Essay.

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” Mark 2:17.

Accend your imagination.

So who cares about the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity)? What is your point? It has clearly all been said/done before. The point is that trust me despite Christ and the Buddha you never think about it. I know I didn’t.


Definition.

noun (Primitivism)

  1. a recurrent theory or belief, as in philosophy or art, that the qualities of primitive or chronologically early cultures are superior to those of contemporary civilization.
  2. the state of being primitive: the primitivism of the Stone Age peoples.
  3. the qualities or style characterizing primitive art.
Stone Age weapon.
Stone Age weapon.

Acatalepsy.

Primitivism is the inverse of divine ascription because the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are, that is that the poor deserve divinity and not the rich, for example from super-rich Egyptian god-kings to Jesus Christ. To reiterate the theory works economically or socially in the inverse or counter direction to conventional social standards or norms. That is that it does not seek profit and that it looks back to those whose names we cannot know on earth, such as the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of those whose names we do know and who are famous, including the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. Hence, because it works backwards or inversely to capitalism or instincts, I believe it can help to explain the Lord’s Prayer. Like the spiritual and divine in general, the Lord’s Prayer is not acataleptic.

The whole concept of poverty being a noble virtue or the tale of the rich man and the poor man is a main theme in Christianity. As will be seen the ancient Egyptians and Romans had no such morality. The ancient Egyptians worshipped super-rich god-kings while the entire Roman system of government and political eligibility was based on financial tests or wealth assessments.

Foundations.

The Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) are founded on the following sentence:

The poorer you are the more native or primitive you are.

The above simple sentence is Christian and is entirely noble and altruistic and was thought of out of total and genuine care and concern for my own people.


Questions and answers.

How do you practice the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity)?

It is generosity and forgiveness. The sentence that the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are makes me look back to poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future, therefore, it makes me give money to those less fortunate than myself. It makes me have no desire for a lot of money and give a lot of what little I have away. Giving money away is the only real action that a spiritual seeker can take that actually does something, as opposed to praying, meditating or self mortification. Giving money away is also a non-lethal leap of faith that anyone can take. The innocence of primitivism and crime relativity is explained below.

Generosity (Sanskrit and Pali: dana) is one of the perfections of the practitioner in Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. It is said that Shakyamuni practiced generosity and the other perfections for many lifetimes before attaining enlightenment. The Jataka tales of his past lives illustrate this virtue through stories in which he gives away everything, including his own body, to help others. The famous Vessantara Jataka tells the story of the last life of Shakyamuni before he became the Buddha. He was born as Prince Vessantara who attained perfection in generosity by giving away all his possessions and even his wife and two children.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 133).

How does the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) work?

It makes me point or look back instead of forward. Nobody on earth looks back to the unfashionable, such as medieval people. White people are the unfashionable. As mentioned the sentence that the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are simply makes me look back to poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. This concerns countries as well as people, which means instead of looking at the (fashionable) new world superpower l look back to the (unfashionable) old power and glory. How the innocence of primitivism and crime relativity works is explained below.

B77D0DF6-02B5-464F-B5E6-ED977B4535BB
(Unfashionable) medieval peasant.

What field exactly is the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity)? 

It is my faith and my belief. It is religion, scripture and parables.

When you take monastic ordination, you leave behind the comfort and familiarity of family and friends and enter an entirely new world where the old rules no longer apply. You give external expression to your inner renunciation by cutting off your hair (a mark of personal beauty and pride), giving up your favorite clothes, and letting go of your prized possessions.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 135).

Why can’t humans attain nirvana like Christ and the Buddha before they die? What do you care more about the amount of money you have or attaining nirvana or Buddhahood?

How can we be spiritual with Christianity? What I mean by spirituality is that sitting cross legged and meditating is not a particularly Christian thing to do. Europeans do not sit cross legged, Asians do. Therefore, it is really hard to be spiritual with Christianity compared to Buddhism. I have read The Gospel of Buddha and Buddhism For Dummies and I frequently use the Buddhify and Abide apps, and it seems a lot easier to be spiritual with Buddhism and more comfortable than Christianity. It’s as if there is nothing to do in Christianity, we get no instruction. We get to prey, the New Testament, the Lord’s Prayer and Communion and that’s about it. With Buddhism there is so much teaching, instruction and meditation. The Buddha taught us how to remove suffering. For example, there is the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, the Dhammapada, and the vinaya besides a lot more. In short Buddhism is cool. Being spiritual with Christianity is a bit cringing. Why?

B173F389-E398-4796-B2BE-75966FF6A725
Meditating Christ.

Through meditating with the Abide app, I have realised that the reason it is easy and cool to be spiritual with Buddhism and it is difficult and a bit cringing to be spiritual with Christianity is because Buddhism teaches you that you can attain Buddhahood, enlightenment and nirvana, where as Christianity never teaches you that you can attain divinity like Christ or ‘Christhood’. It is a fundamental aspect of Buddhism to pursue enlightenment or nirvana, you vow to attain it, where as there is nothing like it in Christianity. This is why Christianity (especially among young people) is dying.

The Theravada tradition considers the final goal of spiritual practice [nirvana], exemplified by the arhat, to be eminently attainable in this lifetime by any sincere practitioner.

Indeed, Vajrayana promises that everyone has the potential to achieve Buddhahood in this lifetime by using the powerful methods it provides.

The teachings about the tathagatagarbha (Sanskrit for “Buddha embryo” or “Buddha nature”) found in some Mahayana texts have influenced the schools of Zen Buddhism. According to these teachings, all beings have the potential to become Buddhas.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 204-205).

So why does Buddhism allow us to pursue enlightenment or nirvana and Christianity not? It might be because the Buddha lived a full and lengthy life reaching the age of 80 before he died naturally, that is 45 years of teaching and preaching after he attained nirvana at the age of 35. While Jesus Christ was brutally killed unnaturally and before his time, by being nailed to the cross at the age of 30 or 33.

So how do you attain brotherly Buddhahood or ‘Christhood’? To me a fundamental aspect of it is that you have to give everything away. The rest of this essay will expand on this and will try to show us some insight into how that may be possible.

Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:1.

Whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

1 John 2:6.

To point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts, (because the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are), is to imitate Christ and the Buddha.

What is the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism?

As will be seen ‘in the beginning’ the ancient Egyptians and Romans ascribed divinity to super-rich god kings and god-like emperors, such as Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II of the 11th-Dynasty and Julius Caesar. The statement that the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are, points in the inverse or opposite direction of capitalism or instincts, that is to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future, thereby creating the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism. It means that the poor deserve divinity and not the rich, for example Jesus Christ deserved divinity where as Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II or Julius Caesar did not.

How can we make it so that the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are?

