Here is a great link to an article about Rand and how her prophetic words are being literally resurrected from the grave.
AYN RAND
I would recommend reading it.
Thanks,
J.R.P
5 Birthday Party Games for Kids Under 10
7 years ago
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Molly's Anti-Mormon Rhetoric -Eventual Self-Defeating Hypocrisy?
Bloggers,
I usually avoid entering discussions which involve anti-mormon or similar rhetoric due to its nonsensicality and pharisee type sense. However, I have become quite frustrated by the disrespect and invasive attitude that some of these propagators of such rhetoric have; not only do they possess the false belief that their narcissistic and overly erroneous understanding is the "correct reality", but they also hold that they can go about their mission contrary to any of the Savior's fundamental teachings. So, in light of the former, I once again (after much time and over 22 baptized pastors later) take up arms.
In summary, this post will consist of a response to a certain individual named Molly; Molly has provided some arguments that she feels are sufficient to lay waste to the Mormon Church's position.
In a prior discussion with Molly, I had noted several sources with regards to some claims that I had made; I had made careful effort to insure that these sources were indeed neutral, or if they did have some indirect affiliation with my position, that those resources were backed up by scholarly evidence. Molly's retort in regards to my sources was, "If you want an intellectual debate regarding the church, it's claims, and [its] history, you really need to cite neutral sources that are NOT financed by the LDS church." Were all my sources financed by the L.D.S Church? Let us examine the sources...
1) William A. Ritchie, The Archaeology of New York State. ed 32
- Dr. Ritchie conducted field researches on more than 100 major sites in this country and Canada for both the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences and the New York Museum and Science Service. William Ritchie has written more than 150 articles and monographs on his findings at different archaeological sites. He was for many years the New York State Archaeologist; he has written a number of books on archaeology, and he has prepared informative pamphlets on the Indian History of New York State for grade school children. His great book that covers all of this study in thorough detail is The Archaeology of New York State first published in 1965, and then in a revised edition in 1980. He never had any affiliation with the L.D.S church, and it is important to note that his discoveries of New York were of pinnacle importance for the understanding of what type of ancient people had inhabited the U.S.A.
2) Neal L. Trubowitz, Highway Archeology and Settlement Study in the Genesee Valley (George's Mills, NH: Occasional Publications in Northeast Anthropology, 1983)
- This is an academic Journal! The work of Dr. Trubowitz are well know and very respected.
3) FairMormon.org
-This is a non-profit organization which in no way is directly affiliated with the L.D.S. Church. However, it is obvious what the intentions of the FAIR apologists are; so, that's why the responsibility is on you to verify the claims and sources cited by the scholars at FAIR. It is bad form to hold that: If X is associated with Y then X must be wrong no matter what. The former is what we Philosophers call a fallacy, specifically: Guilt by Association (In the case of the DNA article, FAIR sites several scientific research articles and sources that have shown that the prior studies that held a problem for the Book of Mormon due to DNA inconsistency and like grounds, have been largely "inconclusive").
Her next statement was,
First, I think that it is important to point out an element of hypocrisy that is contained in Molly's first four lines of the prior quote, which is that "one 'everlasting' position at one time and the opposite position at another". Anyone who has read the Bible can attest to the many changes in doctrine and rituals from the book of Genesis to the Revelations. However, as we find in the Bible in Mal. 3:16: For I am the Lord, and I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
I usually avoid entering discussions which involve anti-mormon or similar rhetoric due to its nonsensicality and pharisee type sense. However, I have become quite frustrated by the disrespect and invasive attitude that some of these propagators of such rhetoric have; not only do they possess the false belief that their narcissistic and overly erroneous understanding is the "correct reality", but they also hold that they can go about their mission contrary to any of the Savior's fundamental teachings. So, in light of the former, I once again (after much time and over 22 baptized pastors later) take up arms.
In summary, this post will consist of a response to a certain individual named Molly; Molly has provided some arguments that she feels are sufficient to lay waste to the Mormon Church's position.
