Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free

Customer Reviews:

No Better Biography On Paul.......2007-09-24

Frederick Fyvie Bruce was a conservative engelical who had much influence in the British Isles. His work still stands as a testimony to his beliefs, in stark contrast to the majority of scholars in Britain who have capitulated to modern Christianity, due to an abundance of the New Perspective on Paul gathering.

So I heartily enjoyed this read, as it was free from the debates of 'which Paul' was being portrayed from the outset. Bruce singularly and emphatically went to work on the biblical text available to him, as his primary source.

The life of Paul is a complex one. His missionary work would fill a whole volume. His Epistles do. His theology has unsuccessfully been attempted to be formulated from the first century.

In Bruce's work, we have an non-contradictory, chronological reading of Paul's life. This makes for good reading and assists in understanding the varying challenges Paul faced and stood up to, at specific times in his life.

Paul's motto, 'To Live Is Christ, To Die Is Gain', is made alive in the pages that repeatedly deal with his unique ability to prioritize this life subjected to the next. He lives for the future calling and heavenly reward.

Soteriology is evidently a major theological study in Paul's contribution to the New Testament. Bruce engages with the subject matter and frequently makes assessments that are new, yet are in keeping with the conservative convictions.

As I continued to read, I found Bruce's knowledge of the ancient Middle-East and modern Mediterranean a valuable help in establishing the social systems unique to each place and race. He conveniently does not overstate the historical facts, but nicely highlights these cross-cultural boundaries that our first missionary had to contend with.

Paul would have liked to have read this and may one day very well do so!
Their is no better resource on Paul than this, given that their are hidden undercurrents in the New Perspective agenda.

Bruce - Distorting the life of Paul.......2007-04-29

Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, by F. F. Bruce is a well known work on the life of the Aposlte Paul and his contribution to the New Testament. It appears to derive its title from 2 Cor 3.17. Bruce has the following quote on page 21: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there the heart is free." This is the first of many problems with this book. It is not an accurate quote of the verse which actually reads: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."(NASB). I checked other versions and was unable to find one which translated the verse as quoted by Bruce. In fairness Bruce did not cite the version he quoted (in my opinion that is another failure on his part) so he may have the quote correct, but misquoting, or failing to provide a reference for a quotation this important at best demonstrates inattention to detail and at worst deliberate modification. This is unfortunate as I approached this book with a fair degree of anticipation. I was looking forward to learning about Paul and his influence on the early church.

For me, the fatal flaw in the book occurs on page 188 where Bruce writes:
"To keep the whole law was no easy task, but it was not impossible. The rich man who assured Jesus that he had kept all the commandments of the Decalogue from his youth was no hypocrite, and no more was Paul when, looking back on his earlier life from the perspective of twenty to thirty years' Christian experience, he says that "as to righteousness under the law" he was "blameless" (Phil 3.6),"

Fundamental to the need for the cross is the fact that no one can live a blameless life ...a life without violating the law. If it was possible to do so, even for one person, then Jesus did not need to die on the cross for our sins. Bruce appears to strike at the heart of this fundamental doctrine of Christianity. I disagree with Bruce on this. [Strike one]

On page 340, while recounting the story of Eutychus from Acts 20.9, Bruce says of this account that Eutychus was not dead but merely knocked unconscious by the three story fall and far from performing a miracle, Paul merely revived Euthychus "(perhaps performing some form of artificial respiration)". This statement severely troubled me as I tried to remember, without success, if Bruce had mentioned any miracles in the preceding 328 pages. I disagree with Bruce's conclusion on this event. [Strike 2]

Then on page 373 commenting on Acts 28.3-6, Bruce comments in a footnote that there are no poisonous snakes on Malta today and goes on to cite W. M. Ramsey suggesting that the snake Paul encountered was not poisonous either. Based on his comments regarding this and the incident with Eutychus I do not think that Bruce believes that miracles are possible. I disagree with Bruce on this item. [Strike 3]

I am not a new Christian. I have been studying the Bible and reading related books for 30 years. Much of the information in this book is, of necessity, based on speculation by the author. For that reason, the author must have the trust of the reader. When the author betrays either bias or error regarding facts which I as the reader have knowledge of, he loses credibility to be trusted in correctly relating information which I do not know. Well footnoted garbage is still garbage. The problems cited above are not a complete list of the issues with this book. However, they are sufficient for me to go against the majority opinion. Based on the above I believe this book to be an unreliable source of information.