We could say that for example all people are equally native or primitive, that is that the Queen is just as native or primitive as a working class Briton on minimum wage. However, as will be seen the statement that the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are creates the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism, in that it demonstrates that a working class person on minimum wage deserves divinity a lot more than the Queen. It makes us more altruistic and noble meaning that we look back to, point in the direction of and care about our own poor people, more than rich and famous people.

The less the more, the more the less.

Why and how is primitivism linked to innocence?

The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are. Therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are.

What does this mean?

There are two opposite ways in which one can be advanced or primitive: collective or individual.

  1. Collective: The younger or more modern you are the more advanced you are, therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are. Therefore the older or more ancient you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. This means that slavery was relatively more acceptable in ancient and medieval times, also that such as Jeffrey Dahmer got into much more trouble for cannibalism than did Homo antecessor.
  2. Individual: The older or more adult you are the more advanced you are therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are. Therefore the younger or more juvenile you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. This means that adults get into much more trouble than kids for sin.

It was obviously much less of an issue for ancient, medieval, early modern and even Victorian people to slave than it is for us modern people to slave today. I have read many contemporary books on the discovery and exploration of West Africa, and two books particularly were related to slavery, one by Carl Bernhard Wadstrom and another by Jean Barbot. I learned that Carl Bernhard Wadstrom was a passionate abolitionist while Jean Barbot was a practicing slaver by trade. How was slavery more acceptable in Henry the Navigator’s or Jean Barbot’s ‘time’ and more abhorrent in ours or Carl Bernhard Wadstrom’s time? Because medieval and early modern people were more primitive and modern people are more advanced. Also ‘in the beginning’ nobody told medieval man, such as Henry the Navigator, ‘thou shalt not slave!’ Therefore he obviously slaved. We should not judge primitive people such as Henry the Navigator or Jean Barbot, even the Old Testament, Plato and Aristotle spoke positively of slavery. For example, prehistoric man did some unspeakable things such as rape, murder and cannibalism, but would we judge them? No!

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”

Luke 6:37.

The coming of The Son of Man.

Primitive innocence determines that because prehistoric man, such as Neolithic man had stone technology they were as innocent as new born babies!

F88F96EE-FA18-4E1C-BA1F-39CFD409D07E
The Christ child.

Like how prehistoric man with his stone tools was innocently primitive like a new born baby, similarly the Christ was primitively innocent like a new born baby, yet despite His pure innocence Christ was crucified for the forgiveness of all our sins. Both prehistoric man and The Son of Man touch us with their primitive innocence. Jesus even told us that we will never enter the kingdom of heaven unless we become like little children.

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,”He said,“unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Matthew 18:1-6.

How is crime or sin relative?

There is no morality in advanced sciences, however, there is morality and even forgiveness in generic relativity or https://crimerelativity.com. To demonstrate consider the following. Crimes and sins are relative in that for example cannibalism was relatively no issue with such as Homo antecessor because Homo antecessor was so primitive and had no infrastructure, technology or medicine etc and because Homo antecessor came from such a distant ‘time’ or epoch, therefore, killing and cannibalism were relatively less of an issue for them. However, therefore, murder and cannibalism today by such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish are so ‘relatively evil’ compared with Homo antecessor because they are out of place and in the wrong ‘time’. For example with modern serial killers and cannibals something has gone seriously wrong with ‘time’ and relativity. However, ‘time’ and relativity give us hope that there could be a cure for and absolution of such anachronistic crimes and sins. Let us pray crime relativity or relativity of evil will shed ‘light’ on these darkest areas of human existence. Again for example, we would never judge Homo antecessor for killing and cannibalism, therefore, we should bare this in mind when judging and condemning such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish, as they are only ‘relatively evil’ because they are more modern and advanced. Therefore, as will be seen, if such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish became, thought like or accepted that they were primitive, prehistoric or even animal, then their sins would be much ‘lighter’. Only with these primitive hominins and in these places and ‘times’ could they be accepted and forgiven. ‘Time’ determines that they are ‘relatively evil’, that is the only difference.

https://sinrelativity.com

‪How is primitivism linked to relativity?‬

‪Primitivism is ‘time’ in that the further you go back in ‘time’ the more primitive life was, therefore, the more innocent animals (such as humans) were relatively. Crime relativity is the theory that a criminal, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, can theoretically go back in ‘time’ mentally or spiritually to a more primitive ‘time’ period such as the Palaeolithic period in order to find forgiveness and acceptance.‬

https://relativityofsin.com

How or why should we look backwards instead of forwards?

The Anglo-Saxons were proud of the Normans, and the Normans were proud of the Tudors, and the Tudors were proud of the Victorians, but are the Victorians proud of us? No. Today politicians, the left and anti-fascists are deliberately disconnecting from our past, and I expect that our more primitive ancestors who are in heaven are also disconnecting from us. For example, I once saw a tweet in which Kay Burley (Sky News presenter) referred to a fellow tweeter as having “knuckle-dragging xenophobia!” Obviously Kay Burley was referring to Hitler, but why ascribe “knuckle-dragging xenophobia” to all of our ancestors? Therefore, there is a general disconnection going on for white people with their past. However, as will be seen, because the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts, it is all about looking back instead of forward, that is to the poor, primitive prehistoric, unfashionable and past instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. This determines that it is about reconnecting with our past and being loyal to our past, despite their sins such as the Holocaust and other crimes such as slavery. Excluding Hitler, I am loyal and faithful to our past. Looking back instead of forward is also how attain the power and the glory.

05A01057-2B65-442B-938A-7A15BD3670A5
In August 2017, in The Guardian, Afua Hirsch questioned whether Nelson’s Column should remain in place, with the implication it might be removed. She argued that the London monument is a symbol of white supremacy because Horatio Nelson opposed the abolitionist movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afua_Hirsch

Not long afterward, the art historian and former museum director Sir Roy Strong said the suggestion the column should be taken down was a “ridiculous” viewpoint, commenting that “Once you start rewriting history on that scale, there won’t be a statue or a historic house standing….The past is the past. You can’t rewrite history”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afua_Hirsch

What is the standpoint of the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) on white supremacism?

Nativism is nationalist, racial and ethnic, while primitivism is not! Primitivism is neutral, universal, unbiased, generic and benign. Nativism is specific to a local geographic region such as Britain or Europe, where as primitivism is universal across the whole planet, even the universe and even across all different species. It cannot be claimed that the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) is ever white supremacism!


Shakyamuni Buddha.

Buddhist systems are based upon the teachings given 2,500 years ago by one of the great spiritual figures of human history, Shakyamuni Buddha, who lived in the fifth century BCE. According to legendary accounts of his life, he was born into the ruling family of the Shakya clan in today’s Nepal and was expected to someday succeed his father as king. Instead, Prince Siddhartha (as he was known at the time) quit the royal life at the age of 29 after he saw the reality of the extensive suffering and dissatisfaction in the world. He then set out to find a way to overcome this suffering.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 12).

