World Population Growth is slowing, may see global decline

[Typhoon]

"A lot" is a relative term.

That would explain the Russian space program

Very good.

[Mr. Perfect]

Coming from the man worships the mad sorcerer of patmos as wishes his ravings would come true.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=1638#p45136

FYI the bulk of endtimes material comes from Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Matthew 6 & 24. Revelations only adds details and not much structure.

So saying we have control over ourselves sounds like Lucifer huh?

I thought your belief was we had no control, no free will. Sort of how Lucifer envisioned, I understand.

What bible verses attributed to Lucifer do you think are most instructive as to this biblical character's motivations?

Well in sum, Lucifer would like to control our actions, but if he can't he would like us to choose against the will of God. In so many words.

[Enki]

Lucifer is not mentioned in the bible even once. Isaiah was talking about Nebuchadnezzer when he talked about the Morning Star.

Lucifer is post-Christian eschatonian occultism. It is not Christianity.

Lucifer is basically what happens when you syncretize Jesus into being Zeus, in which case Lucifer is Prometheus.

If you're talking about Lucifer at all, then you've gone all off the rails into heresy.

Jesus came not condemn this world, but to save it. You don't seem to believe in that part. You're all condemnation all the time.

I pray you find Christ.

You've got Satan in your heart son. And unlike many of us, you're not wrestling with him, you're believing he's the righteous part of you.

[Ibrahim]

Lucifer is post-Christian eschatonian occultism. It is not Christianity.

Lucifer is basically what happens when you syncretize Jesus into being Zeus, in which case Lucifer is Prometheus.

I've read some interesting argument for Lucifer being a Promethean figure, but this is more a literary comparison.. The role of Satan in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is simply that of the un-God. The leader of the opposition party. The differences are in how he acts out that role.

As Christianity and Islam are law-based Satan/Lucifer is simply the stick for lawbreakers, with Heaven as the carrot. In Christianity its more complex because Christians don't agree on how exactly a person is "saved," and of course schisms arose over this detail. I do run across Christians of certain sects who have the idea that most or all of the world is the domain of Satan, is inherently bad, and most people are condemned. I must admit I don't know all the theology behind that but it seems to be a pretty dismal view of the world. At least the negative forms of Buddhism give you more lifetimes to figure it out.

[Mr. Perfect]

Lucifer is not mentioned in the bible even once. Isaiah was talking about Nebuchadnezzer when he talked about the Morning Star.

Lucifer is post-Christian eschatonian occultism. It is not Christianity.

Lucifer is basically what happens when you syncretize Jesus into being Zeus, in which case Lucifer is Prometheus.

If you're talking about Lucifer at all, then you've gone all off the rails into heresy.

Jesus came not condemn this world, but to save it. You don't seem to believe in that part. You're all condemnation all the time.

I pray you find Christ.

You've got Satan in your heart son. And unlike many of us, you're not wrestling with him, you're believing he's the righteous part of you.

Yeah. And you think end times is in Revelation.

[Mr. Perfect]

Lucifer is post-Christian eschatonian occultism. It is not Christianity.

Lucifer is basically what happens when you syncretize Jesus into being Zeus, in which case Lucifer is Prometheus.

I've read some interesting argument for Lucifer being a Promethean figure, but this is more a literary comparison.. The role of Satan in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is simply that of the un-God. The leader of the opposition party. The differences are in how he acts out that role.

As Christianity and Islam are law-based Satan/Lucifer is simply the stick for lawbreakers, with Heaven as the carrot. In Christianity its more complex because Christians don't agree on how exactly a person is "saved," and of course schisms arose over this detail. I do run across Christians of certain sects who have the idea that most or all of the world is the domain of Satan, is inherently bad, and most people are condemned. I must admit I don't know all the theology behind that but it seems to be a pretty dismal view of the world. At least the negative forms of Buddhism give you more lifetimes to figure it out.

http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/4-4.htm

Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

[Farcus]

Lucifer is post-Christian eschatonian occultism. It is not Christianity.

Lucifer is basically what happens when you syncretize Jesus into being Zeus, in which case Lucifer is Prometheus.

I've read some interesting argument for Lucifer being a Promethean figure, but this is more a literary comparison.. The role of Satan in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is simply that of the un-God. The leader of the opposition party. The differences are in how he acts out that role.