A Worthy Study on the Apostle Paul.......2004-08-03

This is a worthy study on the fourth most important man of Christianity...Paul, former Pharisee, cheif of sinners and apostle to the Gentiles. The book abounds in historical references and notes. Paul is certianly a man
of his time. Bruce covers Paul's life from the fragments of quotes on his childhood..on through to
his end. Interspersed is chapters that Bruce provides additional insights like "Paul and the Historical Jesus",
"Flesh and Spirit" , "Baptism and the Lord's Supper in Pauline Thought", also "Paul and the Life to Come."
The weakness of the book is the frequent quotes from liberal scholars..like Karl Barth and others. Their arguements have no validity since their "higher criticism" deny the supernatural working of God in the life of Paul. Another weakness is that Bruce is of the Covenant Theology view...which tends
to mix God's purpose for Israel with His purpose for the Church.
But the strengths over come these weaknesses.

Wow, this book is great.......2004-07-03

I'm about half way thru this book. It is filled with info you need to know: the history of the early church; Roman politics, laws; what the Sanhedrin could/could not do; political/theological battles between the Pharisee and the Saducees; politics of Stephens death; theological dilemma of Paul (pre Damascus) if Jesus was the Messiah yet was crucified/hung on a tree; development of the early Christian theology. Every page has something intensely interesting to we Christians. Really makes Acts come alive. Really helps illuminate some of Paul's writings when you understand what was going on at the time and why he was defending himself at times. Exciting, interesting, keep your bible open and be ready for an adventure.

Wow, this book is great.......2004-07-03

I'm about half way thru this book. It is filled with info you need to know: the history of the early church; Roman politics, laws; what the Sanhedrin could/could not do; political/theological battles between the Pharisee and the Saducees; politics of Stephens death; theological dilemma of Paul if Jesus was the Messiah yet was crucified/hung on a tree; development of the early Christian theology. Every page has something intensely interesting to we Christians. Really makes Acts come alive. Really helps illuminate some of Paul's writings when you understand what was going on at the time and why he was defending himself at times.

Book Description

Through the words of a man who lived it, the reader experience the discomfort, hunger, and danger of life in the maelstrom of mortal combat.

Customer Reviews:

How amazingly UNAWARE we all are!.......2002-08-29

An incredible true story of Warren Jackson's life in Europe. How little this country knows what kind of conditions our fore fathers went through during World War I. Jackson tells his story from the heart, during the entire book. Some parts of his story, you'll be wishing there was more he would of said, but definately a good read.

Amazon.com

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are as cherished today as when Thomas Jefferson enumerated them 231 years ago, but traditional faith isn't doing as well (witness Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens). If God goes, do our rights go with him? Not according to Alan Dershowitz, who in Rights from Wrongs proposes the theory that they come not from God (theists have no monopoly on moral behavior), nature (whose first rule is selfishness), or the law itself (Dershowitz is no fan of legal positivism). Rather, he argues that, in a sense, two wrongs do make a right: that our rights are built from the ground up, in the manner of the common law: we "agree upon the least desirable ways of life and seek to protect against those evils." Dershowitz is likely to lose some readers, especially those who trend toward the right, in the book's second half, where he begins to apply his theory to issues including organ donation, separation of church and state, animal rights, and immigration. Regardless, Rights from Wrongs is a fine companion piece to the "atheist trilogy": well-argued, thought-provoking, and likely to appeal to those interested in politics and philosophy as well as religion and law. --Benjamin Lukoff

Book Description

This is a wholly new and compelling answer to one of the most persistent dilemmas in both law and moral philosophy: If rights are "natural"-if, in the words of the Declaration of Independence, it is "self-evident that all men are endowed...with certain inalienable rights"-where do these rights come from? Does natural law really exist outside the formal structure of humanly enacted law? On the other hand, if rights are nothing more than the product of human law, what argument is there for allowing the "rights" of a few people to outweigh the preferences of the majority?