By quitting the royal life at the age of 29 after seeing the reality of the extensive suffering and dissatisfaction in the world, (instead of succeeding his father as king), Shakyamuni Buddha looked back instead of forward. This exemplifies the Golden Parables or inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity).

After many hardships, at age 35, Prince Siddhartha achieved his goal. Seated under what became known as the Bodhi tree—the tree of enlightenment—he achieved the awakening of Buddhahood. Today a stone platform known as the diamond seat (vajrasana) near the Bodhi tree in Bodh Gaya marks the spot. From then on, he was known as Shakyamuni Buddha, the awakened (Buddha) sage (muni) of the Shakya clan.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 12).

The Great Renunciation.

The young Siddhartha Gautama grew up surrounded by luxury and wealth. He was protected from the harsh realities of life by his father who had been warned that his son would withdraw from the world should he encounter such sights. However, one day when riding outside the palace grounds, the future Buddha saw four things that deeply disturbed him; an old man, a sick man, a dead man and finally a wandering holy man who had given up his home and family to search for knowledge. The prince became determined to find the reason for human suffering and the final cure for it. He decided to leave his luxurious life, wives and palace to seek spiritual salvation. One night he left his palace accompanied by his attendant and richly bridled horse. When far from the city he took off his princely jewellery and clothes and cut off his hair and beard with his sword. He changed his royal robes for the simple robes worn by holy men and gave his horse to his attendant.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/b/buddhism-and-the-life-of-the-buddha/

The Great Renunciation is how Siddhartha Gautama looked back instead of forward to the poor, primitive and unfashionable instead of the rich, advanced and fashionable and it perfectly matches the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity). Siddhartha Gautama turned from the life of a wealthy prince in a luxurious palace, hidden from the miseries of the world, to the life of an ascetic holy man. This is why or how Siddhartha Gautama attained nirvana and became the Buddha.

The meaning of renunciation.

Long hair was one of the prominent signs of Indian royalty, and Siddhartha’s decision to cut his hair symbolized his strong determination to change the entire pattern of his life and devote himself to the spiritual quest. Even today, the ceremony marking someone’s formal decision to enter the Buddhist way of life often includes having a lock of hair snipped off, in imitation of the Buddha’s great renunciation. Followers who choose to become ordained as a celibate monk or a nun have their entire head shaved, as a sign that they have completely renounced the life of a layperson. But renunciation isn’t really a matter of having your hair cut or changing your outward appearance in some other way. Nor does it mean that you necessarily have to give away your possessions. The true meaning of renunciation is the decision to give up attachment. The cause of suffering and dissatisfaction is attachment, so you need to give up attachment. If you can possess something without becoming attached to it—without letting it become an obstacle to your spiritual progress or a waste of your time and energy—you don’t need to give it up.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 46).

Despite what this book says “Nor does it mean that you necessarily have to give away your possessions.” I believe if you want to be more than a lay Buddhist you do. I believe if you are as serious as the Buddha, and if you want to change the world, then you do have to give a lot away.

In other words, when you commit yourself to Buddhism as a path, you don’t renounce your family or your career; you renounce the conventional view that you can find true happiness in worldly concerns. You renounce the relentless message of the consumer society that the next car or house or vacation or accomplishment will finally relieve your dissatisfaction and bring you the contentment you so desperately seek.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 130).

The six-year fast.

Wandering in the forest with five other holy men Siddhartha followed a very strict regime of fasting and deprivation until he almost starved to death.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/b/buddhism-and-the-life-of-the-buddha/

243D7B16-834D-47A7-8C39-E8B6841B6AC2
Pursuing enlightenment, Buddha first practiced severe asceticism before recommending a non-ascetic middle way.

Thus began what later became known as the six-year fast. Siddhartha sat exposed to the elements day and night. He ate less and less, eventually consuming nothing but the few seeds that happened to blow into his lap. His body, once so glorious and attractive, became withered and shrunken. Eventually, the practice reduced Siddhartha to little more than a living skeleton, but still he persevered.

Finally, one day Siddhartha took stock of himself. He discovered that, in his weakened condition, he couldn’t think as clearly as before; therefore, he was farther from his goal than when he’d started six years ago. Tired and dirty, he decided to refresh himself in the nearby river but nearly drowned before he could pull himself out. As Siddhartha lay on the bank recovering, he realized that if he were ever going to succeed, he’d have to follow the middle way between self-indulgence and extreme self-denial. (Later this phrase, the middle way, took on more meaning and became the expression that the Buddha himself often used when referring to his teachings. Even today, Buddhism is widely known as the middle way that avoids all extremes.)

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 45).

Siddhartha Gautama deserved divinity because of his looking back instead of forward, because of his Great Renunciation and because of his almost dying of starvation.

The enlightenment.

Realising at last that he had failed to acquire spiritual knowledge by such extreme means he resolved to seek it by a moderate ‘Middle Way’. He took food and seated himself under a Bodhi tree or ‘Tree of Wisdom’, vowing not to move until he had gained enlightenment and finally solved the mystery of human suffering.

Siddhartha then entered deep meditation and through the following night had a succession of realisations that culminated in a final understanding of the cause of human suffering and sorrow. He saw his own successive re-births, how all beings passed into the higher and lower worlds and finally how craving, desire and ignorance are the cause of the process of re-birth. With this realisation he became a Buddha which means ‘Awakened One’. He remained for seven days under the Bodhi tree or ‘tree of wisdom’.

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/b/buddhism-and-the-life-of-the-buddha/

7C5E7A8C-1396-41CD-BA30-AA7429A7764F
Shakyamuni Buddha.

Secular capitalism.

Liberal democracies and especially western capitalist governments will never teach you the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity), because they are secular and capitalist. But religion does. Western governments are all about wealth and making you rich, they are driven by economic growth and profits and they literally educate you from birth to go for the maximum wage and to save up as much money as possible. However, the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts.

3. Renunciation is not simply for the ordained. For the lay, it entails the ability to quickly locate and effectively deal with the defilements circulated by capitalism, consumerism, and the mainstream mass media. 

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 20).


Energy.

What is the difference between humans and animals?

Food.

Animals such as birds are funny because they never think about sharing food, they just go for the belly or the ‘energy’ of life, that is the fats, protein and nutrients etc, without even considering another bird or animal (unlike the Golden Parables).

The benefits of sociality are not limited to mutual protection and cooperative behaviours such as food-sharing have been documented for some of the higher primates, including chimpanzees, bonobos and capuchin monkeys.

Food-sharing also plays an important role. Male chimpanzees exchange meat for support against adversaries and have also been known to raid domestic crops for items that may be traded against favours.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 24-25).

Higher primates share food in exchange for favours, however, it is very rare indeed for animals to intentionally, consciously and peacefully share food with one another. When animals see other hungry or starving animals they usually think to themselves ‘hard luck mate, you’re on your own!’