In a prior discussion with Molly, I had noted several sources with regards to some claims that I had made; I had made careful effort to insure that these sources were indeed neutral, or if they did have some indirect affiliation with my position, that those resources were backed up by scholarly evidence. Molly's retort in regards to my sources was, "If you want an intellectual debate regarding the church, it's claims, and [its] history, you really need to cite neutral sources that are NOT financed by the LDS church." Were all my sources financed by the L.D.S Church? Let us examine the sources...
1) William A. Ritchie, The Archaeology of New York State. ed 32
- Dr. Ritchie conducted field researches on more than 100 major sites in this country and Canada for both the Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences and the New York Museum and Science Service. William Ritchie has written more than 150 articles and monographs on his findings at different archaeological sites. He was for many years the New York State Archaeologist; he has written a number of books on archaeology, and he has prepared informative pamphlets on the Indian History of New York State for grade school children. His great book that covers all of this study in thorough detail is The Archaeology of New York State first published in 1965, and then in a revised edition in 1980. He never had any affiliation with the L.D.S church, and it is important to note that his discoveries of New York were of pinnacle importance for the understanding of what type of ancient people had inhabited the U.S.A.
2) Neal L. Trubowitz, Highway Archeology and Settlement Study in the Genesee Valley (George's Mills, NH: Occasional Publications in Northeast Anthropology, 1983)
- This is an academic Journal! The work of Dr. Trubowitz are well know and very respected.
3) FairMormon.org
-This is a non-profit organization which in no way is directly affiliated with the L.D.S. Church. However, it is obvious what the intentions of the FAIR apologists are; so, that's why the responsibility is on you to verify the claims and sources cited by the scholars at FAIR. It is bad form to hold that: If X is associated with Y then X must be wrong no matter what. The former is what we Philosophers call a fallacy, specifically: Guilt by Association (In the case of the DNA article, FAIR sites several scientific research articles and sources that have shown that the prior studies that held a problem for the Book of Mormon due to DNA inconsistency and like grounds, have been largely "inconclusive").
Her next statement was,
"Find some substantial research that does NOT have ties to the church to support your claims and I'll take it into consideration"
- I guess I already answered this; as you can see many of the sources that I have sited (which were off the top of my head) are not affiliated with the Church, so you SHOULD -due to your own words- take them into consideration.
Moving on...
Her next claims are as follows:
"Many doctrines which were once taught by the LDS church, and held to be fundamental, essential and 'eternal', have been abandoned. Whether we feel that the church was correct in abandoning them is not the point; rather, the point is that a church claiming to be the church of God takes one 'everlasting' position at one time and the opposite position at another, all the time claiming to be proclaiming the word of God. Some examples are:
- The Adam-God doctrine (Adam is God the Father);
- the United Order (all property of church members is to be held in common, with title in the church);
- Plural Marriage (polygamy; a man must have more than one wife to attain the highest degree of heaven);
- the Curse of Cain (the black race is not entitled to hold God's priesthood because it is cursed; this doctrine was not abandoned until 1978);
- Blood Atonement (some sins - apostasy, adultery, murder, interracial marriage - must be atoned for by the shedding of the sinner's blood, preferably by someone appointed to do so by church authorities);
All of these doctrines were proclaimed by the reigning prophet to be the Word of God, 'eternal,' 'everlasting,' to govern the church "forevermore." All have been abandoned by the present church."
First, I think that it is important to point out an element of hypocrisy that is contained in Molly's first four lines of the prior quote, which is that "one 'everlasting' position at one time and the opposite position at another". Anyone who has read the Bible can attest to the many changes in doctrine and rituals from the book of Genesis to the Revelations. However, as we find in the Bible in Mal. 3:16: For I am the Lord, and I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
So, what right did the New Testament have in changing God's prior laws and commandments? Some argue that, as Paul did, as Christ died, the law changed by being fulfilled in him (Heb. 13). But, philosophically, this is bad reasoning, one must admit that God is all-knowing and all-good, so he would NEVER require any type of change, because if he had to change something -like what we consistently see in the Bible- then we are confronted with the cold worry that maybe God is not what the Bible says he is, he might just not exist, be not all-powerful, or maybe not all-good. So, to say that there are changes and contradictions and alterations are not permissible in the presence of the claim that God has made a everlasting statement or decree, you must then hold ipso facto that the Bible is not permissible (ouch!).