In this book, renowned legal scholar Alan Dershowitz offers a fresh resolution to this age-old dilemma: Rights, he argues, do not come from God, nature, logic, or law alone. They arise out of particular experiences with injustice. While justice is an elusive concept, hard to define and subject to conflicting interpretations, injustice is immediate, intuitive, widely agreed upon and very tangible.

This is a timely book that will have an immediate impact on our political dialogue, from the intersection of religion and law to recent quandaries surrounding the right to privacy, voting rights, and the right to marry. More than that, it is a passionate case for the recognition of human rights in a rigorously secular framework. Rights from Wrongs will be the first book to propose a theory of rights that emerges not from some theory of perfect justice but from its opposite: from the bottom up, from trial and error, and from our collective experience of injustice.

Customer Reviews:

A good read. An interesting theory........2006-07-03

I loved this book,not because I completely agree with Dershowitz theory(although generally I do),but because of how clear and understandable he writes for the non-scholar,such as me.

Dershowitz does a great job dismissing the simplistic and silly idea that rights come from God.Which god?The god of the bible?The god of the koran? If the God of the Bible is the source of our rights,then why did women have so few in biblical times?Why was slavery permitted?Why did religious minorities have no rights?If one worshipped any other god it was punishable by death.If a child was disrepectful of his parents he could be stoned to death.These things seem barbaric to us because we have seen through the lens of human experience that these things are unjust.Neither the bible,nor any other holy book ,is the source of our rights,but a codification of what an ancient people thought their rights should be,based upon their unique circumstances,their historical experiences,and the particular culture in which their lives and history developed.

The same can be said for the argument that our rights are "self-evident",that they come from "nature and nature's god"as stated in the Declaration of Independence.At that time slavery was legal,women had far fewer rights than they do today,native americans had few rights,as did those who owned little or no property.Apparantly many of the rights that we take for granted were not very self-evident only 230 years ago.

I highly recommend this book.It is well-written and an enjoyable read.

Challenging, but Dershowitz is Right (and Left).......2006-02-15

This high level book on legal philosophy attempts to discover and explain the origins and future development of human rights and civil liberties. Legal scholar, Harvard law professor and author Alan Dershowitz makes no attempt to tutor readers. He starts from an expert philosophical perspective, and only goes deeper as he seamlessly navigates through contemporary, historical and judicial examples to present his theory about the origins of rights. Dershowitz is a masterful, machete-wielding guide through a dense, challenging forest of ideas laced with tangled vines of legal ideology. We recommend his book to readers with prior knowledge of the progress of human rights and U.S. civil liberties, as well as social and legal philosophy. It is a notch thick for good cocktail party conversation or easy undergraduate debate. However, it exemplifies Dershowitz's vivid thought process and powerful command of social philosophy. Dershowitz and other civil libertarians feel constantly compelled to challenge any court rulings or majority-held opinions that even remotely hint of infringing on real or perceived personal rights. This book fully explains why.