It is exceedingly rare for a squirrel to intentionally, consciously and peacefully give a nut to another squirrel.

For example have you ever fought or squabbled over food with your family? It is so greedy and humiliating! It rarely happens with Homo sapiens today, I dare say even medieval and classical people learned not fight over food. In fact I think humanity learned fairly quickly after leaving the animal kingdom not to fight over food. Modern humans fight over many things, including land, money, women and power but never food. Why is it so embarrassing to fight or argue over food? Because it is so greedy and because only prehistoric man and animals ever mud wrestled each other over food. However, someone or something had to learn the hard way by fighting over food in order to learn that sharing is good and leads to things like manners and etiquette, and that greed is evil and leads to things like anger and hate.

No animal in creation has ever intentionally and consciously cared for or healed another sick or injured animal. When animals see another sick or injured animal they think to themselves ‘hard luck mate, you’re on your own!’

What is the one thing that no human being in creation has done that Jesus Christ and the Buddha did? What is the one difference between say the Queen or superstar DJs and Jesus Christ or the Buddha?

Money.

Humans are funny like animals because they never think about sharing money, they just go for the bank account or ‘energy’ of life, that is the cash, lolly and doe etc, without even considering another human (unlike the Golden Parables).

Food is to animals as money is to humans.

Apart from Jesus Christ and the Buddha and perhaps Saint Francis of Assisi and his followers, no human has ever intentionally and consciously given all of their money away, or deliberately pursued poverty.

Francis of Assisi.
In Christianity, Francis of Assisi and his followers practiced extreme acts of asceticism. His sanctity was based first and foremost on his deliberate pursuit of poverty.

When it comes to money humans think very similar to animals. When humans see another poor human being in need of money, for example a begging homeless person, they usually think to themselves ‘hard luck mate, you’re on your own!’

And therefore what does YHWH say to us all?

”Hard luck mate, you’re on your own!”

Proof.

The fact that primitive animals, hominids or hominins learned the hard way that by sharing food instead of greedily fighting over it is good and leads to things like manners and etiquette, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that sharing money is also good and will lead to even better manners and etiquette or possibly things we cannot imagine. This is why rich people such as the Queen or lottery winners can have or are able to have better manners and etiquette and can be kinder and express their feelings and love better with their families more than lower class or poor people can do. We have all dreamed that if we could only just win the lottery then we could have proper manners and be kinder to and able to express our feelings and love better with our immediate and extended families. But it just never happens.

You can knock on someone’s door and ask for food but not money.

Notice how the examples above involve ‘energy’, in that with animals it always comes down to food, the fats, protein and nutrients, which is direct ‘energy’ and with humans it always boils down to money which is exchangeable for any type of ‘energy’ including food, electricity, power and fuel etc. No matter what animals and humans rarely give a lot of their ‘energy’ away for free. See the Golden Parables below for a more insight on ‘energy’.

Reward.

So is there anything in giving your money away? Most people think there is nothing in giving your money away. Giving £100 away is simply my loss and nothing else whatsoever. This is how animals think. Criminals think there is nothing in their actions, in that nobody cannot see their crimes and that there is absolutely nothing and no consequences to their actions whatsoever. Criminals see their crimes such as burglary are only to their benefit. Jesus Christ frequently said such as the following that categorically proves that there is reward in heaven for unnecessary or uncalled for generosity.

But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

Matthew 6:3-4.

Tonsure.

I am not saying we should be like a homeless person, as there is nothing formal, official or deliberate about being poor or homeless in the capitalist west. We usually see such homeless people as being ‘scum, scaff and chav.’ However, do you look at Buddhist or Christian monks as ‘scum, scaff and chav?’ Indeed, do you look at Christ or the Buddha as ‘scum, scaff and chav?’ Thanks to lay Buddhists, Buddhist monks are not homeless, but they are just as poor, therefore, the only difference is that monks are officially, formally or deliberately poor. They also usually wear certain attire and have certain haircuts to display their poverty and renunciation. Therefore, I am not saying we should be poor like a homeless person, but that we should be deliberately, consciously or formally poorer, more like a Buddhist or Christian monk. In reality, I am saying that we should all take a little less and give a little more. For example if you earn £20,000 a month, would you not be ‘okay’ with £5,000 a month? I am fine on about £850 a month.

917E2FEA-DD9B-4308-B599-71CB4AD7C3AD
Tonsure is the practice of cutting or shaving some or all of the hair on the scalp, as a sign of religious devotion or humility. Current usage more generally refers to cutting or shaving for monks, devotees, or mystics of any religion as a symbol of their renunciation of worldly fashion and esteem. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonsure).

Economics of Buddhism.

Why do Buddhist monks reject the idea of money?

Practicing Buddhists make five promises – not to lie, not to steal, not to engage in sexual misconduct, not to harm any living creature and not to take intoxicating substances which lead to carelessness. These are called the ‘5 precepts’.

When Buddhist monks and nuns ordain – don the robes, shave their heads, and start their training – they make all of the same promises that lay Buddhists (practicing Buddhists who aren’t monks) do, but also promise to let go of their attachments to all social conventions. It’s what the Buddha did on his path to enlightenment, so the Vinaya – the rules he put together for monks to follow – say they should do the same.

To Buddhists (and a lot of economists), money counts as a social convention. Coins are only valuable because we’ve decided that they are, and the same goes for paper banknotes. So like other social conventions, Buddhist monks give it up. They can’t buy or sell anything, get cash out of the bank or even give or accept charitable donations.

Without money, how do monks get by?

Buddhist monks and nuns are completely reliant on the lay community to provide them with the material things they need to survive. In warmer Buddhist countries, monks will walk around their local village at mealtimes in what’s called an ‘alms round’, holding a bowl for locals to put food into. In the West, food often gets donated to monasteries in bulk, and volunteers then use it to prepare meals for the monks.

The lay community provides the money and the labor to build shelter for monks, make them clothes and buy them the technology they need to keep up with the world outside the monastery, from computers to iPads. Some monastic communities like the Forest Sangha even have a Twitter account.

Once a year, during the autumn festival of Kathina, families offer monks and nuns all the cloth they need for robes to get them through the winter months. Lay Buddhists club together to provide them with the basics in what’s known as an annual celebration of giving.

What do lay Buddhists get in return?

The lay community provides the monastic community with material support in exchange for the spiritual support they receive from them, in the form of ceremonies, guided meditation, or ad-hoc advice. It’s not a tit-for-tat kind of exchange – you don’t get a passage from the scriptures every time you donate a tin of tomatoes – but more of a relationship of mutual interdependence, or ‘gift economics’.

https://www.ecnmy.org/engage/this-is-how-buddhist-monks-live-without-money/


Science versus religion.

Like a Buddhist monk or the Golden Parables, I am trying to point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts. I am semi-deliberately maintaining hundredaire status. What I do is read literature, mix music, practice relativity, hike and practice botany. My primary goal is to compare https://timerelativity.com with https://divinerelativity.com, thereby balancing the fundamental and the unfundamental.

