternal. Therefore, whether single now or forever, investing in love, faithfulness, and spiritual growth aligns your life with the eternal reality revealed in both Scripture and NDE testimonies.

    2. Married Life

    The Bible says, “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb. 13:4). Jesus affirmed: “What God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matt. 19:6).

    Marriage is a covenant, not just a contract. It requires foundations:

    1. Seek God First. God comes first, then spouse, then children, then extended family. A couple that prays together stays together. Don’t just pray for your spouse, pray with them.
    2. Fight Fair. Couples will disagree, but healthy couples fight for resolution, not for victory. Avoid words like “you always” or “you never.” Don’t attack character. Never use the word “divorce” as a weapon. Scripture reminds us: “Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to anger” (James 1:19).
    3. Have Fun. Laughter and joy are part of love. Have regular date nights, plan day trips, and schedule vacations together. Make your home a place where your spouse is glad to arrive and sad to leave.
    4. Stay Pure. Boundaries safeguard love. Transparency about texting, internet use, and friendships with the opposite sex helps build trust. Jesus warned that the intention to commit adultery itself is adultery of the heart (Matt. 5:28) even if the act isn’t committed, so purity is both external and internal.
    5. Never Give Up. A happy marriage is the union of two good forgivers. “Love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8).

    Grounds for divorce (according to Scripture): adultery (Matt. 19:9), abuse (implied in God’s concern for justice and protection of the vulnerable, or in how serious abuse is similar to being married to an unbeliever), or abandonment by an unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:15).

    Recommended resource: From This Day Forward by Craig Groeschel.


    Marriage in this life can be a profound expression of God’s love, a partnership in which two people reflect Christ’s self-giving toward the church. NDEs often underscore that true relational fulfillment is measured not by what we own or achieve together, but by the depth of care, forgiveness, and joy we cultivate. While marriage magnifies our human struggles and virtues, it also offers a unique training ground for unconditional love that echoes into eternity. Biblically, Jesus teaches that marriage is not a permanent status in the afterlife (Matt. 22:30), yet the love cultivated within marriage—the patience, sacrifice, and fidelity—reflects eternal principles of God’s kingdom. Couples who nurture love grounded in God’s presence are not only building a harmonious earthly union but are also preparing hearts that resonate with the eternal, self-giving love that transcends earthly institutions.

    3. Church Life

    Our relationship with the church influences all others. We are the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25–27), and the local church is the crucible where we grow. Scripture warns us not to “forsake gathering together” (Heb. 10:25).

    • Christianity is personal, but never private. We are called into fellowship, where we learn to pray, worship, serve, and use our spiritual gifts.
    • The church is not a museum for saints but a hospital for sinners. Imperfect, but still beautiful.
    • When we attend church, three things happen:
    1. We experience God’s presence. Yes, God is everywhere, but He manifests uniquely when His people gather.
    2. We experience God’s power. Jesus said, “If two of you agree on earth about anything, it will be done” (Matt. 18:19). In Acts, when believers gathered, thousands were saved.
    3. We unite with God’s people. In His final prayer before the cross, Jesus prayed for our unity (John 17).
    • We must lay aside prideful preferences—style of music, length of service, atmosphere. Church is not about “me,” it’s about Him.
    • Even when we’ve had a terrible week, that’s more reason to go.
    • The church needs you, and you need the church. Paul wrote to many local churches, but they were all part of the one big “C” Church.

    Near-death experiences often echo this truth: people see multitudes gathered in worship, experiencing joy, unity, and love in the presence of God. Church is a foretaste of that eternal fellowship.

    4. Parenthood

    Parenting is one of the hardest yet most rewarding callings. Children don’t come with a manual—but God’s Word provides wisdom.

    • “The days are long, but the years are short.” Treasure the moments, because they fly by.
    • Parenting requires intentionality. Ask: What kind of people do I want my children to become? Who will disciple them—me or the world?
    • Three goals of parenting on purpose:
    1. Children should love God and rely on Jesus.
    2. Children should love their family, finding home to be a safe, joyful environment.
    3. Children should love the church, knowing it will outlast every other institution.

    Faith must be the foundation of everything. Your example will speak louder than your words. “They don’t need a motto, they need a model.”

    Practical steps:

    • Share family dinners, where faith and conversation flow.
    • Fill the home with life-giving music and encouragement.
    • Don’t focus only on behavior modification; aim for the heart. Legalism breeds rebellion, but love draws children to God.
    • Make your home a place of rest, laughter, and memory-making. Life is not measured in minutes, but moments.
    • Teach by example: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15).