An Exploration into the Philosophy of Law.......2006-02-02

The California Constitution begins with a statement that all rights arise from God. The Federal Constitution makes no
mention of God at all. The Declaration of Independence relies on a philosophy of natural rights...eg. the rights to life, liberty and happiness. Professor Dershowitz argues for a "theory of rights" that derive from a community's experience of harm or injustice. I would agree that he correctly determines the "source of rights", but, I think, different communities will have different perceptions of injustices as well as conflicting solutions. (I might add that human nature is imperfect and many societies use scapegoats to address a problem). So when the Germans were crippled by the peace terms with the Allied powers after the conclusion of World War I, what should the solution have been? Or in abortion cases, do we place emphasis on the right of the fetus to life or the right of the woman to choose? Therefore, there can be no universal system of rights, even though most societies punish murder, theft, and adultery.

Historically, there will also be an interrelationship between a community's religion and law, a determination of rights that
Dershowitz studiously avoids. For example, in many Moslem cultures, the Koran will influence the determination of rights - e.g. the rights belonging to someone who practices Islam versus, let's say, the rights of someone who worships idols.

Nevertheless, Professor Dershowitz forces us to think about these great issues and develop new rights or expand old ones if communities can minimize injustice. A worthy read.

Excellent Read, but Liberal Bias Pervades.......2005-10-07

Rights from Wrongs is an excellent read; it essentially expands on essays Dershowitz wrote in Shouting Fire. I was glad to get a more in-depth analysis on his theory on the origin of human rights.

The theory that human rights come from human wrongs is really not novel in that correcting social evils is the animus of most democratic public legislation; indeed, legislators, and others looking to discern legislative intent, strive first to identify the social evil that the legislation was, or is, intended to correct.

Dershowitz's liberal bias pervades this work, as he emphasizes the social evils that liberals hate, while discounting the social evils that conservatives hate, as if they weren't as compelling when, in truth, they are no less compelling (or perhaps even more compelling). For example, on the issue of abortion, Dershowitz sees the social evil of women being forced to get abortions in back alleys as the animus for the right to abortion, while discounting the equally compelling social evils than animate opposing abortion; i.e., cheapening life to the point of abetting infanticide, euthanasia, and other forms of murder, including genocide. (See the example of Nazi ethics as practiced in Europe.) Indeed, the "right to life" is no less born out of human wrongs than is the "right" to an abortion.

Similarly, on the issue of organ donation, Dershowitz sees the social evil of not having organs available for transplant as the rationale for a right to organ donation, while discounting the very real social evil of executing, murdering, and otherwise killing people prematurely in order to obtain high in demand organs by desperate customers willing to pay top dollar for them as the animus for avoiding such a right. (See, for example, practices by the Chinese government and other "organ dealers.") I especially take issue with Dershowitz's position that "[a]nyone who refuses to sign the box on the driver's license application, which constitutes consent to removal of organs after death, is either a coward, a fool, a knave, or a slave to superstition or religious fundamentalism." (210) I refuse to sign that box for none of those reasons: I refuse to sign, because I don't want someone to hasten my death on account of a customer willing to pay top dollar for my organs: I want physicians focused on saving my life, not on ending it for a profit! To prevent a hastening of death is my understanding of why Judaism, in particular, opposes organ donation, and not merely because the body should be interred whole. This is a fence erected around a very real social evil that Dershowitz would have us believe to be somewhat chimerical, and it is not chimerical at all.

Last but not least, Dershowitz would have an easier time if he would just concede God's existence. I have witnessed him go to every extreme to avoid conceding God's existence, and this book is no exception! To debate the existence of God is foolish, in my eyes, although I concede there is a continuing debate to be had over God's morality, since God (in the Judeo-Christian context) compels morality in a world which God Himself created as amoral. Morality is the challenge, but it is also a solution (the best solution?), to the evils of an amoral world.

Unconvincing.......2005-09-18

I bought this book more after a passion for political philosophy than after an interest for politics proper or for jurisprudential considerations. And yes, the fame of the author had a role as well in my choice...

Nonetheless, I could not enjoy the essay.
I use the verb "enjoy", because this kind of essays are not just helpful, but they are positively "pleasant" given that they are able to open the reader's view to new landscapes and help the mind to work...