The Bible could not be clearer than when it states that the stars were made on the fourth day, and that our planet preceded the rest of the solar system and universe and that all the host of heaven and earth were completed by the end of the sixth day. God condescended to speak to his ancient people in terms that they knew. He was not out to teach them geology or astronomy. He could have told them about DNA, galaxies, dark matter, dark energy, and supernovae. That would have confused the readers altogether. Genesis is a theological book, not a scientific one.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 65).

Jesus Christ or Albert Einstein?

The sciences are fundamental, but Jesus Christ and the Buddha were not advanced scientists, they were deities who talked in simple parables that even the lowliest could comprehend. It takes years of research and studying to understand Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, (in short relativity is too advanced or complex), where as everyone can understand Jesus Christ’s and the Buddha’s teachings without any training. There are such things as morals and forgiveness in the spiritual and divine, where as there is nothing like it the sciences. Therefore, although the sciences may get us to the stars, we have no hope for our salvation (particularly to do with the Holocaust) with the sciences. That is unless you are a sceptic and believe there are no consequences to our actions? Human beings are unfundamental, we are funny, comical and loving and perceive things like art, language, writing and pareidolia, we are not boring and mathematical robots. Because the Christ and the Buddha were ancient men what does that tell us? It tells us that you do not need to be modern or advanced to have a higher state of consciousness, you can be primitive. No matter how high and advanced we get ultimately we are all beaten by two ancient and primitive parable talking men. How? Ironically it must be relative.

When Calvin wrote his Commentary on Genesis he told his readers to go to astronomy if they wanted details about the heavens. Neither Moses nor Christ set out to teach anything that could be found out by human effort.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 94).

As surely as the Lord of glory humbled himself by birth in a cowshed, and by using the speech of a little-known people, even telling them stories, so his Spirit led Moses to teach those under his care by histories, and parables and pictures that they could understand all that was necessary despite their abysmal ignorance.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 91).

Gautama Buddha.
Before Siddhārtha Gautama became Buddha he was the son of a king and lived a life of opulence in a palace, hidden from the miseries of the world. He then renounced his wealth and deliberately pursued poverty and practiced extreme self-mortification, almost dying of starvation in the process. Because of this Herculean sacrifice from a rich life to one of abject poverty and suffering (or inverse of deserved divinity), Siddhārtha Gautama then consequently attained nirvana and became the Buddha.

The riddle is solved when we understand God’s purpose in Scripture is not to make us scientists or historians but to save us, and therefore there are parabolic elements in the Genesis stories of chapters 1-11. When we remember that one-third of Christ’s teachings were in parabolic form as well as his many metaphorical pronouncements—“ if your eye offend you, pluck it out”; “if your right hand offend thee, cut it off”; “they strain out gnats and swallow camels”; “say to this mountain, go throw yourself into the sea and it will be done”—it is not hard to recognize parabolic elements in Genesis that also come from Christ. Note, Genesis does concern a week, but it’s a parabolic not a literal week.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 65).

https://divinerelativity.com


Involuntary belief.

Why did human beings or hominins invent and pursue the divine and YHWH (or gods) before anything else such as science? Science is a relatively modern invention, but the gods have been around since prehistory.

Only when mankind gave up polytheism for monotheism was scientific progress possible. The reality of one God meant the consistency of divine laws—thus nature was unlocked.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 50).

‘Belief in God is the first instinct, and the last conviction, of sane intelligence’.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 22).

Religion is universal in human society, and it appears to be a fundamental part of the human condition. Why should people all over the world believe in a supernatural being or beings inhabiting a realm detached from our day-to-day existence? Though religions differ considerably throughout the world, a belief in such beings is a very common aspect of them.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 147).

Human beings are like magnets to the divine, we just do it involuntarily and unconsciously without thinking about it. If you just pause for a second, you can ask why do we do it? Why do humans make isms? Humans have no proof of YHWH yet we just involuntarily believe. This universal belief proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that YHWH and the spiritual and divine exist and that such as atheism and nihilism are the delusional beliefs. Humans need to know, hope or believe that there is an afterlife or an end and point to all our suffering.


A comparison of different disciplines.

The key to the puzzle is found in Genesis 1, which pictures the creation of the universe in six days, with the sun, moon, and stars only arriving on the fourth day. Yet Job 38 says the stars existed before the world began. God is not concerned with teaching us the precise details of either science or history, but He is concerned with telling us about meaning, redemption and how to live by the gospel. We are his children. Parables use everyday language with which we are familiar to teach abstract truth which is outside our experience. It is not wise to press every detail of a parable for historic or scientific “truth.”

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 59).

It is simply ironic or paradoxical that the bible is founded on pure faith and that we are supposed to truly believe in it as the Word Of God, yet the authors of the bible, especially Genesis, were relatively primitive and had no idea about evolution by natural selection or Big Bang theory, therefore ‘in the beginning’ the authors had to make things up and create stories in parables and metaphor which we do not believe at face value. It is a faith paradox. The whole point is simply that we get such things as morals and forgiveness from parables, where as there is nothing like it in science.

What do you most want to know? Pure history or how to live? Which is more important to you, the historical facts of the third millennium B.C., or the truth about God, salvation, and Judgment Day?

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 95).

I am also conducting a simple scientific investigation of , which is simple relativity. I am trying to compare maths and time with the spiritual and divine, or https://timerelativity.com with https://divinerelativity.com. However, as  likely does not prove anything scientifically that we do not already know it is primarily a comparative investigation of different disciplines. Basically I have worked out that maths and time (fundamental) is the opposite of the spiritual and divine (unfundamental), hence, I am trying to balance and play the fundamental and the unfundamental off of each other.

Pareidolia is unfundamental unlike the sciences such as mathematics, relativity and botany, it is needless like the arts including religion, art, philosophy, literature, drama and music. It is very human. The sciences like https://mathsandtime.com are perfect, precise, ordered, symmetrical and fundamental.

00891CB9-2DDD-4964-93BD-451F859BE276
Time.

The arts such as philosophy and parables are imperfect, imprecise, random, asymmetrical and unfundamental.

The Golden Bird.
Parable of the Golden Bird.

William Shakespeare’s plays are about as random, unfundamental and wet as you can get. I admit I questioned the spiritual and divine and the arts when I was studying , which is simple relativity. However, thespianism and the arts are beautiful and wet while the sciences are unattractive and dry. William Shakespeare is the Einstein of the random, unfundamental and wet.

3847BEA5-B0DE-46AF-B7AD-FD0E3EB9B873
Mr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies is a collection of plays by William Shakespeare, published in 1623, commonly referred to by modern scholars as the First Folio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Folio

It was some simple parables that I called the Golden Parables, which basically all say the same thing and which are applicable to any human such as a director or politician, as well as to any animal such as a bird or lion etc, that turned me back to spiritual and divine matters and the unfundamental. Therefore, I have concluded that there are such things as morals and forgiveness in the spiritual and divine, where are there is nothing like it in https://mathsandtime.com.