The next claim, the Adam-God Doctrine
This theory has been tossed around by the anti-Mormon community for so long that I am almost exhausted to even consider responding to such a pathetic subject, (Molly I was hoping better from you). This subject has been misconstrued as the idea that L.D.S members, at one time, worshiped God as their father in heaven. The proponents of this corruption point out, as support, certain quotes made by Brigham Young that Adam is our God and our Father and the only God with whom we have to do. This idea is contingent upon the concept of the ability to "bind" humanity together as one large family. So, to analyze it by itself you are only getting the part of the actual claim. The Church holds that via the sealing of progressive family units will eventually lead to all of humanity as one whole, and that Adam, being the Father of humanity -via his seed and copulation with Eve- he will act as patriarch or a type of God, if you will. This seems to present no logical nor practical violation such that I would be demonstrated false.
The Unity Order.
That is a misquote, the unity order is a descriptive term for "consecration." This is a type of communal governing system that runs along the lines of common-wealth doctrine for governments (See: robert Noskik, Anarchy State and Utopia). This system is actually not any different from the practices of the Israelites in the Old Testament. It should be noted that the Unity Order would act as an officiating body much like the Auditing Department or Human Resources.
Polygamy
This is nothing new to the Bible, and no it is not a requirement to have more than one wife -one is sufficient. (Molly you might want to try and qualify your argument here more, it is to vague and nonsensical maybe you could order Argumentation for Dummies to aid you in your refinement). If anyone requires it, I am more than willing to engage in a conversation solely about Polygamy.
Curse of Cain.
Wow! To answer this objection, one should just read Joshua's accounts in the Bible. For example, the Genocide of all the Canaanites because God saw them as an abomination (You do know that at the time the Canaanites were Black -right? And Joshua destroyed them because God said that due to the sins of their fathers and brothers they were to be purged). The fact that the Church was able to give Blacks the priest-hood, something that the Bible implicitly holds as impossible, actually demonstrates that God is merciful and wishes all to take advantage of his blessings. Additionally, it demonstrates that God is able to reveal new and relative things to men via revelation -just like in the Bible.
Blood Atonement
This is a complete corruption and falsification. There were, however, certain reports the some elderly church members in 1860 were speaking about some similar subject, but the Church has never practiced such a idea or instituted it. Additionally, there is no historical evidence for any part of the church espousing such an idea. Before dismissing this, I would like to say that the doctrine of "Blood Atonement" is actually derived from the Old Testament and the idea that if certain sins like murder are committed it will make it such that the individual suffers and makes amends by his own blood -this is commonly called Hell in the New Testament, but in the Old they practiced this by killing adulterous women or murders. Basically, this is a type or retributive idea.
The last comment made by Molly is as follows:
This is very humorous (nice cut and copy), and presents only an infantile attempt to make a point. You see, essentially, religious claims, like the ones made in the prior quote, are notoriously bad because they are just as incomplete as they claim the opposing view is. So, here are some great articles that make the case against Molly's prior claim:
1) fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
2)William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1990), 26
3)Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," 162 ----> this guy really kicks the pants off the anti-mormon claim via scientific evidence!
4) T. Patrick Culbert, “Maya-Treasures of an Ancient Civilization,” Archaeology, March/April, 1985, 60.
In conclusion, we would like to make aware that we have qualified Molly's objections, and, in doing so, we have shown that they are largely fallacious and misleading. Such misleading claims are standard talking points in most anti-mormon (and due to the diversity and vagueness of such social institutions this type of occurrence appears frequently) rhetoric and fail to provide any substantial evidence that could lead to their validation. Furthermore, we have been able to provide scientific sources that back our claims, and I have shown that my prior claims are indeed substantial. So, in closing ACCIPE HOC!
The next claim, the Adam-God Doctrine
This theory has been tossed around by the anti-Mormon community for so long that I am almost exhausted to even consider responding to such a pathetic subject, (Molly I was hoping better from you). This subject has been misconstrued as the idea that L.D.S members, at one time, worshiped God as their father in heaven. The proponents of this corruption point out, as support, certain quotes made by Brigham Young that Adam is our God and our Father and the only God with whom we have to do. This idea is contingent upon the concept of the ability to "bind" humanity together as one large family. So, to analyze it by itself you are only getting the part of the actual claim. The Church holds that via the sealing of progressive family units will eventually lead to all of humanity as one whole, and that Adam, being the Father of humanity -via his seed and copulation with Eve- he will act as patriarch or a type of God, if you will. This seems to present no logical nor practical violation such that I would be demonstrated false.