    NDE accounts often highlight the life review, where people see the eternal impact of how they treated others—especially children entrusted to their care. Parenting, then, is not only about raising kids but about shaping eternal souls.

    Your greatest vocation may not be your career, but your children.

    5. Christian Friendship

    Friendship is one of God’s sweetest gifts. Jesus Himself called His disciples “friends” (John 15:15), showing us that love expressed through companionship is central to the Christian life. While marriage and family may not be everyone’s path, friendship in Christ is available to all—and it sustains us in ways nothing else can.

    Christian friendships are different from ordinary ones because they are rooted in the shared pursuit of God. Proverbs says, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another” (Prov. 27:17). A true friend doesn’t simply affirm us, but challenges us, prays with us, and reminds us of who we are in Christ.

    Practical wisdom for Christian friendship:

    • Be intentional. Friendships don’t grow automatically. Make time to share meals, conversations, and life together.
    • Be honest. A good friend speaks truth in love (Eph. 4:15). Don’t hide behind masks—confess struggles and share victories.
    • Be loyal. Scripture teaches that “a friend loves at all times” (Prov. 17:17). Loyalty through trials reflects God’s steadfast love.
    • Be prayerful. Pray for and with your friends. Friendship deepens when it is lifted continually before the throne of God.

    Near-death experiences often affirm the eternal nature of love shared in friendship. Some report being greeted by friends who had gone before them, reminding us that bonds formed in Christ endure beyond the grave. Friendships rooted in faith are not only for this life, but a foretaste of the fellowship we will enjoy forever in the presence of God.

    Whether single or married, young or old, we need friends who point us back to Jesus. Friendships grounded in Christ don’t just make life sweeter—they make us holier.

    ✨ Summary:
    Relationships—whether single, married, in the church, or as parents—are all opportunities to practice love, the currency of eternity. The gospel, and countless NDE testimonies, remind us that in the end, what matters most is not what we have accomplished but how well we have loved.

  • after analyzing virtues across philosophical traditions, what does the emphasis of each tradition indicate in its worldview?

    Each philosophical and religious tradition tends to emphasize certain virtues over others—not just randomly, but because those virtues reflect deep assumptions about **human nature, the good life, society, and ultimate reality.** Looking at which virtues are foregrounded, and why, can give us insight into the **undercurrents that define each worldview.** Let me sketch this out across a few traditions:

    —### 1. **Classical Greek (Plato, Aristotle, Stoics)***

    **Key virtues:** Wisdom (sophia), courage (andreia), temperance (sōphrosynē), justice (dikaiosynē).*

    **Underlying worldview:** * Human beings are rational animals, meant to live in accordance with reason. * Virtue = harmony: reason governs desire, and individual contributes to social order. * Happiness (eudaimonia) = flourishing through virtue.*

    **Takeaway:** Emphasis on **rational order and balance**—the cosmos is structured, and the good life means aligning with that structure.

    —### 2. **Christianity (Patristic, Medieval, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant streams)***

    **Key virtues:** Faith, hope, charity (theological), plus humility, patience, chastity, forgiveness.*

    **Underlying worldview:** * Humans are fallen but redeemable through grace. * The highest good is communion with God, not just rational flourishing. * Virtues are relational—faith and love direct the soul toward God and neighbor.*

    **Takeaway:** Emphasis on **transformative love, dependence on grace, and inner renewal.** The Christian virtue set reveals a deep **relational ontology**—the self is fulfilled only in love of God and others.

    —### 3. **Buddhism***

    **Key virtues:** Compassion (karuṇā), loving-kindness (mettā), mindfulness (sati), non-attachment, equanimity.*

    **Underlying worldview:** * Suffering arises from craving and ignorance. * Virtue is a practical path to liberation (nirvāṇa), not just moral obligation. * Self is ultimately empty (anattā), so virtues cultivate wisdom and release from ego-clinging.*

    **Takeaway:** Emphasis on **liberation through insight and compassion.** Virtues reflect the metaphysical claim that attachment is the root of suffering and compassion is the antidote.