Spirituality and time.

When I first studied , I went through a phase of secular and rational thinking in which I lost all faith in things spiritual and divine, including all the arts. I lost all faith in all musicians I formerly liked, I said to myself why listen to them when there is Albert Einstein? I even questioned history as in what is the point of studying say Roman history? Then I said to myself of course Roman history is very important and then I read a book about it. Because I was studying http://magnitudeoftime.com I stated rational things like:

“Time is not spiritual or divine.”

“Do not seek spiritual enlightenment, seek time intellectually.”

”Never listen to electronic beats, all you need is a ticking clock.”

And I really believed it!

Scientific morality.

There is no morality in advanced sciences, however, there is morality and even forgiveness in generic relativity or https://crimerelativity.com. To demonstrate, modern crimes are ‘relatively evil’ as compared to the deeds of prehistoric men, such as murder and cannibalism etc, which were relatively less of an issue for prehistoric man because he was so primitive and had no technology, infrastructure or medicine etc, and also because he came from such a long ‘time’ ago. Also for example, when I first studied http://squareoftime.com I said that if you want to say something, say it with mathematics, formulas and equations not with parables or philosophy. However, the problem with mathematics and physics is that although you can fundamentally command people with formulas and equations much better than you can with parables and philosophy, you do not get to choose what you want to say, they are actually utterly neutral and devoid of any philosophical, moral or political content. Therefore, we have absolutely no hope or dreams for our salvation or for forgiveness (particularly to do with the Holocaust) with mathematics, physics and the sciences. Hence, although the arts such as parables and philosophy do not command people in the same way that equations and formulas do, they have philosophical, moral and political content and can inspire people and can change the world.

Our present world is secular to the core, and with God dethroned, the only alternative, the only game in town, has to be a “science” which makes no moral demands.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 106).

Golden Parables.

When I discovered the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity), it made me understand that Jesus Christ and the Buddha were not advanced scientists, they were deities who talked in simple parables, which everyone can understand, whereas to understand the General Theory of Relativity we need years of training and education. Also concerning money and forgiveness, without the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) I would be the type to say ‘hard luck mate, you’re on your own,’ that is I would think like an animal concerning money and forgiveness. It was some simple parables that I called the Golden Parables, which are applicable to any human such as a director or politician, as well as to any animal such as a bird or lion etc, which initially changed my scientific and secular thinking and turned me back to the spiritual and divine and the unfundamental.

The golden bird.
Parable of the Golden Bird.

DJing and mixing.

Like Shakespeare’s plays, DJing, mixing and the electronic music industry are as random, unfundamental and wet as you can get. Contrary to my former statement, “never listen to electronic beats, all you need is a ticking clock” I would now like to state that DJing and mixing music are simply beautiful and hip in a way that science can never be. Thousands of people flock to clubs, events and gigs with superstar DJs every weekend, where as no one flocks to a mathematics or physics classroom.

Now I Can Breathe Again Song by Simon Patterson.

Conclusion.

To conclude, although I love http://magnitudeoftime.com and will always do it as well as other sciences such as botany, I have concluded that the spiritual and divine are also definitely real and that there is hope and forgiveness in them, while there is nothing in https://timerelativity.com. I have come to this conclusion without any bias, as already mentioned at first I got all secular and scientific and I lost all faith in things spiritual and divine, until I discovered the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity). Hence, although I know that there are things like ‘energy’ in the sciences, I currently choose the spiritual and divine over the sciences. However, I will always do both and hope balance and play the fundamental and the unfundamental off of each other.

https://divinerelativity.com


“Pure gold!”

Food is to animals as gold is to humans.

5B2F5922-05A0-421B-A585-A4BBE8B1CAE5
Prospector panning for gold.

noun (parable)

  1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.
  2. a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like.

Parable of The Golden Sparrow.

There were some worms stranded in the middle of a motorway, and they were baking in the heat of the midday sun and unable to burrow into the sizzling tarmac to find coolness and safety from the traffic. Then along came a hungry sparrow who spotted the juicy worms, but instead of picking up and eating them, the sparrow flew down to the worms and carried each and every single one of them to safety from the traffic and the scorching heat and onto the cool and moist grass and soil where they could safely burrow. Is there reward in heaven for such a bird? What this sparrow did went against every animal instinct. This sparrow went against nature. This sparrow is golden.

11B7A167-76F1-4904-8A9A-CB5B8F39703B
House sparrow (Passer domesticus).

Concerning the Golden Parables, you may take the stance of naturalism and rationalism, the Darwinist laws of “survival of the fittest” and natural selection and say nature and animals such as birds never in a billion years would do such a thing, therefore, why should humans do such a thing? However, hypocritically to some of my later statements, are you an animal? Aren’t humans supposed to be more than animal, aren’t we supposed to be supernatural?

The answer is simple: Darwinism is first of all a philosophy and only secondly a science. It is the philosophy of naturalism in contrast to the supernaturalism believed in for millenia by most of earth’s inhabitants.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 182).

Both Darwin (social Darwinism) and Nietzsche greatly influenced German right-wing militarism in WWI and the ideologies and philosophies of Adolf Hitler in WWII.

Thus came into being the Übermensch, the highest type of man who according to Nietzsche’s latest writings had a duty to get rid of degenerates.

By World War I, Nietzsche “had acquired a reputation as an inspiration for right-wing German militarism.”

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 217).

We all know to where these rational, nihilistic and scientific (atheistic) philosophies and ideologies led Europeans in the first half of the twentieth century.

Hitler’s photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann, wrote a popular biography of the Führer entitled Hitler as Nobody Knows Him. This included the well-known photo of Hitler gazing into the eyes of a white marble bust of Nietzsche presenting Nietzsche’s sister with a bouquet of roses. The caption read: “The Führer before the bust of the German philosopher whose ideas have fertilised two great popular movements: the National Socialist of Germany and the Fascist of Italy.”

Gertrude Himmelfarb after citing the subtitle of the Origin added:

It was a short step to the preservation of favoured individuals, classes, or nations—and from their preservation to their glorification. Social Darwinism has often been understood in this sense: as a philosophy exalting competition, power and violence over convention, ethics and religion. Thus it has become a portmanteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race. … Recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf, are, unhappily too familiar to require exposition here. And it is by an obvious process of analogy and deduction that they are said to derive from Darwinism. Nietzsche predicted that this would be the consequence if the Darwinian theory gained general acceptance.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 218).

Hitler embraced an evolutionary ethic that made Darwinian fitness and health the only criteria for moral standards. The Darwinian struggle for existence, especially the struggle between different races, became the sole arbiter for morality.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 218).