Unfortunately this book is too specific... and often I had an unpleasant impression of aridity and unconcern.
I made some guesses to explain the reason, and the most plausible is that the author wrote the essay after some specific university conference: under this hypothesis, you can understand why it is so specific and why it often seems to reply to other theories not explicitly presented.

As a reader I was more interested in the "secular theory" (to quote the Title) and in the philosophical debate about rights, duties and responsibility. So the first part of the essay (The Origin of Rights) was definitely the one I most desired to read. It was also the most deluding.

What I most resent from the author is the absence of a clear-cut definition of the word "right" and a dangerous relativism by which almost everything can be justified.

PART ONE, The Origins of Rights, is mostly a confutation of other theories, the "natural", the "divine" and the "legal" sources. In their place Dershovitz proposes a "nurtural" (that is a mix of experience and culture) source, based on a kind of experimental, cultural and semi-evolutionist approach.
In doing this he puts himself in the wider perspective of the American Pragmatism.
Can you confute a theory (or theories) about the origins of rights without trying to define what a right is?
Actually it is what happens here.
The author forgets to produce an explicit definition of right. This is the main weakness in the essay, because the lack of definition ends in endangering the whole structure of the reasoning. With no clear definition, a right can be anything and nothing.
Apparently for Dershowitz all rights are more or less similar and equal (are the right to welfare and constitutional rights the same?), since they bear the same birth by "nurture" and all are considered always open to further challenge by experience. No right is eternal.

PART TWO, "Some challenges to experience as a source of rights", deals more specifically with the author's proposal to use experience and culture (or "nurture" as he prefer to call it) as foundation for rights.

PART THREE is mostly focused on specific contemporary issues: the right to life, the right of speech, animal and environmental rights and, lastly, the future of rights in an age of global terror.

What can definition tell us about rights?
Well, first it can tell us something about the nature of rights and the many "families" of rights.
Not just first generation rights (constitutional rights), "second generation" (the rights to welfare) and lastly third generation (the environmental rights).
Not just negative rights (those limiting the action of Government, usually favored by neo-cons) vs. positive rights (the rights of citizens to receive welfare from the State, usually favored by Liberals).
But also the distinction - too often abused -between rights and duties.
And lastly the eventual link by rights, duties and morality.

Lacking a clear definition of right, the author resorts to a weak theory of "nurture", that is a kind of semi-evolutionary theory in which the relevant terms are experience and culture.
The main problems of this theory are three:
- the risk to confound philosophy and sociology, that is to find justification from history and culture and not from logic and principles (righs as a compensation for past wrongs)
- confusion between Philosophy and Science. Philosophy, be it Logics or Morality, is totally the result of the mind. To talk about a quasi-Darwinian evolution of rights is to miss completely the point...
- the risk not to be able to produce a definitive and unequivocal censure to historical mayor breaking of rights (as well as of moral laws), since justification of rights ends to be in the hands of the winning party (a disaster if the winning party is the wrongdoers'). This is a relevant issue since it opens the theory to the justification of every possible mischief (Nazi laws, Serbian ethnic cleansing,...). To be honest, Dershovitz sees the risk and tries to explain why it is not so... but sincerely I could not see any strong ground.
He seems to justify the situation of prisoners in Guantanamo and even the last resort to torture, basing his judgment on of the specific historical situation, relevant culture and ultimate success of these policies - but under these regards Stalin's policies can be easily justified as well, because "necessitated" by the political situation and the need of new revolutionary Russia to survive (yet I guess few of the victims of Soviet terror would willingly agree with this viewpoint).
The call for experience, even balanced by culture, ends often in the priority of means over -and sometimes to detriment to - ends: if I can fight terror efficiently by curbing rights, why not? But the role of rights is to be there as a fence to prevent easy shortcuts endangering individual guarantees.

