TaN: As man “progresses” and becomes more and more technologically advanced, the farther man moves away from God. It should the other way around but it is not. Instead of appreciating and seeing the imprints and signs of the Creator in all of creation, man has chosen to falsely and foolishly negate His existence and attribute all of creation to a random and “accidental spontaneous explosion” of an infinitesimally minuscule primordial entity from which everything had supposedly sprung from. But science have still yet to answer the question: If everything came from that one teeny tiny point in space, where did that “one teeny tiny point in space” come from? How did it come into existence? Who was responsible for its being? Who or what caused it to be?
It is both sad and so full-of-himself that man cannot or refuses to see and admit that all of his pronouncements and declarations of all creation through science has been unfounded and presumptuous. He has made many generalizations and conclusions — according to Rupert Sheldrake (please refer to his “morphic resonance” theory) — based on flimsy or incorrectly or crudely formulated experiments and logic, much like the way results and conclusions are derived from sample surveys using probabilities of mathematics.
Aside from the revelations from Rupert Sheldrake debunking the ten dogmas of (conventional) science — like the constancy (or is it consistency) of gravity or Big G and the speed of light — there are numerous other instances or examples of inconsistencies and/or incongruences in many generally-accepted pronouncements from established or conventional mega industries.
One is regarding vaccines and mercury (or hydrargyrum) where it has been established by both science and government that mercury is not safe at any level. In other words, there is no safe level for ingesting mercury. And yet, it is present in (most) vaccines — in the form of the preservative thimerasol — and, to make matters worse and even insane, the mercury will be injected directly into the bloodstream, bypassing all natural and critical body defenses and leaving the recipient open and vulnerable to the toxic effects of mercury. So which is it now: is mercury really toxic and is there any safe level of exposure?
Another is regarding ownership of non-man made things, like DNA and genes and land. It defies logic and morality that man can or has the audacity and arrogance as to claim ownership of things that does belong to him — just because he “discovered” it first, seized it from another by sheer superior strength/force or trickery/fraud or “right” of law. Such ownership is flawed, illusory, and fraught with empty arguments, mere shams to prop up man’s false claim of birthright and heritage.
Still another is regarding the argument that dinosaurs (and all of creation) are millions (and billions, respectively) of years old. According to a video — titled “Evidence for Earth’s Instant Creation – Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal – Earth Science Associates“, downloaded from YouTube — dinosaurs existed alongside early Biblical man…at the time of Noah and earlier. It was only during the Great Flood or Deluge that much of life on the planet was extinguished and curiously concentrated only on certain geographical locations, where we find humongous deposits of coal and oil. Further, in the same video, it was alleged that the narrator was able to produce coal and oil (of the same quality as existing stores being mined or pumped out today) not in millions of years but artificially within a matter of months by replicating the conditions he theorized. Finally, the narrator continues to claim that his successes had been replicated in many other academic laboratories in prestigious educational institution in several laboratories in prestigious educational institutions in the First World.
TaN: The waste from markets, especially the public markets, are bordering on the sinfully obscene. Imagine a harvest of fruit or vegetable, grown over weeks at the shortest duration, using precious freshwater and nutritious organic compost (or not) and tended laboriously against pests and sickness, only to be discarded on the market floor or in a pile of farm produce at the market dump (just because the appearance is not “pristine”) instead of picking them up and washing them in order to be donated to soup kitchens and civic feeding centers where they can (still) be put to good use. This is immoral and SINFUL.
Every time I see “good” produce being ignored — or worse, being kicked around or stepped on — in public (market or no market), it pains me and I shudder to think and imagine how many starving people, especially children (malnourished or underfed), could have been fed with those wasted food, or at least how much organic compost could have been derived to nourish crops.
Moreover, it would appear trivial and a minuscule quantity at first glance but if you put all the waste of all the markets together (public or otherwise) — not yet including those from households and restaurants and eateries and processing facilities and produce transfer and trading posts — it all adds up. Paying attention to this seemingly insignificant matter would put a significant dent of the problem of feeding the starving or malnourished global poor.
TaN: In a video I recently watched featuring Rupert Sheldrake (titled “Morphic Resonance“), he argued that certain scientists and experts — advocates of reductionism or whatever modern contemporary scientific ideology — maintain that memories are stored in the brain as some chemical compounds — probably supported by the argument and observation of memory loss or amnesia in instances of head trauma frequently arising from concussions and physical injuries — and that when a person dies the brain decays into nothingness, then the memories accumulated through a lifetime “disappears”. Mr Sheldrake posits the observation that if and when during the resurrection for the Judgement Day how would people remember who they are and account for all that they have done?