As Christianity and Islam are law-based Satan/Lucifer is simply the stick for lawbreakers, with Heaven as the carrot. In Christianity its more complex because Christians don't agree on how exactly a person is "saved," and of course schisms arose over this detail. I do run across Christians of certain sects who have the idea that most or all of the world is the domain of Satan, is inherently bad, and most people are condemned. I must admit I don't know all the theology behind that but it seems to be a pretty dismal view of the world. At least the negative forms of Buddhism give you more lifetimes to figure it out.

http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/4-4.htm

Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.

God wants it that way.

[Enki]

Lucifer is post-Christian eschatonian occultism. It is not Christianity.

Lucifer is basically what happens when you syncretize Jesus into being Zeus, in which case Lucifer is Prometheus.

I've read some interesting argument for Lucifer being a Promethean figure, but this is more a literary comparison.. The role of Satan in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is simply that of the un-God. The leader of the opposition party. The differences are in how he acts out that role.

As Christianity and Islam are law-based Satan/Lucifer is simply the stick for lawbreakers, with Heaven as the carrot. In Christianity its more complex because Christians don't agree on how exactly a person is "saved," and of course schisms arose over this detail. I do run across Christians of certain sects who have the idea that most or all of the world is the domain of Satan, is inherently bad, and most people are condemned. I must admit I don't know all the theology behind that but it seems to be a pretty dismal view of the world. At least the negative forms of Buddhism give you more lifetimes to figure it out.

The use of Satan and Lucifer are different semantically. Note that when I talked about rational self control, Mr. P. Said Lucifer not Satan.

There is no biblical character named Lucifer. Not one mention. Lucifer means lightbringer and is essentially a cognate for Prometheus the Titan/Angel who took pity on Man and gave him fire. It is the avatar for the Evangelical hatred of reason. The theology for us being stupid beings goes both ways but cynical politicos like Mr. P try to us it to rationalize one worldly political faction ad the good guys while the other side is evil.

[Mr. Perfect]

Tinker, I really don't know what kind of bender you're on but the parsing of the word is debatable and not settled in the way you present, but either way, if "devil" or "Satan" is more agreeable to you I'm happy to use it if you find it less confusing. Or whatever word you use to name the personage you serve, I'll take that too.

[Enki]

Whatever tells you I am the devil and Jesus wants you to be rich.

[Mr. Perfect]

Anyone who would say that freedoms are shackles, I know very well who that person works for.

Jesus wants us to give money to the poor, as individuals. You can only really be good at that and fulfill those commands if you have some.

[Enki]

Anyone who would say that freedoms are shackles, I know very well who that person works for.

I said YOUR version of freedom is shackles. And I think it's so. You think it's a reasonable use of the government's monopoly on violence to make me put on pants. If such a simple fundamental freedom is worth using that much aggressive force, then indeed your idea of freedom is shackles.

Jesus wants us to give money to the poor, as individuals. You can only really be good at that and fulfill those commands if you have some.

I don't think he ever said anything about specifically giving money to the poor. He told the apostles to sell all of their stuff and give it to the poor. But he didn't say anything about how helping the poor was money specific. He washed lepers feet, he healed the sick, he just stated a kind word when it was needed. He didn't exclude money from his notion of charity, but when he was talking about charity he wasn't talking about money.

Occupy Wall Street operates like this, and you hate them for it. So you have demonstrated that you are not only against the government helping the poor, you are against individuals doing it as well. You say you are against big government but you think the government's job is to force me to put pants on, and you hate when Anarchists devote their lives toward mutual aid with the poorest among us.

You've really got nothing but tribalism. You are driven by hate and condemnation, not love and redemption. Your hate is completely irrational, you hate the most the groups most behaving in the ways that the ideologies you claim to profess say they should behave.

[Mr. Perfect]

I said YOUR version of freedom is shackles.

No you didn't.

And I think it's so. You think it's a reasonable use of the government's monopoly on violence to make me put on pants. If such a simple fundamental freedom is worth using that much aggressive force, then indeed your idea of freedom is shackles.

Nobody takes this argument seriously. Not even you. I never even think about it unless you bring it up and neither does anyone else. They won'[t even pass your ordinance in San Francisco for crying out loud.

I don't think he ever said anything about specifically giving money to the poor.

He sure did.

He told the apostles to sell all of their stuff and give it to the poor. But he didn't say anything about how helping the poor was money specific.

He washed lepers feet, he healed the sick, he just stated a kind word when it was needed. He didn't exclude money from his notion of charity, but when he was talking about charity he wasn't talking about money.

He sure was.

