<A conspiracy buff is into exposing the Lion.
Conspiracy theory-Lion theory are escapists notions to some.
To whip a Lion is about the equal of a flee kicking an elephant,
still we can make a 'crack' as often as we can to our hearts content and trust that the 'pen' is mightier than the sword.>
Howdy Bader
The pen is mightier than the sword and it can lead the lion to taming. (He can't be defeated militarily without great catastrophe).
<Refusing to sign treaties: I am not familiar with the Kyoto
agreement but I as inclined to think that it is one of many that have been written by Lion slaves and are in reality a baited trap.
For what ever reason Bush and Putin as really abstaining we will never know perhaps.>
I suspect the reason though: Big Bucks. If they had offered an alternative I would have believed, but not even the word "save" has ever come out of our leaders. Remember the Black Sheep judges the lion by his paws and teeths and his roaring...

<I see big conflicts between evolutionism and creationism, (as much as between socialism and free enterprize) and is the basis of the real conflict between the spirtually minded and the materialistic minded.
The spiritual world is also divided and has no grounds for steriotyping as in the case of religion. Even communism has been equated as a form of religion. A previous quote of yours from the Apostle Peter re the enemy likened to a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour spoke of false doctrine that looked like the real thing but was a deception to destroy peoples faith, shows that
there are conflicts within the spiritual and religious worlds. Even the spiritual and the religious are held to be quite seperate by some people.
I just found in my dictionary that Animalism is an obsession with anything that is physical as opposed to the spiritual or intellectual
on the one hand and also the belief that humans are no better than animals. It would aso qualify as a religion.>
If anything I'd imagine God along Epicurean lines. Since so far I'm a human I worry about humans. If I ever become a divinity:confused: I'd worry about heavenly issues...
I pose some question at the end...
Lactantius, a Christian apologist from the 3rd century A.D., devoted chapters 4, 8 through 10, and 15 and part of 17 of "On the Anger of God" to attacking the Epicurean doctrine that a perfect being would never display anger or suffer any other emotional disturbances.
(snip)
CHAPTER 8 -- OF RELIGION.
'But religion is overthrown if we believe Epicurus speaking thus:
"For the nature of gods must ever in itself of necessity enjoy immortality together with supreme repose, far removed and withdrawn from our concerns; since, exempt from every pain, exempt from all dangers, strong in its own resources, not wanting aught of us, it is neither gained by favours nor moved by anger."
Now, when he says these things, does he think that any worship is to be paid to God, or does he entirely overthrow religion? For if God confers nothing good on any one, if He repays the obedience of His worshipper with no favour, what is so senseless, what so foolish, as to build temples, to offer sacrifices, to present gifts, to diminish our property, that we may obtain nothing? But (it will be said) it is right that an excellent nature should be honoured. What honour can be due to a being who pays no regard to us, and is ungrateful? Can we be bound in any manner to him who has nothing in common with us? "Farewell to God," says Cicero, "if He is such as to be influenced by no favour, and by no affection of men. For why should I say 'may He be propitious? for He can be propitious to no one." What can be spoken more contemptible with respect to God? Farewell to Him, he says, that is, let Him depart anti retire, since He is able to profit no one.
But if God takes no trouble, nor occasions trouble to another why then should we not commit crimes as often as it shall be in our power to escape the notice of men? and to cheat the public laws? Wherever we shall obtain a favourable opportunity of escaping notice, let us take advantage of the occasion: let us take away the property of others, either without bloodshed or even with blood, if there is nothing else besides the laws to be reverenced.
While Epicurus entertains these sentiments, he altogether destroys religion; and when this is taken away, confusion and perturbation of life will follow. But if religion cannot be taken away without destroying our hold of wisdom, by which we are separated from the brutes, and of justice, by which the public life may be more secure, how can religion itself be maintained or guarded without fear? For that which is not feared is despised, and that which is despised is plainly not reverenced. Thus it comes to pass that religion, and majesty, and honour exist together with fear; but there is no fear where no one is angry. Whether, therefore, you take away from God kindness, or anger, or both, religion must be taken away, without which the life of men is full of folly, of wickedness, and enormity. For conscience greatly curbs men, if we believe that we are living in the sight of God; if we imagine not only that the actions which we perform are seen from above, but also that our thoughts and our words are heard by God.
But it is profitable to believe this, as some imagine, not for the sake of the truth, but of utility, since laws cannot punish conscience unless some terror from above hangs over to restrain offences. Therefore religion is altogether false, and there is no divinity; but all things are made up by skilful men, in order that they may live more uprightly and innocently. This is a great question, and foreign to the subject which we have proposed; but because it necessarily occurs, it ought to be handled, however briefly.'
So religion curbs men... But religious men undertook the Crusades and the Conquest of America and the present wars. *Where's God?*
http://www.epicurus.net/anger.html"All power relationships are interactive, mutually modulating, reciprical."
<is a good summary, I would prefer to use the word
''interests'' than power, as it would seem to me that it is from these that power of some kind arises- where democracy is functioning at the individual level.
That statement might infer equality but it doesn't follow as being automatic.>
Do we pursue equality or options? If we pursue options we may have a healthy power competition between cooperative and noncooperative enterprises...