    —### 4. **Confucianism***

    **Key virtues:** Filial piety (xiao), benevolence/humaneness (ren), righteousness (yi), propriety (li), wisdom (zhi).*

    **Underlying worldview:** * Society is the matrix of the self; harmony in relationships is the highest aim. * Virtue is cultivated in hierarchical, familial, and ritual contexts. * Moral development is continuous self-cultivation.*

    **Takeaway:** Emphasis on **relational harmony and social order.** Virtues here show that personhood is not individualistic but embedded in networks of duty and reciprocity.

    —### 5. **Islamic Philosophy & Sufism***

    **Key virtues:** Justice (ʿadl), trust in God (tawakkul), gratitude (shukr), modesty (ḥayāʾ), patience (ṣabr), love of God (maḥabba).*

    **Underlying worldview:** * Humans are servants of God; moral life is obedience to divine will. * Virtue is both social (justice) and spiritual (surrender to God). * Sufism emphasizes interior transformation—love of God burning away ego.*

    **Takeaway:** Emphasis on **submission, gratitude, and remembrance.** Virtues reveal a theocentric worldview: flourishing comes not from autonomy but surrender.

    —### 6. **Modern / Enlightenment Philosophy***

    **Key virtues:** Autonomy, reason, tolerance, justice, rights-consciousness.*

    **Underlying worldview:** * Human beings are free and equal; moral life means respecting that dignity. * Virtue shifts toward **universalizable principles** rather than personal piety. * Enlightenment valorizes rationality and autonomy over tradition.*

    **Takeaway:** Emphasis on **freedom and rational respect for others.** Virtues reveal a secular, individual-centered vision of moral progress.

    —### 7. **Contemporary Positive Psychology***

    **Key virtues:** Gratitude, resilience, curiosity, kindness, creativity.*

    **Underlying worldview:** * Human well-being is measurable and cultivable through habits. * Flourishing is not only moral but also psychological and emotional. * Virtues are tools for meaning, growth, and life satisfaction.*

    **Takeaway:** Emphasis on **well-being and flourishing in this life.** Virtues reflect a pragmatic and evidence-driven approach, stripped of metaphysical commitments.

    —✅ **Big Picture:**Each tradition’s virtue set is like a mirror reflecting its **first principles**:*

    **Greek:** cosmos is ordered by reason → cultivate harmony.*

    **Christian:** life is covenantal and grace-filled → cultivate love and faith.*

    **Buddhist:** suffering comes from ego → cultivate mindfulness and compassion.*

    **Confucian:** self is relational → cultivate benevolence and propriety.*

    **Islamic:** God is supreme → cultivate obedience, gratitude, remembrance.*

    **Modern:** human dignity is central → cultivate freedom and justice.*

    **Positive Psych:** flourishing is measurable → cultivate habits of resilience.—

  • Bringing the good news of the gospel, eternal life and God’s kingdom of love, to those who are stuck in their sins

    Reaching people stuck in their sins without God is perhaps the most urgent and beautiful task entrusted to us. Salvation is not just escape from sin and death—it is entrance into life with God, a life that begins now and is fulfilled in eternity. Everyone who comes to Christ will experience the fullness of joy and reward in heaven. To help someone cross that threshold is to participate in the Father’s greatest desire.

    Scripture speaks of the “lost” not as worthless, but as precious sheep who have strayed. Jesus said He came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). To be unsaved is not simply to be neutral; it is to remain in darkness when the light has already come. Yet even here, Jesus makes clear that He did not come to condemn the world, but to save it (John 3:17). When we spread his good news, we help give God a chance to save them, and bring them from sin and death, to a life of love and eternal life.

    The Father’s Will

    When Jesus was asked about food, He said, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent me and to finish His work” (John 4:34). And what is that work? To gather the unsaved, to bring them into the Father’s house. He told His disciples, “The fields are ripe for harvest, but the laborers are few” (John 4:35). There is no shortage of people longing for hope—there is only a shortage of workers willing to go.

    Engaging the World, Not Withdrawing

    1. Don’t assume disinterest. Every human heart carries a God-shaped void, even if hidden beneath distractions or defenses. People may not admit it, but deep down they long for meaning, love, and truth.
    2. Don’t prioritize your comfort. The harvest requires labor, and labor is not always convenient. Comfort is secondary to calling.
    3. Don’t assume endless time. We live in a time of grace, but windows of openness can close quickly. Paul wrote, “Now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2). Sometimes the difference between a soul lost and saved is whether they hear the message in time.

    How Do We Reach Them?