Occupy Wall Street operates like this, and you hate them for it. So you have demonstrated that you are not only against the government helping the poor, you are against individuals doing it as well.

The Fleabaggers aren't important enough to hate, I don't even think of them unless I stumble across you mentioning them. They were a tool of large corporations and aren't politically or culturally relevant or relevant to me personally at all. Yes, they were a fun Pinata for a while, but just like you, they rage against corporations for a while and then go work for one when it isn't fun anymore.

The Government is destroying the poor Tinker that is why I am against this government and others.

[Mr. Perfect]

You've really got nothing but tribalism.

Says the fleabagger pimping his fleabagger tribe.

You are driven by hate and condemnation, not love and redemption.

I want to set the world free, to have their god given natural rights. You want to enslave them to the state. I don't have enough hate in me to be a leftist.

Your hate is completely irrational, you hate the most the groups most behaving in the ways that the ideologies you claim to profess say they should behave.

Your ideology is setting records for impoverishing humanity, as it has done before, and it's just getting started. I just don't have enough hate to stand for the things you stand for. The government, your god, is destorying human lives as fast as it knows how. I can never support such actions.

[Enki]

No you didn't.

Yes, I did. I was specifically talking about how 'Liberty' as a battlecry was used to usher in the surveillance state and take away freedoms. But it's cool, you never actually listen to me.

Nobody takes this argument seriously. Not even you. I never even think about it unless you bring it up and neither does anyone else. They won'[t even pass your ordinance in San Francisco for crying out loud.

You big government liberals all look the same to me.

He sure did.

Yea, it's always all about money to you.

He told the apostles to sell all of their stuff and give it to the poor. But he didn't say anything about how helping the poor was money specific.

He sure was.

Nope.

The Fleabaggers aren't important enough to hate, I don't even think of them unless I stumble across you mentioning them. They were a tool of large corporations and aren't politically or culturally relevant or relevant to me personally at all. Yes, they were a fun Pinata for a while, but just like you, they rage against corporations for a while and then go work for one when it isn't fun anymore.

Dealing in stereotypes.

The Government is destroying the poor Tinker that is why I am against this government and others.

You're not against the government, you're just against a faction that is not yours being in control of it. You love big government.

[Enki]

I want to set the world free, to have their god given natural rights.

You have on multiple occasions expressed a desire to see thousands imprisoned and regularly speak longingly for the death of almost everyone on the planet.

You want to enslave them to the state.

My politics are decidedly less statist than yours.

I don't have enough hate in me to be a leftist.

But you are all hate.

Your ideology is setting records for impoverishing humanity, as it has done before, and it's just getting started.

The ideology that you claim I profess you mean. See, this is an example of hate. You cannot recognize people for who they are, but only for who your hate tells you they are.

I just don't have enough hate to stand for the things you stand for.

You have more hate in you than anyone I know.

The government, your god, is destorying human lives as fast as it knows how. I can never support such actions.

Again, you call The Government my God. Why would you do this? Why do you feel the need to lie about me? Someone you hardly even know. You have created this whole vicious and evil scenario that doesn't even accurately describe me. But you say you are not driven by hate. If you are not driven by hate, then why you feel so compelled to say I hold convictions I do not hold, when those convictions are convictions you believe to be Satanic?

If you do not hate me, then why do you describe me as Satan?

[Mr. Perfect]

Yes, I did. I was specifically talking about how 'Liberty' as a battlecry was used to usher in the surveillance state and take away freedoms. But it's cool, you never actually listen to me.

That's not how you were talking about it. you keep changing the subject. We can look up your quotes and read them in context if you want.

You big government liberals all look the same to me.

Racist.

Yea, it's always all about money to you.

It takes money to feed the poor. Someone has to live in reality. How many poor can lower income people feed?

Nope.

yup

Dealing in stereotypes.

And actual real life examples.

You're not against the government, you're just against a faction that is not yours being in control of it. You love big government.

Government is like fire, when used properly it is a boon to mankind, when used destructively it is horribly devastating.

[Mr. Perfect]

You have on multiple occasions expressed a desire to see thousands imprisoned and regularly speak longingly for the death of almost everyone on the planet.

I don't do any such thing. It makes me cry, morn, lament and mope as you said. This self destruction is retarded. Yet inevitable it appears.

My politics are decidedly less statist than yours.

That's hilarious. I want 75% of government eliminated, you want single payer.

But you are all hate.