Personally I believe that for some rights - specially constitutional or first generation rights - justification has to be found in an absolute prohibition expressed by common morality to harm or cause pain to others in absence of adequate reason. In the light of common morality no Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic can be excused. By the same token derives the consequence that these rights have to be guarded and kept non-negotiable, because not funded on experience but on the fundamental social contract (or social language, whatever) that keeps democracy alive: in this sense these rights must be considered - even if risking to be rhetorical - "sacred".
Every Fundamental Right that has not a strong justification - other that the accidental historical and cultural cases - can be easily forfeited as "un-democratic" or because of higher necessity.

Some chapters result completely redundant and out of place.
CHAPTER 12, Can rights cause injustice? Here a rather incongruous theory of the anti-democratic nature of rights is advanced! (but are not rights the building block of every democracy? Usually we associate lack of rights and lack of democracy) Rights are always in a certain sense "egoistic" since they do not look positively at sociability, but are mostly insurances against the embedded risks of sociality)
CHAPTER 13, Is the debate on the external sources of rights liberal or conservative? Out of place and too bland to be really relevant and interesting.

If you've been so patient to follow me so far and understand what I wrote, there can be a chance you share some of my interests.
I'd like also to recommend and list other books -specifically relevant to this theme - I had the chance to read in the past about the same argument, in the hope they could be of any use:
- Stephen Holmes & Cass R. Sunstein - "The cost of Rights. Why Liberty depends on Taxes" (1999). This is specific on this argument and is also up to now the best book I read on the subject.
- Amitai Etzioni - "Communitarism". It deals marginally with rights, specially in the opposition of right to duties. Very interesting essay, but I could not agree with the author, whose proposal ends to be the creation of sealed communities, united by common interests.
- Bernard Gert - "Morality. Its nature and Justification". In the second part it deals as well with rights with regard to moral laws and moral ideas. Highly interesting, but no easy read. A chapter is dedicated to the theme of Rights and Political Ideas.
- Bernard Gert - "Common Morality. Deciding what to do" - an abridgement of the former, it can be helpful in understanding that a strong moral justification - other than experience, culture or "nurture" - for rights can be found and defended.

You are truly welcome if you can suggest other readings or just share ideas and comments!
Thanks for reading.

Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights

Average customer rating:

compelling arguments

Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights
Alan M. Dershowitz
Manufacturer: Basic Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Civil Rights & Liberties | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History & Theory | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Human Rights | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Subjects | Books

Human Rights | Constitutional Law | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Law | Professional & Technical | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0465017142

Amazon.com

Book Description

Where do our rights come from? Does "natural law" really exist outside of what is written in constitutions and legal statutes? If so, why are rights not the same everywhere and in all eras? On the other hand, if rights are nothing more than the product of human law, why should we ever allow them to override the popular will?

In Rights from Wrongs, renowned legal scholar Alan Dershowitz puts forward a wholly new and compelling answer to this age-old dilemma: Rights, he argues, do not come from God, nature, logic, or law alone. They arise out of particular human experiences with injustice.

Rights from Wrongs is the first book to propose a theory of rights that emerges not from a theory of perfect justice but from its opposite: from the bottom up, from trial and error, and from our collective experience of injustice. Human rights come from human wrongs.

"[Dershowitz's] underlying theory is one that can be neutrally applied by people residing at all positions within the political spectrum.... Perhaps if his views were understood by more people, there would be both a toning down of the political rhetoric." -Tampa Tribune

Customer Reviews:

compelling arguments.......2006-02-22

Mr. Dershowitz has a secular theory of how our ideas of human rights evolved over time. He rejects the idea that "rights" can be derived from natural law, divine law, logic, or even human jurisprudence. He posits that "human rights" come from experience with "human wrongs," those events that we all agree have gone very badly. In other words, human rights evolved as sort of a trial-and-error golden rule: stop doing unto others what we really wouldn't want to be done unto us. He calls this approach "working from the bottom up, from a dystopian view of our experiences with injustice..."