    1. Go to them. Don’t wait for the unsaved to stumble into church; meet them in their world as Jesus did when He sat with tax collectors and sinners.
    2. Encourage them. Paul taught, “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up” (Ephesians 4:29). Don’t argue or belittle. Instead, listen for their need and offer encouragement. Sometimes, yes, you must “shake the dust off your feet” (Matthew 10:14), but most of the time the task is to plant seeds gently.
    3. Invite them. Jesus said, “Others have done the hard work, and you have reaped the benefits of their labor” (John 4:38). You may not be the one to plant the seed, but you may be the one to invite someone into the harvest.
    4. Serve them. Love demonstrated through service often speaks louder than words. Jesus washed His disciples’ feet and told them to do likewise (John 13:14-15). Acts of kindness open hearts to the message.

    The Good News in Its Essence

    God allows people of goodwill to go far, but only in Christ do they find the fullness of truth. The gospel is not about condemnation but liberation: to set captives free, to heal the brokenhearted, to save from sin and death, and to give eternal hope (Luke 4:18). This is why it is called good news.

    Insights from NDEs

    Near-death experiences often confirm this longing. Many describe standing before a Presence of pure love, where they see that life’s meaning is rooted in love for God and love for others. They often return with urgency: that what matters most is helping others find the light. Some experiencers even testify that they were shown people who had yet to encounter God’s love, and they were sent back to be a witness. In this sense, NDEs echo Jesus’ own words: the Father’s will is to bring His children home.

    Conclusion

    Reaching the unsaved is not just one ministry among many—it is the beating heart of God’s mission. It is our privilege to join in this work: to go, to encourage, to invite, to serve. And above all, to love. For in the end, what will shine in eternity is not how much we knew or achieved, but how faithfully we pointed others to the One who saves.

  • Reflections on financial generosity and also generosity that extends beyond financial matters, and into the heart of God

    Reflections on financial generosity and also generosity that extends beyond financial matters, and into the heart of God

    St. Paul reminds us that God makes us “rich in every way so that we can be generous on every occasion” (2 Corinthians 9:11). Notice he doesn’t say just money. Richness in Christ is broader—it’s joy, peace, patience, love, resources, wisdom, and opportunities. All of these gifts flow to us so that they might flow through us. When people who don’t know God look at us, they should see living examples of His grace, not tight-fisted survivalists.

    The Christian life is never about random acts of generosity done by accident. It’s about living with intention, with a willing heart. We don’t give because we must; we give because we get to. God calls us out of our comfort zones not to shame us, but to stretch us into love. Sometimes, yes, we obey simply because He says so. But God wants more than bare obedience—He wants our hearts. It’s the difference between a child doing the dishes because he fears punishment, and a child doing them because he wants to bless his parents.

    This principle extends beyond giving money. It applies to prayer, Bible reading, worship, serving, and gathering with the church. Christianity is not meant to be law-driven duty but grace-filled desire. The Old Covenant compelled by external law; the New Covenant transforms by inward love.

    Paul even pointed out that some churches, though poor, were more generous than wealthier ones. We still see this today: people with very little sometimes glorify God more freely than the rich. In fact, some of the happiest people on earth are those with the least material wealth. Paul made clear that he wasn’t commanding churches to give, but urging them to do so willingly: “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

    The principle is simple: if your motivation is right, your gift is acceptable—whether you give out of abundance or poverty. God wants gratefulness, not guilt. Remember this: if you make over \$45,000 a year, you’re in the top 1% of the world’s households. That perspective alone should stir thanksgiving.

    Even Jesus said that the woman who gave from her small amount of money, had given much more than those who gave more but from a lot bigger amount of money.

    When we begin to love people the way God does, our hearts change. It’s no longer about numbers but about faces. Behind every gift is a person, a need, a soul. In Acts 2, the early believers “had all things in common” and shared bread and resources freely. They didn’t get everything right, but they got that right. And as they lived this way, “the Lord added daily those who were being saved.”

    Jesus taught, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21). In other words, if you want your heart to change, start by investing in people, not just possessions. Get to know others, see their needs, and generosity will no longer feel like loss—it will feel like joy.

    The Secret to a Financial Breakthrough

    Most people want to be generous, but they wait for abundance first. They think, “When I have more, then I’ll give more.” Yet even those with high incomes often spend everything they have. The truth is generosity doesn’t begin with more money—it begins with discipline and transformation.