At first, I was in complete agreement with Mr Sheldrake that memories cannot be in the brain but stored somewhere else — a form of collective memory (somewhere out there). It made sense, especially with the argument that (chemical) memories degrade as the brain decays in death and our identity and self-awareness are (supposedly) memory-based, therefore in the resurrection, it would be a challenge just to remember who we were.
However, I later realized that in has been mentioned in the Holy Scriptures about all events that transpired while on our existence in this temporal plane are recorded in a Book of (Our) Life and will be retrieved and opened at that occasion — to examine and review in order to come up with a verdict as to our worthiness to enter Paradise. In this sense, it would now be argued that the brain does not serve as a repository of all that has happened to us but rather act as a peripheral or recording device and that memories are “entered” into the Book of Life (where they are actually stored). This would make better sense.
TaN: The reason for the wealth gap is because people not just value things but even put a price on it. What? It is like this. Value is the usefulness or essentiality of something, whereas price is the quantity of (acceptable or accepted) medium of exchange for wealth (or anything of accepted worth) that the owner or holder has placed on a commodity or possession in order for him/her to willingly transfer the ownership to another. [Btw, possessions or things of value include services or non-materials and not necessarily confined or restricted to physical or tangible entities.]
Not everything that is valuable or has value has a price, hence the term “priceless”. There are certain things or possessions that has value but the owner is not willing to part with no matter what is being offered.
Anyway, the wealth gap is a result of commoditizing possessions or things that should not be commoditized in the first place. There are certain things that ought to be shared by all and not controlled by some, especially if they are essential (i.e., needed by all) and in limited supply — like land, water, and air.
Actually, come to think of it, labor and man-made things are probably the only things that we can morally and justifiably put a price on. As I have always maintained, profit should only be made from labor — i.e., from the lazy and the stupid by doing things for them because they are lazy or incapable — and everything else should be freely shared. This means that profit is to be made by providing services to others but exclusive of the material/s involved — like building a house or repairing a car or flying an airplane or curing a sickness or…you get the picture.
The argument is that one can only set a price or claim ownership over something that one has created or produced (personally) — like making a chair or a table or paper — which is personal (not private) property. It is elementary (and glaringly obvious) that one cannot set a price or claim ownership on something made by another — not unless there is an explicit transfer of ownership, such as when a purchase was made, when ownership was deeded or legally ceded, or when by right of inheritance.
Now, by extending or elevating this concept to a universal application or principle, only man-made things can be owned by man (i.e., other people besides the original maker). Further extending this argument, it is therefore unjustifiable for man to claim ownership on that which is not made by (any) man.
When we now exclude the things not made by man, which all of nature or the natural resources or everything in nature around us — extending all the way to the edge of the universe and the heavens — all things natural cannot be claimed by man since man was never part of the creation of all things natural (as in the air, water, land and everything above, on and underneath, including all living things).
Hence, the (logical) conclusion to this is therefore that since nothing — as in nary a single physical thing in nature — was created by man, man does not have a moral, much less legal or any other form of, right to claim ownership over anything except those that he has made (i.e., re-arranged and put together using that which is already available everywhere). In this manner, man can only exact profit or gain from services rendered (which is somewhat the essence of the Value-Added Tax or VAT). Man simply added to the intrinsic value of things available by applying labor or his effort into assembling and re-arranging materials and components to form something that may not (otherwise) exist naturally, and it is precisely for this reason that only man-made things can rightfully and morally be claimed as one’s own.
As to personal and not private property, I have and always will maintain that there should be no private but only personal property. To differentiate, personal property is that which one personally and physically needs and uses as against private property which can be something that one has reserved a right or entitlement over but may not necessarily need and much less make use of.
It is important not to have private property (at least not yet or not for immature and irresponsible and self-centered societies) — because it is private property that is one of the primary and major causes of global poverty — because it poses a great and tempting risk of guaranteed and secured (but non-essential — to survival) wealth accumulation and depriving others from (productive) utility, especially for those in need of essential personal subsistence and survival (i.e., private ownership of land or real estate held in possession but not put into productive use or otherwise idle land).