Your post is irrelevant. The question of this debate is not about the costs of the infrastructure or the liability of those costs.
But according to your post, you don’t have a problem with theft as long as it benefits you and others. I also suppose your argument would be vastly different if the Christian populace used your taxable wages to pay for infrastructure which benefits them and others.
Every argument, in this debate, that I have read, which denies that taxation is legalized theft, is a red-herring argument. Not a one of those arguments has argued ‘taxation is not legalized theft’. All of them justify theft by asserting taxation is legal and therefore there is no theft.
Would you care to debate the proposition of this debate?
Firstly, I apologize for intentionally avoiding the question of this debate. Consider my post an attack against dual-allegiance as evidenced by Christians, so called.
Now, in answer to your question, “How about the people who aren't Christian?”: I must affirm that I have no desire whatsoever to determine which words people choose in swearing allegiance to a flag or a republic. Swearing one’s allegiance is not some prescribed recital of another person’s ideal for swearing allegiance as the acceptable form of the recital of allegiance. The swearing of allegiance is, of all things, a personal conviction which is not subject to the conviction of another’s opinion and intention.
Or said another way: if a person chooses to swear allegiance to something, the same person is the sole authority for determining the terms and conditions of allegiance. No other person, or group of persons, has a natural right to determine how any man or woman swears allegiance. Let alone determining that which qualifies as an oath of allegiance.
The argument can be made that ‘petroleum’ is the global currency having multiple fiat currencies as its proxy. But I am not here to argue that axiom.
Moreover, I am not here to dispute your intent. For, I am well aware of the pains that are associated with attempting a resolution of the current, global, economic system which is commonly obfuscated by the term ‘globalization’.
However, you do deserve a pat on the back. Very few people are capable of questioning the legitimacy, more rather the lack thereof, of the economic system they are both enslaved and destroyed by.
And to end my appraisal of both as succinctly as I can, I say thus: “ You see the category-six storm building in the horizon and are horrified thereby; your counterparts, on the other hand, see only bright, sun shinny days in the horizon and are daydreaming of the coming bliss."
God forbid you question their ‘coming bliss’!
Should the words "under God" be removed from the Pledge of All[e]giance
Let’s first consider the terms of the pledge. They are:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Let’s now ask a question. Should a Christian pledge his/her allegiance to a ‘flag’ and its ‘republic’ when it, their pledge of allegiance, is in direct conflict with the will of the God of Jesus Christ as represented in the Bible?
Now before someone dare attempt to answer ‘yes’, and consequently justify that answer by perverse interpretations of the bible, the same should first carefully consider a few matters.
a) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a flag or a republic in lieu of allegiance to God?
b) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to a republic and its flag as well as God?
c) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that a believer should pledge allegiance to anything other than God?
d) Where in the scriptures of the Bible is it written that God sanctions and demands a “pledge of allegiance” with the qualifier “under God”?
e) Why are American Christians the most ardent supporters of the term “under God” in the pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States when they should be wholly indifferent to the pledge itself? Especially since they should not be pledging allegiance to anything other than God!
But regardless of what I understand of both the scriptures and the inconsistencies of Christian practices as measured by the Bible, I can boldly affirm that no man who calls himself a Christian is justified by the words of the bible by swearing his allegiance to a “flag” and/or a “republic” by the qualification “under God”. Furthermore, no Christian should have any input on any question that is centered upon choosing the terms of the Pledge of Allegiance; unless of course he is an idolater who serves himself despite the God, of whom, he proclaims he is servant.
Conclusion: Whether the pledge reads “under God”, “under Satan”; or “under Obama”, the only people who should be debating the selection of terms for the pledge should be the ones who do not associate themselves with the God of the Bible. Yet, it appears this debate, on a national scale, is one the most ‘holy’ of ‘holies’ among, paradoxically, CHRISTIANS.
As for me, I say thus: “Let all men, who hold the “pledge of allegiance” near and dear to their heart, decide the terms of their ‘promise’, which is an oath, while excluding the opinions of those who have done nothing but demonstrate pseudo, dual allegiance!”
No man can serve two masters…
On the one hand you have an obstacle course that is almost impossible to penetrate in order to fertilize an egg, and on the other hand, it just so happens that men are equipped with the perfect weapon (high number of sperm) to overcome the obstacle.
One could validly deduce order and determinism.
Agreed!
But when it comes to which sperm will make it, I think that is up to chance. Which does not mean that the selection is not a result of causality.
That is the aspect of your example which truly requires an explanation on my behalf. And so I shall.