    Here are three biblical keys to financial (and spiritual) breakthrough:

    1. Fasting – Before the external breakthrough, you must win the battle in the spirit. Fasting isn’t only about food; it’s about training your desires, breaking attachments, and remembering that man does not live by bread alone (Matthew 4:4).
    2. Prayer – Bring your needs to God specifically and boldly. Jesus taught us to pray not vague wishes but real requests: “Give us this day our daily bread.” Prayer is not about manipulation, but alignment—your heart tuning to His provision.
    3. Listening and Obeying – God often answers prayers with instructions. If you don’t follow, you don’t progress. “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10). Listen when He speaks—even when it stretches you. Breakthrough is not only in receiving but in obeying.

    NDE Insight: Generosity in the Light

    Near-death experiencers often return with a renewed vision of what truly matters. Many testify that in the presence of God, they were shown that love—not possessions, not status—is the measure of life. Some describe reviewing their lives and seeing moments of kindness shine with eternal significance, while wealth, ambition, and self-centeredness faded into emptiness.

    The message echoes Paul’s teaching: generosity is not about how much you have, but how much love you carry into what you give. In eternity, the treasure that lasts is not the balance of your bank account, but the weight of love poured into others.

    Conclusion

    Money, like all resources, is a tool—not an idol, not a master. God entrusts it to us so that we can join Him in blessing others. When we give cheerfully, pray boldly, fast faithfully, and obey willingly, we align ourselves with the eternal truth: it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35).

    Generosity is not just financial acts but involve all kinds of spiritual transformations. When your heart belongs to God, your treasure follows—and when your treasure follows, so does your joy.

  • Some reflections on the trinity – while also making sense of it as much as is possible with our human minds

    The Mystery of the Trinity

    The Trinity is one of the deepest mysteries in all of Christian faith—a truth revealed but never fully grasped. The Bible gives us glimpses, not neat formulas, because what is infinite cannot be captured in finite terms.

    John opens his Gospel with words that shake the mind: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:1,14). Here we see both distinction and unity: the Word was with God, yet the Word was God. The eternal Christ entered history, not as an idea, but as flesh.

    Jesus Himself spoke in riddles that reveal this mystery. He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (John 8:58)—taking upon Himself the divine name revealed to Moses at the burning bush. He warned, “Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). Yet in another breath, when called “good,” He responded: “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone” (Mark 10:18). Was this denial? No—it was a subtle challenge. If Jesus is truly “good,” then He must also be God, for goodness in its perfection belongs to God alone.

    Interestingly, Jesus rarely went about directly proclaiming, “I am God.” Instead, He preferred the title “Son of Man.” This was not a denial of His divinity but a layering of meaning. The “Son of Man” is a figure from Daniel 7 who comes on the clouds with authority, receiving glory and worship. Still, when pressed, Jesus did not reject the title “Son of God,” but affirmed it (John 10:36). His humility was not in hiding His identity, but in revealing it in a way that required spiritual ears to hear.

    After His resurrection, the disciples spoke plainly: Thomas confessed to Jesus, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Paul called Him “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13). The early church was convinced not only that Jesus revealed God, but that in Him, God Himself had come near.

    Attempts to Understand the Trinity

    Christians across centuries have sought analogies to grasp what is beyond human reason.

    • Relational roles: A man can be at once a father, a son, and a brother—three roles, yet one person. Similarly, God reveals Himself in different aspects without ceasing to be one.
    • Dimensions: The Son steps into our dimension, while the Father transcends in another dimension. They are distinct in experience, but united in essence.
    • Human nature: We ourselves are a trinity—spirit, mind, and body. Different aspects, yet one person.
    • Nature itself: St. Patrick famously used the three-leaf clover. Three leaves, yet one plant.
    • Mutual indwelling: The Spirit enters the Son, and through the Spirit, the Father is present in the Son. The Persons are distinct, yet they fully interpenetrate one another in what theology calls perichoresis—a divine dance of love.

    Each of these analogies shines a fragment of light, though none can capture the fullness.

    The Paradox of the Unlimited

    At its heart, the Trinity is not a logical puzzle to be solved, but a paradox that reveals the limits of human thought. God is infinite, yet He enters the finite. He is unlimited, yet He chooses limitation. As Philippians 2 says, Christ “emptied himself, taking the form of a servant.”

    Creation itself is a form of divine self-limitation: the boundless God makes a bounded universe. In the Trinity we see the same mystery—oneness that contains difference, eternity that enters time, infinity that wears flesh.