Thus Hitler—and many other Germans—perpetrated one of the most evil programs the world has ever witnessed under the delusion that Darwinism could help us discover how to make the world better.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 219).

But Nietzsche is not the original cause of earth’s primary problem—Darwin is. Nietzsche learned his nihilism as a conclusion from reading The Origin of Species. So did Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and the lesser mortals we have mentioned—Steve Pinker, Peter Singer and others. All saw the logical conclusions of Darwin’s theory and embraced it as a guide for practical living.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 220).

Parable of The Golden Chaffinch.

In one particularly cold early spring in the UK, the land was frozen and covered with snow and ice and the wild animals were struggling to survive and feed themselves. Like all the other animals there was a chaffinch that was struggling to feed its own four young chicks in a nest in an old oak tree. However, while desperately searching for food, the chaffinch discovered a quaint garden in which a thoughtful man had put a bonanza of nuts, seeds and fat balls on a bird table. And despite the adverse conditions instead of just feeding its own chicks, the chaffinch went around hurriedly feeding the chicks of other birds, even other species.

842058CC-4843-4A33-8E9F-4F0D07243FA6
Common Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs).

The Golden Parables are supernaturalism as opposed to naturalism, like the Buddha and Jesus Christ they go against nature. Perhaps the rationality, science and philosophy of the Victorian and early twentieth century Europe had major influences on and responsibilities for the devastation of the two world wars.

Bagehot wrote that the principle of natural selection meant that conflict is the key to national success. Strong nations have a right to prevail over the weak and take possession.

But according to Robert E. D. Clark, while there have been wars throughout all history, “never until the days of Darwin and Bagehot was it widely supposed that wars were desirable.”

Haeckel wished to establish in Germany a religion based upon evolution. Karl Marx declared Darwin’s book to be important for it served as a basis in natural science for the struggle in history. 

With the turn of the century Prince Bülow, later German Chancellor, declared: “We must realize that there is no such thing as permanent peace, and must remember Moltke’s words: ‘Permanent peace is a dream, and not even a beautiful one, but war is an essential element in God’s scheme of the world’ ” 

A generation later Mussolini and Hitler in their public speeches used Darwinian catchwords. Hitler argued that a higher race would always conquer a lower, and that this was a right bestowed by nature.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 221 – 222).

The Golden Parables or inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of instincts or capitalism, they go against nature, this is because the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are.

Parable of the Rich Fool.

Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

“This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”

Luke 12:13-21

The parable of the rich fool.
The parable of the rich fool.

Parable of The Golden Lion.

There were two lost little lambs in the middle of a grassland, and they were being stalked and preyed on by a drooling and ravenous hyena hidden in the tall grass. A huge male lion saw what was going on, that the hungry hyena was about to pounce on and devour the defenceless lambs. However, the lion took swift and decisive action and scared off the starving hyena instead of eating the lambs himself.

B70E7C37-72C0-4846-BCF4-EDCBCCFD5848
Lion (Panthera leo).

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

Isaiah 11:6.

I want to see with my own eyes the lamb lie down with the lion and the victim rise up and embrace his murderer. I want to be there when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been about.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 72).

Parable of The Golden Director.

There was a director that ran a thriving shoe making company in a small village. Now the director ran the business not for personal profit but just kept it ticking over and with the profits he paid his employees very handsomely indeed and only paid himself the same amount that he paid his employees.

Should your pursuit of happiness focus mainly on accumulating possessions and other “externals”? Or should you focus on putting your inner house in order?

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 22).

Parable of the Golden Scientist.

There was a male scientist who designed and made smart phones in California and this scientist was also a Buddhist monk. Although the company made billions of dollars the smart scientist made phones not for personal profit, but just to keep the company innovative and state of the art, and to keep his own wealth and circumstances in line with the Buddha’s Middle Way.

Do the inner workings of your mind really have a greater effect on you than, say, your possessions or your surroundings? After all, big companies and advertising agencies spend billions of dollars every year trying to convince you that the opposite is true! In their eyes, your best shot at achieving happiness is to buy whatever they’re selling. They appeal to what Jon likes to call the “if only” mentality: If only you drove a fancier car, lived in a bigger house, gargled with a stronger mouthwash, and used a softer toilet paper—then you’d be truly happy. Even if you don’t believe everything advertisers tell you, don’t you believe that the external conditions of your life determine how well off you are?

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 21).

Parable of the Golden Doctor.

There was male doctor who was a Buddhist monk and he went around curing and saving peoples lives not for a huge salary, but just to keep his own wealth and circumstances in line with the Buddha’s Middle Way.

We’re not saying that your outer circumstances count for nothing, nor are we implying that people have to give away all their possessions to be sincere spiritual seekers. But without developing your inner resources of peace and mental stability, no amount of worldly success—whether measured in terms of wealth, fame, power, or relationships—can ever bring real satisfaction.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 23).

Despite what the quote says above, I believe to be a serious spiritual seeker you do have to give a lot away, even if you have not sinned.

Parable of the Golden Politician.

There was a right-wing politician who in order to prove to the world his beliefs and convictions decided to become a fully ordained Buddhist monk, that is he renounced all of his wealth, donned the orange robes, shaved his head, let go of his attachments to all social conventions, kept the 5 precepts, followed the Vinaya, yet crucially the politician was still right-wing and politically active. Would anti-fascists still boo, jeer, milkshake, intimidate and beat up a Buddhist monk? Analogously, this is the type of devotion, faith and sacrifice that is required from right-wing people in order to save white people and to prove 100% their beliefs, virtues and convictions. This is what the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) is all about and requires.

Parable of The Golden Lottery Winner.

There was a childless and widowed 60 year old man called Bob who had worked very hard all his life as a bricklayer. One Friday morning, while filling his car with diesel at a petrol service station, Bob saw an advertisement for the £160 million jackpot on the Euromillions lottery and Bob decided to purchase a ticket. Later that Friday night as Bob was watching the lottery draw on TV, to his amazement every single one of Bob’s numbers came out! To his shock Bob had won the £160 million jackpot on the Euromillions lottery. However, Bob thought about it and instead of reaping his rewards and retiring early to a life of luxury, Bob had a change of heart and decided to give every single last penny of his jackpot away to charity and returned to normal life and work. Through Bob leading the way and setting the example, everybody on earth became stress free. Nobody ever worried about money ever again. It was a miracle! Whenever someone lost or wasted a lot of money for example through misplacement, a bad purchase or gambling people would just say remember Bob’s example, and then they would be stress free. Bob had such a very good impact on mental health. Bob even started a new era and a new way of thinking. Bob became a byword and a household name. Is there reward in heaven for such an act? What Bob did went against every animal instinct. Bob went against nature. Bob is a golden human.

Adam Smith wrote the famous Wealth of Nations. It argued that people are naturally selfish. When they engage in manufacturing or trade, they do so in order to gain wealth and power.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 216).