The ideology that you claim I profess you mean. See, this is an example of hate. You cannot recognize people for who they are, but only for who your hate tells you they are.

People are often not honest, so I go by their actions and not their claims.

You have more hate in you than anyone I know.

Again, you call The Government my God. Why would you do this? Why do you feel the need to lie about me? Someone you hardly even know. You have created this whole vicious and evil scenario that doesn't even accurately describe me. But you say you are not driven by hate.

I know you are an up is down, left is right dude from way back, Obama has actually shrunk government and all that but others of us roll our eyes and move on.

If you are not driven by hate, then why you feel so compelled to say I hold convictions I do not hold, when those convictions are convictions you believe to be Satanic?

If you do not hate me, then why do you describe me as Satan?

It's a friendly call to repentance. I'm concerned about you, always have been. Every once in a while I see flicker of light, of conscience, and then it gets snuffed out. I wouldn't do this with Zack Morris. There is a soullessness there, nothing to work with.

Yes, you have your Elsworth Toohey side, your Peter Keating side but there is another side, sort of a Prodigal Son side. I keep hoping that side gets stronger and starts winning out. Hopefully some day.

[Enki]

That's not how you were talking about it. you keep changing the subject. We can look up your quotes and read them in context if you want.

That is how I was talking about it. I was talking about the political rhetoric of Liberty used to push a pro-government agenda. I was being subtle about it, but it was part of a long dialogue you and I have had for years.

I remember what I said. I said I don't believe in 'freedom' I believe in the maximization of choice. I believe I spoke about the tyranny of having a physical body IIRC and being constrained by physical reality.

Racist.

lol

It takes money to feed the poor. Someone has to live in reality. How many poor can lower income people feed?

Actually, it take food to feed the poor. Money doesn't exist in reality, pieces of paper exist in reality. Lettuce and Ham exists in reality. Money is an imaginary construct that we agree to assign a certain value to.

yup

He wasn't not talking about money, but he certainly did not limit it to money, and warned rather emphatically about not limiting it to money.

And actual real life examples.

That's the thing about a stereotype, every stereotype has a real world example that exemplifies it. WHat makes it a stereotype is when you inappropriately apply it to overly broad groups.

Government is like fire, when used properly it is a boon to mankind, when used destructively it is horribly devastating.

Agreed. And what's funny is that I think you and I are more in agreement than not about the proper role of government.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Sorta circumambulatory point but I'll make it.........

Poor people may be able to feed you just as the rich ones may, but their requirements will be different. Rich people may feed you and require only that you don't make a pest of yourself or break and rob things. Poor people may feed you and require you either work to death at the local lead mine or provide teh hot sex if you're fourteen or under......'>..........

[Apollonius]

Previous two posts sound like something I've heard ascribed to Lucifer, the god of this world.

You're beginning to sound as crazy as a Muslim.

[Apollonius]

In the early days of the old Spengler forum I argued for a world population total of maybe 100 million.

On what do you base this rather low number?

Some broad ecological considerations. But anyone who figures that I can be slotted into the Chicken Little crowd had better think again. Life has survived many catastrophes, including some that are considerably worse than the worst case scenarios put forward by those who like to talk doom and gloom.


I'd be the first to admit that it is influenced by personal preference. Everyone else on this board has an opinion. I was simply voicing mine.


You often run into the argument that large populations stimulate artistic and scientific achievment. But as late as 1650 there were fewer than 500 million people living on the planet. No one can possibly claim that there were not spectacular achievements in the arts and sciences at that time.

Remembering that in the past, ninety percent of the population was involved in subsistance agriculture or at any rate physically arduous and repetitive tasks, one can appreciate that it only took a few tens of millions of people to achieve the many great things that were accomplished at that time. In a fully automated future, no servants would be required, everyone will have the opportunity to be a Columbus or a Galileo or a Monteverdi. So the low number I suggest is certainly compatible with continued advances.


Probably just about everyone on this forum is familiar with Tolkien's famous trilogy 'Lord of the Rings' and the equally delightful 'Hobbit' which preceded it. In reading the books everyone, including film-makers, cannot help but be impressed with how unpopulated the landscape is. Vast tracts of territory are completely wild. Even great cities are counted as big for having possibly ten or twenty thousand people.

In another discussion I referred to one of the best books on African history, that by Roland Oliver. He explains that at around 1600, not even counting those societies which recognized no political authority greater than the extended family, that continent had about 10,000 separate political entities. Most of these mini-states were very small; usually the king knew almost every one of his subjects by sight.