    Near-death experiences often echo this: people describe encountering a Light that is utterly One yet somehow full of relational Love. They experience God not as cold abstraction, but as a living communion. In that sense, the Trinity is not mathematics (1+1+1=1), but relationship—perfect love flowing between Father, Son, and Spirit.

    Conclusion

    The Trinity is not meant to be dissected so much as entered into. It is a mystery that invites worship more than explanation. The early Christians did not invent it—they simply encountered Jesus and the Spirit in ways that forced them to rethink everything they knew about God.

    As finite beings, we stumble before the paradox. But that stumbling is holy. For the Trinity is God’s way of saying: “I am not solitary power, I am eternal love. And this love has come near to you in Christ, and dwells in you by the Spirit, to bring you back to the Father.”

  • Life’s struggles are meant to guide and mold you

    Below is a response from a priest, when in front of a judge, when questioned by a lawyer about why bad things happen to good people. His response here is turned into a prayer. After the prayer is a reflection on how bad things in life can be the ground for growth… how our lives are actually forged through our struggles.

    Prayer of Father against life’s trials:

    I asked God for strength
    and God gave me difficulties to make me strong.
    I asked for wisdom
    and God gave me problems to learn to solve.
    I asked for courage
    and God gave me dangers to overcome.
    I asked for love
    and God gave me troubled people to help.

    My prayers were answered.

    ——————

    Here’s a flowing restatement that integrates biblical wisdom and the insights often reported in near-death experiences (NDEs):

    Nobody is Your Enemy

    Life’s hardest moments are often God’s hidden classrooms. No person or circumstance comes into your path without a lesson for your soul.

    • The one who annoys you teaches patience and calmness, for “love is patient, love is kind” (1 Corinthians 13:4).
    • The one who abandons you shows you how to stand on your own feet and lean more fully on God, who promises: “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (Hebrews 13:5).
    • The one who offends you invites you into forgiveness and compassion, echoing Christ’s words: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34).
    • The thing you hate becomes the ground where you can practice unconditional love, for love is not selective—it shines like the sun on all.
    • What you fear reveals the path of courage, reminding you that perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18).
    • What you cannot control whispers the wisdom of surrender: “Be still, and know that I am God” (Psalm 46:10).
    • Every “no” from people is an invitation to trust that God’s “yes” is higher than man’s rejection.
    • Every problem is a doorway to wisdom, for those who ask receive guidance (James 1:5).
    • Every attack shows that your true defense is not retaliation but the armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-18).
    • Every person who looks down on you reminds you to lift your eyes upward, for your help comes from the Lord (Psalm 121:1-2).

    Those who have touched the light in near-death experiences often say that, in the end, life is not a battlefield of enemies but a school of love. Even the painful chapters are designed for your growth.

    Reflections

    If you never meet betrayal, rejection, or disappointment, perhaps you have never dared to live greatly. Even Jesus was betrayed with a kiss. To walk in love is to risk wounds, yet the wounds themselves become teachers.

    Do not waste your life replaying the wrongs done to you. To cling to anger is to hold fire in your hands, burning yourself while imagining another will feel the pain. Let it go. The freedom is yours.

    Yes, the world will always contain ungrateful, selfish, and foolish people. But wisdom means you do not let them define you. Maturity means you respond with dignity, compassion, and clarity of heart. You are not responsible for making everyone love you or see the world as you do. Your task is simpler and deeper: to keep your heart aligned with love.

    The Secret to a Meaningful Life

    What then is the secret? It is to carry a load that matters. Not a burden that crushes you, but a responsibility you choose—one that blesses you, your family, and your community.

    People are made to pull against weight. Without it, we collapse into boredom, despair, and self-contempt. Even suffering, if borne nobly, becomes radiant. This is the paradox of life: the way out of suffering is not escape but confrontation.

    Jesus carried His cross, and through it revealed glory. So too, your cross—your chosen responsibility, your struggle in love—is not meant to destroy you, but to transform you.

    NDEs often report this same truth: what mattered most in life was not wealth, status, or even comfort, but how much love you brought into the world, even in the face of suffering.

    So, pick up your weight. Walk your path. Love in the face of fear. Forgive in the face of offense. And when suffering confronts you, know that God is with you. The journey is not meaningless. Every step can be transfigured into light.

    Final Thought:

    As the saying goes… the benefit of growing in character comes at the cost of an easy life, and the benefit of an easy life comes at the cost of not growing in character. When God lets you struggle, he is actually answering your prayer.