Marcus Cicero said there is a digresion of govt from a republic to socialist to anarchy to rule by a tyrant. This seems to have happened in Greek and Roman history and they were considered to have reached the top of civilized society. Do you see the same pattern today?
2006-10-31 08:21:47 · 15 answers · asked by child_of_the_lion 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, you wouldn't be the first to compare the Roman empire with the United States (as I presume you are doing). And roughly the same things are happening.
The Romans were convinced that they were the top of the list, and they conquered a large part of the world not because they needed a bigger land (well actually that was a reason too, to keep on feeding the growing decadence in Rome itself), but because they were convinced that the world would be a better place under Roman rule, or with Roman customs. In a way that's what the US have done too, only not by conquering (in the strict sense), but by commercialising, which was one of the ways the Romans made the people they conquered dependent from them too. They thought they were invincible, and it was very hard for the Romans to realize one time they were vulnerable too. Not only because they couldn't withhold the barbarian hordes at the border anymore, but also because the society itself lost all sense of morality, and the government kept on making ridiculous decisions.
Roughly the same happened in Nazi Germany in the 30's, and they had the same ideas, ideas to make this world a better place, under German rule. We all know where that led.
Another political way to gain control of the outer regions of the empire was the favouring of leaders that were friendly to Rome. And that's what happened in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, and in Iraq right this very moment. I'm not saying things were better under Saddam Hussein, but the US are trying hard to make a government work in that country that has no support from the people. I don't know a solution to that. Iraq is actually a country full of conflict, and a dictator such as Saddam just suppressed that conflict, in favour of his own clan of course, but that's the way. Without the suppression, conflict rears up its head, and noone knows where it might lead.
I think the tyrant of today isn't GWB, although he tries hard for that position, but he's still the elected president, and accountable for his mistakes. He's no Nero. But you could say that the big big companies, the weapons trade, the oil industry are the tyrants of today. They have so much influence, that you can't even imagine. Proof of this can be found in the Iraq war, although it's all a guessing game, so no actual proof exists. But if the US attack Venezuela in the near future (a country with large oil reserves and a strong anti-american attitude), this would make things clear. I don't think a world war would be far then, and thus the crumbling of western society as we know it today.
I keep hoping I'm wrong about all that, but can be quite pessimistic sometimes.
So, if I'm hopeful, the answer to your question is wrong: modern man has seen where strong nationalism can lead to. If I'm pessimistic: yes, man doesn't learn anything, and greed and hunger for power will always lead to the downfall of civilization.
2006-10-31 08:43:36 · answer #1 · answered by Jaco K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, He can be in multiple places at the same time, indeed in a sense He is everywhere. He is not human, so human categories of only being able to be with one person at a time do not apply. It says in those John passages that the Holy Spirit was going to come to the disciples when Jesus left - if He hadn't have come to those disciples Jesus would have let them down badly. You can see Jesus talking about Him again prior to ascending at the end of Luke (Luke 24:49 - Jesus actually is alluding to a prophecy of the coming of the Holy Spirit in Jeremiah 31:31). Luke continues on in Acts(also written by Luke), and there the disciples wait until the said Spirit descends, which is recorded in Acts 2. When new believers are made in Acts, it is often mentioned that they also receive the Holy Spirit.
2016-05-22 19:34:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll give you a prediction but you won't like it. The Democrats will take over the government. They'll mean well but they will abandon all of our foreign entanglements and betray all of our allies in the War on Terror. They won't mean to but they can't help themselves because they are fatally delusional.
Without support from the US, the first government to fall with probably be in Iraq, followed closely by Afghanistan and then Pakistan. The problem will be when Pakistan falls to the Taliban because PAKISTAN HAS NUKES.
The nutjobs in the Taliban will give/sell nukes to the nutjobs in Iran. Iran has already sworn that Israel has no right to exist and all Jews must be killed. so the nutjob running Iran will either smuggle a nuke into Israel or bomb Israel using one of the fighter aircraft he acquired when Saddam Hussein sent his air force into Iran to hide them.
Israel will retaliate because they have nukes too, PLENTY OF THEM. Israel will nuke Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and probably Saudi Arabia. That will probably result in more nukes being set off by the Russians and the Chinese, and a lot of their targets are the good old USA. The Democrats will have no choice but to push the button but by then, it won't make a whole lot of difference.
The constant nuclear explosions will throw so much debris in the air that the Earth will come under the effects of a Nuclear Winter.
Crops will not grow. Animals will die off. Babies born under such conditions will be deformed, if any are born at all, and we will descend into another ice age like the last one when that big meteor hit the Gulf of Mexico and killed off the dinosaurs.
We, the human race, will not survive. How is that for repeating history?
2006-10-31 08:33:49 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Man has a short memory and yes history is bound to repeat itself because of this. And yes it is happening now.
2006-10-31 08:30:34 · answer #4 · answered by jusme 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
George Santayana said "Those who do not learn history are condemned to repeat it". It does seem like very few people are willing to learn history.
2006-10-31 09:00:40 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would guess that in the few thousand years man had managed to develop the means to destroy himself and his environment that in infinity this has happened millions of times. Good by Earth. Again.
2006-10-31 08:25:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Learning history is easy. Learning its lessons is almost impossible.
I see the pattern. All I can hope for is that-Yesterday is history, tomorrow a mystery (let's hope for a good tomorrow).
2006-10-31 08:31:13 · answer #7 · answered by *** The Earth has Hadenough*** 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
man is only condemned to repeat history time and again if he forgets the lessons of history past
2006-10-31 08:25:08 · answer #8 · answered by TEXAS TREY 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As long as we continue to think in the same old tired patterns like "my dad is bigger than your dad" we are doomed to repeat and repeat. We need to let go of the old and find the new. It is difficult to do that as we think the old offers security. Fat chance.
2006-10-31 08:24:17 · answer #9 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.
2006-10-31 08:23:52 · answer #10 · answered by notme 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