It's this kind of Hobbit-like society that strikes me as the best way to sustain human happiness.



Others will of course disagree, but I don't post to this forum to give you opinions that you've heard from everyone else already.

People like Goldman and Mr. Perfect or the president of Uganda (I don't care where they come from) who get all self-righteous about uncontrolled breeding, strike me as outrageously self-centred. Take your hideous and contemptible religion of murder and ecological ruin and shove it.

This seems to imply that breeding should controlled which start to come close to the boundary of eugenics: who should decide who can breed and who cannot

No. As you and just about everyone else realizes, no mandatory controls will likely be needed. If for some reason they were, a "one child" policy would be very effective. Less radically, I can see nothing wrong with stipulating that every person gets a "right of replacement" (and no more), which effectively works out to a slowly declining population.


Anything else in effect recognizes that breeders are already engaging in eugenics. It's only slightly more subtle than a government program. Right now, it's thoughtless people under the sway of criminally insane religious leaders who engage in over-active breeding. It seems right and just to curb the influence of these crazy and negligent people.


For those who really cannot control themselves, let them blast off to outer space and form colonies in the asteroid belt or right out of the Solar System. From all indications, there is plenty of space there.




Here's something that even most of our very current-events savvy forum members haven't heard:


Ein ungewolltes Leben - Malte Henk, Geo, October 2012
http://www.geo.de/GEO/info/newsletter/a ... e_teaser_0

Ein Junge kommt zur Welt, er ist behindert. Im Alter von elf Jahren zieht er vor Gericht. Sein Klagegrund ist, dass er nicht abgetrieben wurde. Dass er auf der Welt ist. Das klingt unglaublich und ist doch hundertfach geschehen - in Israel. Eine Fallstudie aus einem Land, das perfekte Kinder möchte

You need an account with Geo, and the ability to read German, but in summary, a youth born with a major birth defect which has been a torturous handicap throughout his (and his family's) life, has brought a complaint before the courts to the effect that his life has been an unbearable burden, and that he should have been "aborted". The highest court in Jerusalem ruled in his favour and found that, at least in certain circumstances, there is such a thing as 'Unlawful Life'. Since the verdict there have been hundreds of similar suits from some who live in similarly stressed circumstances.





You hear war stories from central Africa on an ongoing basis. The conflict in Rwanda and the spill-over into the Congo and other countries in the region even occasionally makes the headlines. It's not exactly news. This sort of thing has been going on since colonial times-- actually it's been going on since peoples who practiced agriculture and pastoralism and made iron tools moved into the region some two thousand years ago, since it is a given that war, slavery, and rapine, were part and parcel of their lifestyle.

But once in a while there's more of an in depth story on the situation there and a couple years ago I read one about how rebel forces moved into the area, killed most of the men in the village and raped most of the women. A woman was consoling her sister and had managed to convince her not to have an abortion from being pregnant after the recent events there. As I sit there reading this I shook my head wondering what kind of child can result from this kind of beginning:


According to Swami Vivekananda, a major figure in Reform Hinduism:

A child materially born is not an Aryan; the child born in spirituality is an Aryan." He further elaborated, referring to the Manu Smriti: "Says our great law-giver, Manu, giving the definition of an Aryan, 'He is the Aryan, who is born through prayer.' Every child not born through prayer is illegitimate, according to the great law-giver: "The child must be prayed for. Those children that come with curses, that slip into the world, just in a moment of inadvertence, because that could not be prevented - what can we expect of such progeny?... (Swami Vivekananda, Complete Works vol.8)

[edit = "space" ; that's the word I was looking for]

[Mr. Perfect]

That is how I was talking about it. I was talking about the political rhetoric of Liberty used to push a pro-government agenda. I was being subtle about it, but it was part of a long dialogue you and I have had for years.

I remember what I said. I said I don't believe in 'freedom' I believe in the maximization of choice. I believe I spoke about the tyranny of having a physical body IIRC and being constrained by physical reality.

As I said we can look up the quotes. We can look up where you say there is no free will.

I will say now, as others have said many times before, and as I wonder why I would waste the time to try to do this again, the people in North Korea and the tyranny they suffer under their bodies compared to the tyranny you suffer with your body are not the same. If you doubt me, you can go over there and find out.

Actually, it take food to feed the poor. Money doesn't exist in reality, pieces of paper exist in reality. Lettuce and Ham exists in reality. Money is an imaginary construct that we agree to assign a certain value to.