The first half of the book deals primarily with where our rights come from. (from experience, he argues) The second half of the book switches gears to contemporary issues and controversies. Here he offers no answers, but rather argues that the answers will change depending on how the argument is framed. There are points at which the author comes across as arrogant, but hey, he's a lawyer. The arguments are compelling and well-crafted, and most readers will find that they agree with some points and disagree with others.

Overall, this book is well-written and at times it is even engaging. If you have any interest in legal, political, or ethical theory, this book is worth reading. If you are a Social Darwinist or an Ethicist of any religious stripe, you may be interested in learning about how "the other guy" thinks.

Dershowitz's rights and wrongs.(Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origin of Rights)(Book review): An article from: Skeptic (Altadena, CA)

Average customer rating:

Dershowitz's rights and wrongs.(Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origin of Rights)(Book review): An article from: Skeptic (Altadena, CA)
Kenneth W. Krause
Manufacturer: Thomson Gale
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Book Description

This digital document is an article from Skeptic (Altadena, CA), published by Thomson Gale on September 22, 2005. The length of the article is 1532 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Dershowitz's rights and wrongs.(Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origin of Rights)(Book review)
Author: Kenneth W. Krause
Publication: Skeptic (Altadena, CA) (Magazine/Journal)
Date: September 22, 2005
Publisher: Thomson Gale
Volume: 12 Issue: 3 Page: 75(3)

Article Type: Book review

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Rights as a learning experience.(Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights)(book by Alan Dershowitz)(Book Review) : An article from: The Humanist

Average customer rating:

Rights as a learning experience.(Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights)(book by Alan Dershowitz)(Book Review) : An article from: The Humanist
David A. Niose
Manufacturer: American Humanist Association
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Book Description

This digital document is an article from The Humanist, published by American Humanist Association on May 1, 2005. The length of the article is 1315 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Rights as a learning experience.(Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights)(book by Alan Dershowitz)(Book Review)
Author: David A. Niose
Publication: The Humanist (Refereed)
Date: May 1, 2005
Publisher: American Humanist Association
Volume: 65 Issue: 3 Page: 41(2)

Article Type: Book Review

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Rights from Wrongs: a Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights.(Book Review): An article from: Reviewer's Bookwatch

Average customer rating:

Rights from Wrongs: a Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights.(Book Review): An article from: Reviewer's Bookwatch
Jim Sullivan
Manufacturer: Midwest Book Review
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital

Online Books | Books & Reading | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books

General | Science | Subjects | Books

Science & Technology | Subjects | e-Docs | Formats | Books
ASIN: B00096YYCA
Release Date: 2005-07-13

Book Description

This digital document is an article from Reviewer's Bookwatch, published by Midwest Book Review on February 1, 2005. The length of the article is 538 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Rights from Wrongs: a Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights.(Book Review)
Author: Jim Sullivan
Publication: Reviewer's Bookwatch (Newsletter)
Date: February 1, 2005
Publisher: Midwest Book Review
Page: NA

Article Type: Book Review

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights.(Book Review): An article from: Trial

Average customer rating:

Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights.(Book Review): An article from: Trial
Emily Sack
Manufacturer: Thomson Gale
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital

Book Description

This digital document is an article from Trial, published by Thomson Gale on May 1, 2005. The length of the article is 1309 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: Rights from Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights.(Book Review)
Author: Emily Sack
Publication: Trial (Magazine/Journal)
Date: May 1, 2005
Publisher: Thomson Gale
Volume: 41 Issue: 5 Page: 78(3)

Article Type: Book Review

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Book Description

Three eminent scientists, each well known for the clarity of their writing, present for students and researchers what is known about the internal structure, origin and evolution of White Dwarfs, Neutron Stars and Black Holes, all objects at the final stage of stellar evolution. They cover fascinating topics such as pulsation of white dwarfs, millisecond pulsars or the dynamics around black holes. The book is written for graduate students in astrophysics, but is also of interest to professional astronomers and physicists.

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books