With very few exceptions, fertilization is accomplished by one sperm. Of the hundred million or so sperm, only one will fertilize the egg; all others die in the process. In one night of sex, a male may inject hundreds of millions of sperm into the vagina. And yet, only one of millions will succeed ahead of its brothers and sisters. We can call this sperm the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. In this instance of hundreds of millions sperm having the same objective, only one will win out. All others are discharged from the keep as dead, first place, losers. So what does all this suggest? Only the strongest and healthiest sperm of hundreds of millions will fertilize the egg.
Let’s now be philosophical on this question.
Egg fertilization is the ultimate goal of all human sperm. But only one will achieve that goal per pregnancy. No more than one and no less than one sperm.
You and I, as well as all other humans, are rooted in our sperm origin as the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Therefore all of us have succeeded where all the hundreds of millions of others in the herd have failed. Philosophically, we can reason that all of us can and should be thankful that we are alive today because we were the ‘alpha sperm of the herd’. Baring in mind also that our progenitors, siblings, and progeny are also the ‘alpha sperm of the other herds’.
The truth of this is so consistent, it stands to reason that ‘order’ should be inferred thereby; unless of course I have unknowingly erred in my judgment.
How do you maintain absolute order, when you must have choice?
I suspect my answer to that question will lead us to an even deeper discussion. All of which I welcome; philosophy is my delight. (I’ll be easy with the philosophical terms.)
Nonetheless, let’s tackle that question as a separate subject if we have arrived at a termination of the former discussion; though both are inter-related.
Note: I ignored all of the issues associated with human twins. Including those issues would only lengthen, without changing, my argument. I like brevity when it is honestly intended versus deceitfully employed.
Some biological events are, in my opinion, irrefutably chaotic. For example, the sperm race. The obstacles that a sperm has to go through in order to reach the egg are so many and so deadly that nature has compensated by allowing man to produce millions of them, just so there is a chance of one of them making it to the egg. If I took an egocentric view I would conclude that I was meant to be the one. But the truth of the matter is, it was just chance and good luck.
The fact that men produce millions of sperm during ejaculation is, in my opinion, evidence that even nature recognizes chance and chaos. Why if there was order, men would only need produce one sperm that was equipped to go through the deadly obstacle course and create a baby.
So chaos does exist.
Hello, let’s continue.
Working only from the above example, I can validly infer determinism and order. Yet, that is not your inference. However before I submit a contrary or contradictory argument, accordingly, I give you an opportunity to re-evaluate the example.
And regardless of the result of your re-evaluation, I think your ‘initial’ inference is patently invalid. But, (with the emphasis on ‘but’) I think you are more than sufficiently intelligent to recognize the conflict of the evidence and the inference thereby.
I’ll await your follow-up reply before I support or challenge your final inference. And if you still stand by your initial inference, I will post my explanation of the submitted evidence as outlined in your example.
Btw, your example does, in truth, expose the necessary inference of either chaos or order.
I was attempting to merely draw-out your knowledge and position on the limitations and basis of human knowledge and their axioms in that regard. I will later reference the same if necessary.
According to what I understand, which is according to what I have been taught and confirmed by personal observation, the theory of evolution is another explanation of diversity by mutation; in which case the theory can be verified by the empiricism derived from the artificial selection of a cattle farmer or dog breeder. The theory of evolution is true to fact on this account, but the theory was not developed for that purpose; it was developed for the purpose of alleging genus to genus mutations which originate from a single progenitor of another genus.
However from what evidence, empirical, shall we infer the mutation of a genus from and to a genus? I know the fossil record is cited as evidence of the same, but there is no empirical evidence available that confirms, or any test that verifies, that genus ‘B’ is the consequent of the antecedent progenitor ‘Z’.
I am dropping the issue of Mr. Gould’s assertion. Primarily because I perceive you have an interest in considering a viewpoint (without prejudice) which is contradictory of yours’. And, in all fairness, because you are honest with me, I too shall be honest with you. Let’s proceed in that manner.
I shall now begin the process of explaining my opposition to the theory of evolution as a consequence of a reasonable approach. (This will not be easily communicated, so don’t be too critical of what maybe perceived as being ‘overly complex’ or ‘overly simplistic’; so confirm, before you conclude, I have adequately communicated my thoughts to you when you are interpreting statements that appear to be either.) (Key note-- I don’t’ accept this: When not evolution, therefore creation, or when not creation, therefore evolution.)
The theory of evolution is predicated upon the presumption that the knowledge of the diversity of life is derivable from ‘a posteriori’ knowledge. This is the foundational principle of the theory. However, that presumption is only possible by ‘a priori’ knowledge.
Questions or comments?
If it was Jew specific, I would contend it is possible.
Albeit, I would be interested to know which species of animal is impacted most by A.I.D.S.
(I have yet to hear of some scientist somewhere teaching primates to wear condoms to stop the spreading of aids.)
Note: if someone will point me in the proper direction I can argue for or against the specificity of the victims of Aids.