The Unity Order.
That is a misquote, the unity order is a descriptive term for "consecration." This is a type of communal governing system that runs along the lines of common-wealth doctrine for governments (See: robert Noskik, Anarchy State and Utopia). This system is actually not any different from the practices of the Israelites in the Old Testament. It should be noted that the Unity Order would act as an officiating body much like the Auditing Department or Human Resources.
Polygamy
This is nothing new to the Bible, and no it is not a requirement to have more than one wife -one is sufficient. (Molly you might want to try and qualify your argument here more, it is to vague and nonsensical maybe you could order Argumentation for Dummies to aid you in your refinement). If anyone requires it, I am more than willing to engage in a conversation solely about Polygamy.
Curse of Cain.
Wow! To answer this objection, one should just read Joshua's accounts in the Bible. For example, the Genocide of all the Canaanites because God saw them as an abomination (You do know that at the time the Canaanites were Black -right? And Joshua destroyed them because God said that due to the sins of their fathers and brothers they were to be purged). The fact that the Church was able to give Blacks the priest-hood, something that the Bible implicitly holds as impossible, actually demonstrates that God is merciful and wishes all to take advantage of his blessings. Additionally, it demonstrates that God is able to reveal new and relative things to men via revelation -just like in the Bible.
Blood Atonement
This is a complete corruption and falsification. There were, however, certain reports the some elderly church members in 1860 were speaking about some similar subject, but the Church has never practiced such a idea or instituted it. Additionally, there is no historical evidence for any part of the church espousing such an idea. Before dismissing this, I would like to say that the doctrine of "Blood Atonement" is actually derived from the Old Testament and the idea that if certain sins like murder are committed it will make it such that the individual suffers and makes amends by his own blood -this is commonly called Hell in the New Testament, but in the Old they practiced this by killing adulterous women or murders. Basically, this is a type or retributive idea.
The last comment made by Molly is as follows:
...The Book of Mormon describes a civilization lasting for a thousand years, covering both North and South America, which was familiar with horses, elephants, cattle, sheep, wheat, barley, steel, wheeled vehicles, shipbuilding, sails, coins, and other elements of Old World culture. But no trace of any of these supposedly very common things has ever been found in the Americas of that period...LDS church has spent millions of dollars over many years trying to prove through archaeological research that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record, but they have failed to produce any convincing pre-columbian archeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon story....
This is very humorous (nice cut and copy), and presents only an infantile attempt to make a point. You see, essentially, religious claims, like the ones made in the prior quote, are notoriously bad because they are just as incomplete as they claim the opposing view is. So, here are some great articles that make the case against Molly's prior claim:
1) fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Archaeological_Evidence_and_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
2)William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1990), 26
3)Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," 162 ----> this guy really kicks the pants off the anti-mormon claim via scientific evidence!
4) T. Patrick Culbert, “Maya-Treasures of an Ancient Civilization,” Archaeology, March/April, 1985, 60.
In conclusion, we would like to make aware that we have qualified Molly's objections, and, in doing so, we have shown that they are largely fallacious and misleading. Such misleading claims are standard talking points in most anti-mormon (and due to the diversity and vagueness of such social institutions this type of occurrence appears frequently) rhetoric and fail to provide any substantial evidence that could lead to their validation. Furthermore, we have been able to provide scientific sources that back our claims, and I have shown that my prior claims are indeed substantial. So, in closing ACCIPE HOC!
JRP
Friday, February 13, 2009
Another Day in Paradise... Are you sure?
For the last 2 years I have grown a desire to focus on humanitarian efforts. I think that we have lost the value of what life is, as a nation that is, and perhaps... humanity has. I also feel strongly that the economic perversion that has perpetuated itself and integrated into virtually every society has caused more pain than pleasure. WE MUST CHANGE! We must go back to the roots of capitalism and adapt them to the needs of society. WE MUST help and educate those that were raised or have experienced adverse conditions that have caused their suffering. This desire has been one of the main reasons for my desire to educate myself - I pray that I may one day be a tool to bring about the improvement and benefit of at least some of my fellow men.
