Dragan,

>>>> But, the notion of equality before the law has its roots in the notion that all men are equal in God's eyes.
>>
>>>But, they're not - for he keeps a special area in hell for the non-believers, another one for wrong-believers...
>>
>>But it's the people who choose their own destination. No arm twisting on God's part. And, in the Historic Christin teachings there is no difference in location. All alone, in utter blackness. Not pretty and totally avoidable - if one chooses.
>
>So they are not equal in his eyes based on their choice, Q.E.D.

They choose to make themselves unequal - not God. They are responsible for their choices, not Him. So yes, perfect euality (of opportunity) and different outcomes - all based upon the individual's choices.

>
>>>I've seen more equality in socialism in terms of education and general access to social services, than here; social mobility was actually greater (speaking of Yugoslav self-management of 50's-80's). The theory of "equal outcome" is a different beast, it's the "righteous distribution of misery", which was the logical consequence of Party running every business.
>>
>>Well, I suppose the unintended consequences of socialism was the equal sharing of misery. Maybe that's a better definition. Regardless it does lead down that path and we're doing it here (which was my point).
>
>"Righteous distribution of misery" was a quote from some TV-drama back in '60s (remember the genre, it was quite popular at the time), and, yes, it equals "sharing of misery" except that the distribution is done by somebody above, and sharing is peer-to-peer.