I know, social constructs and all that. Math exists but our math is just a guess. Laws are just words on paper. I get that. What you don't get is that with little scribbles of paper, with math, laws and money mankind created the life giving properties of what we call civilization. I know you're not a big fan by your words, but your actions show that you like civilization just fine and are some kind of oikophobe. You tear it down with one hand and stuff the food it makes into your mouth with the other. That's the Peter Keating in you talking. If there was any Howard Roark in you would have been out of here to the heart of Africa or South America long ago, as many others have done. We are not obligated to comply to your inconsistency.

He wasn't not talking about money, but he certainly did not limit it to money, and warned rather emphatically about not limiting it to money.

That's right. Jesus was not as fixated on giving to the poor as many would like to say. He had other messages. Eg the wages of sin. And the day of his coming. I would heed those messages.

That's the thing about a stereotype, every stereotype has a real world example that exemplifies it. WHat makes it a stereotype is when you inappropriately apply it to overly broad groups.

Agreed. And what's funny is that I think you and I are more in agreement than not about the proper role of government.

Could be. My vision of government is a government of private corporations, of no public schooling, of no entitlements, of a large military, of virtually no taxes, where the Federal Government is so small it's barely newsworthy, no national media would cover it because nothing is going on.

[Typhoon]

Some practical advice:

WWN | How to sell your soul to the Devil

[Enki]

As I said we can look up the quotes. We can look up where you say there is no free will.

I want to teleport into your living room right now. Didn't work. Hmm...I guess my will is constrained. Who knew?

I will say now, as others have said many times before, and as I wonder why I would waste the time to try to do this again, the people in North Korea and the tyranny they suffer under their bodies compared to the tyranny you suffer with your body are not the same. If you doubt me, you can go over there and find out.

non sequitur, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I know, social constructs and all that. Math exists but our math is just a guess. Laws are just words on paper. I get that. What you don't get is that with little scribbles of paper, with math, laws and money mankind created the life giving properties of what we call civilization. I know you're not a big fan by your words, but your actions show that you like civilization just fine and are some kind of oikophobe. You tear it down with one hand and stuff the food it makes into your mouth with the other. That's the Peter Keating in you talking. If there was any Howard Roark in you would have been out of here to the heart of Africa or South America long ago, as many others have done. We are not obligated to comply to your inconsistency.

After all that parsing lets just get back to the notion that if someone is hungry you can give them food without giving them money.

I don't tear down civilization at all. I think it's funny that you think that 'fraud should be prosecuted, and lets stop bombing people in other countries, and lets not legislate cultural customs like wearing pants.', is tearing down civilization to you.

That's right. Jesus was not as fixated on giving to the poor as many would like to say. He had other messages. Eg the wages of sin. And the day of his coming. I would heed those messages.

Actually he wasn't talking about sin primarily, he was talking about redemption. He was saying if we loved everybody as much as we love ourselves, then we know what its like to love God. You're hung up on the details. The only sin is not loving God and his creation properly. All of the rest are just permutations. You extract the love from it and make it about all the legalisms. You pick and choose the sins of others to get incensed about and forgive yourself any of your own sins. You think you get to pick and choose which of God's people are 'evil'. You're not the judge of that.

Could be. My vision of government is a government of private corporations, of no public schooling, of no entitlements, of a large military, of virtually no taxes, where the Federal Government is so small it's barely newsworthy, no national media would cover it because nothing is going on.

My point has always been that we as a people should take care of one another. As you may have noticed, though it clearly seems to have passed right by your attentions, I spend a whole lot more of my effort trying to get services provided through citizen volunteerism than I do by lobbying my representatives. Usually when I talk to representatives, I ask them to stop hurting my fellow citizens with pepper spray and billy clubs and the like. On a number of occasions I have gone into the offices of reps that have large constituencies that I am trying to talk to, like say, Haitian-Americans.

I wouldn't mind seeing such a small Federal Government. But what I think applies at the Federal level doesn't have to apply at the municipal level. I would still like to see a NYC Public Option for healthcare. And this is precisely why I mention wearing pants. You say you are for small government, but when I point out a silly thing that government does, legislate how we dress, you think it's ridiculous that I'd even bring it up. Nannies tell their wards how to dress. That's one of their core responsibilities. How can you be against a nanny state and then say that telling me how to dress is an appropriate role for the government? It's ok for the government to tell me how to dress, but not what gun I can buy?