Here is a great song that you should listen to...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiQNyIB_5kY
Leave a comment about your feelings.
Here is a great song that you should listen to...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiQNyIB_5kY
Leave a comment about your feelings.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Is God Free?
This post may not be as long as I would like, but I will attempt to make it as precise as possible. While sitting in church on Sunday, I was contemplating the ability of God to be able to preform some action. While thinking about the later, I came to the conclusion that God is not a free agent. This was supprising to me, and I quickly attempted to find justification that would negate my conclusion. Nevertheless, my attempts proved to be utterly unavailing. Thus, I obviously decided to continue my analysis of why it is that God was not free. This is what appears to support this claim:
So, the proof (1-5) holds that God can only do that which he knows to be good and consequently he already knows that which he is going to do. If that is true, despite the obvious obscurity about whether or not God can choose that which is future or possible, then it must be the case that God is not free with regards to some action. The additional result is that God can not even choose amid some set of options; like: a set of choice's say, A and B. As per A is always better than B or B must always be better than A for God.
Some may make the objection that some set of options say, C and D are exactly equal both quantitatively and qualitatively, then God could make the choice amid C and D base upon some ability of preference. However, for those who make this claim they must understand that if C and D are numerically identical (in terms of properties) then they run into Leibniz's law, which states: if any two objects A and B possess exactly the same properties then A and B are exactly the same thing. This means that if A=B and B=A then the result if some type if tautology such as: A=b and B=A the AB=BA and BA=AB --> A=A and B=B (B&A+A&B)=(A&B+B&A). So it does not matter which is chose as per A and B are the same thing.
1. God is all-knowing (omniscient).
2. God is all-good (omnibenevolent).
3. If (1) then God always knows what it is the he will do.
4. If (2) then God always does that which promotes or allows for the greatest good.
If (1) and (2), are true then from (3) and (4) we deduce:
5. God is not free.
So, the proof (1-5) holds that God can only do that which he knows to be good and consequently he already knows that which he is going to do. If that is true, despite the obvious obscurity about whether or not God can choose that which is future or possible, then it must be the case that God is not free with regards to some action. The additional result is that God can not even choose amid some set of options; like: a set of choice's say, A and B. As per A is always better than B or B must always be better than A for God.
Some may make the objection that some set of options say, C and D are exactly equal both quantitatively and qualitatively, then God could make the choice amid C and D base upon some ability of preference. However, for those who make this claim they must understand that if C and D are numerically identical (in terms of properties) then they run into Leibniz's law, which states: if any two objects A and B possess exactly the same properties then A and B are exactly the same thing. This means that if A=B and B=A then the result if some type if tautology such as: A=b and B=A the AB=BA and BA=AB --> A=A and B=B (B&A+A&B)=(A&B+B&A). So it does not matter which is chose as per A and B are the same thing.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Obama and HONOR
President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m (£102m). This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993 -according to a report made in The Guardian.
We are currently experiencing a sever recession, which could be or is the worst financial crisis since the depression. Additionally, the world has been struck with problems that have never before been so prolific and sever. Nevertheless, as bailouts span our financial sector and americans are loosing jobs and homes, President Obama will spend at least 150 million on a "party". I remeber why Ex-president Bush took office and the media (and several democratic leaders) critizied him for excessivness for example:
If Bush's inauguration cost sufficient for 200 humvees and health treatment for 22 million children, what would Obama's inauguration do for us as a nation and the world? I suppose we could say that it could buy 610 humvees, and help over 66 million children! It is utterly ridiculous that the man of "change" would damage even further the current stress placed on the taxpayer! How ungrateful and unhonorable. Roosevelt, during his inauguration felt that it would be a dishonor to do anything "excessive" he merely served cold salad and gave a short speech! If Obama wanted to be about "Change", he would merely provide a speech and then get his ass to work. If this is going to be a example of what is to come with a democratic congress and president, then may his 4 years pass quickly and may he be kicked out of office -or impeached!
We are currently experiencing a sever recession, which could be or is the worst financial crisis since the depression. Additionally, the world has been struck with problems that have never before been so prolific and sever. Nevertheless, as bailouts span our financial sector and americans are loosing jobs and homes, President Obama will spend at least 150 million on a "party". I remeber why Ex-president Bush took office and the media (and several democratic leaders) critizied him for excessivness for example:
“Many have wondered whether, given the war and all of our security challenges right now, it’s appropriate to have a lavish and expensive inaugural celebration?”
— ABC’s Claire Shipman to Laura Bush in a taped interview shown on the January 20 Good Morning America.
“President Bush’s second inauguration will cost tens of millions of dollars — $40 million alone in private donations for the balls, parade and other invitation-only parties. With that kind of money, what could you buy?
■ 200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq.
■ Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.
If Bush's inauguration cost sufficient for 200 humvees and health treatment for 22 million children, what would Obama's inauguration do for us as a nation and the world? I suppose we could say that it could buy 610 humvees, and help over 66 million children! It is utterly ridiculous that the man of "change" would damage even further the current stress placed on the taxpayer! How ungrateful and unhonorable. Roosevelt, during his inauguration felt that it would be a dishonor to do anything "excessive" he merely served cold salad and gave a short speech! If Obama wanted to be about "Change", he would merely provide a speech and then get his ass to work. If this is going to be a example of what is to come with a democratic congress and president, then may his 4 years pass quickly and may he be kicked out of office -or impeached!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Questioning Egalitarianism
This will be a short post. I am very busy studying for certain things relative to my education. This post will question on of the principle components of Egalitarianism: that every person is entitled to equal opportunity. This view is a very westren-specific one, and is derived from similar views, such as: Autonomy, equal-rights, or free will. However, can we really hold a rational belief that people can really have equal opportunity?
The majority of human existence has been filled with suffering and strife, so how are we to hold that there really is equal opportunity when some of those that suffer choose not to suffer - and those who do not suffer have some how evaded the quintessential situation that haunts society?
Many may feel the temptation to respond by way of an appeal to some type of belief that we have "access" to the same "ability" to make life what it is. BUt this is completely false; can we really say that there are those who actually have access to the same ability that I have or you? And more so, what about those that have even more "access" than I or you? It seems that to respond in this way would be obviously a mistake.
Perhaps, we could hold that we were all "endowed" with certain unalienable rights and that among those are the equal chance to success relative to each person. But, if the former is true, then are we to say that the children born in Africa and suffer immensely have had their rights violated? And if so, then by whom? Maybe, God? - however that does not seem right, we wont blame that on him (even though some might). So, is it the REST of humanity that has violated the rights of this child by not aiding it to have the same opportunity or same situations that are some of us possess that are necessary to the correct perpetuation of one's ability to obtain the correct state of affairs to create "opportunity?"
So, what is it? What is it that make some feel that we are indeed equal? What makes us want to assert something that is obviously not the case?
Just some simple questions,
J.R.P
The majority of human existence has been filled with suffering and strife, so how are we to hold that there really is equal opportunity when some of those that suffer choose not to suffer - and those who do not suffer have some how evaded the quintessential situation that haunts society?
Many may feel the temptation to respond by way of an appeal to some type of belief that we have "access" to the same "ability" to make life what it is. BUt this is completely false; can we really say that there are those who actually have access to the same ability that I have or you? And more so, what about those that have even more "access" than I or you? It seems that to respond in this way would be obviously a mistake.
Perhaps, we could hold that we were all "endowed" with certain unalienable rights and that among those are the equal chance to success relative to each person. But, if the former is true, then are we to say that the children born in Africa and suffer immensely have had their rights violated? And if so, then by whom? Maybe, God? - however that does not seem right, we wont blame that on him (even though some might). So, is it the REST of humanity that has violated the rights of this child by not aiding it to have the same opportunity or same situations that are some of us possess that are necessary to the correct perpetuation of one's ability to obtain the correct state of affairs to create "opportunity?"
So, what is it? What is it that make some feel that we are indeed equal? What makes us want to assert something that is obviously not the case?
Just some simple questions,
J.R.P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