Animals are comical.

The Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) have/has never happened in the animal kingdom because animals, such as birds, never think about sharing food, they just go for the belly or the energy of life, that is the fats, protein and nutrients etc, without even considering another bird.

The Golden Bird.
Parable of the Golden Bird.

Energy.

Notice how the examples above involve ‘energy’, in that with animals it always comes down to food, the fats, protein and nutrients, which is direct ‘energy’ and with humans it always boils down to money which is exchangeable for any type of ‘energy’ including food, electricity, power and fuel etc. No matter what animals and humans rarely give a lot of their ‘energy’ away for free.

Give everything away.

YHWH looks out for beings or creatures that perform the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity). However, it has only happened twice in creation. If such a golden bird, lion or human does not exist we are not happy or pleased. The Buddha and Jesus Christ are that golden bird, lion or human. The Buddha and Jesus Christ both gave everything away, that is they won the lottery of life and gave every last penny of it away. Hence, on earth and in heaven they both have infinite ‘energy’.

Golden Buddha.
Before Siddhārtha Gautama became Buddha he was the son of a king and lived a life of opulence in a palace, hidden from the miseries of the world. He then renounced his wealth and deliberately pursued poverty and practiced extreme self-mortification, almost dying of starvation in the process. Because of this Herculean sacrifice from a rich life to one of abject poverty and suffering (or inverse of deserved divinity), Siddhārtha Gautama then consequently attained nirvana and became the Buddha.

The Rich and the Kingdom of YHWH.

Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

“Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

“Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 19:16-24.

When you read the above did you get cynical and wink at Jesus Christ?

Practice.

As an example I personally do not go for the ‘energy’ down here on earth or in life, whether it is food, money, gold or big fat juicy worms, I give an uncomfortable percentage of my money away and I seek the ‘energy’ of the afterlife. I understand that YHWH and the afterlife have absolutely zero interest in the material wealth I own down here on earth or in life. I know that I cannot purchase my rank in the kingdom of heaven with gold or money.

Wealth can’t help you. Many people spend nearly all their time and energy trying to accumulate as much money and as many possessions as they can. But all the wealth in the world can’t buy your way out of death. (“ Um, Death, why don’t you take my credit card and go buy yourself something nice?” It doesn’t work. Sorry.) Rich or poor, everyone must face it. Also, no matter how many material possessions you’ve acquired, you can’t take even the smallest particle with you. In fact, attachment to your belongings only makes letting go at the time of death more difficult.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 224).

A reason to be charitable.

Is there reward in heaven for giving all of your money away? Jesus Christ said the following:

“Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Matthew 6:19-21.

The Golden Bird.
Parable of the Golden Bird.

Conclusion.

Your close ones would never forgive you for giving your jackpot winnings or a lot of your money away down here on earth, such as your family, relatives, children and friends. However, think of this, why was the Buddha allowed to renounce his royalty and almost starve himself to death 2500 years ago? It was not unacceptable or even out of the ordinary in ancient India, in fact holy and religious men such as sadhus were and still are commonplace in India. Imagine if Queen Elizabeth II or the Duke of Cambridge tried to do this today in the UK. They would be sectioned! In fact if anyone deliberately gave their money away and almost starved themselves to death today, they would likely be sectioned for being a harm to themselves. Its crazy! Why did people have more ‘freedom’ to pursue spiritual quests such a long time ago, than we have today? Why is it not out of the ordinary in India? The world was clearly better in ways 2500 years ago. People believed Siddhartha Gautama was pursuing spirituality and that he was trying to solve human suffering. There is so much scepticism today, he would not be believed. If a man today says to his wife: “Mavis! I am off to spend 40 days and 40 nights in the desert for spiritual purposes.” Then by God we should respect his wishes! At the very least, as the Golden Parables demonstrate, the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) points or thinks in the opposite or inverse direction of instincts or capitalism, (because the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are), therefore this determines there is definitely a reason to be generous and charitable and that we should never pursue money or riches and that we should never play the lottery or fantasise about winning it.


Christians have always believed that poverty was a noble virtue and have always had the moral of rich man and the poor man. For example:

The Rich Man and Lazarus.

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Luke 16:19-31.

57B5D6F1-BDD5-4E25-A9CF-1A029C7AC12E
Jesus Christ risen from the dead.

“But woe to you who are rich,
    for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
    for you will go hungry.
Woe to you who laugh now,
    for you will mourn and weep.
Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you,
    for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.”

Luke 6:24-26.


My example, thus far.

I have found that being a hundredaire, say owning around £500 and then giving £100 away to a good cause is a very comfortable middle way. I have also been a tenaire and given £20 away to a good cause, but this is a bit uncomfortable. Since April/May 2019, I have given away a total of £240 to good causes. Instead of being happy of and measuring our success by how much we have accumulated each year, perhaps we should keep track of and take pride in how much we have given away each year. Instead of asking how much profit or wages did you earn this year, why not ask how much have you given away? For example, I have given a total £240 away to good causes for 2019.

The Cave of Altamira. Cave painting of auroch. 36000 BP.
The Cave of Altamira. Cave painting of auroch. 36000 BP.

Why?

Why give your money or ‘energy’ away or deliberately maintain poverty like a Buddhist monk? Is there a reason? I believe by deliberately making yourself poorer, like say temporarily a tenaire or oneaire, then you are doing what poor people (who have no choice) do. You are deliberately putting yourself on their level and associating yourself with people of low position such as the homeless, when you do not have to in the least. And YHWH knows this. This is what the Buddha did, in that initially he was the rich son of a king who wanted for nothing materially, and he did not associate with people of low position or wealth, however, he then renounced his royal status and wealth and became a holy man and practiced extreme acts of asceticism almost dying of starvation in the process. By going from a prince to almost starving himself to death, Siddhartha joined the ranks, realm or class of those of extreme poverty or the underclass and the starving and emaciated of the world (those affected by such as famine). Siddhartha joined the under class when he did not have to in the least. YHWH knows this and can see this in all of us. Also like how Bob in the Parable of the Golden Lottery Winner chose to give up his jackpot winnings and return to normal life and work, instead of retiring early to a life of luxury. By doing this Bob associated himself with normal working class people when he did not have to in the least.

Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

Romans 12:16.


Charity.

The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.

Matthew 26:11.

“Watch out! Don’t do your good deeds publicly, to be admired by others, for you will lose the reward from your Father in heaven. When you give to someone in need, don’t do as the hypocrites do—blowing trumpets in the synagogues and streets to call attention to their acts of charity! I tell you the truth, they have received all the reward they will ever get. But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

Matthew 6:1-4.

With regards to such as Matthew 6:1-4, we know how the Buddha attained enlightenment or nirvana, that is he may have performed something similar to the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity), in other words he renounced all of his wealth and practiced extreme asceticism, almost dying of starvation in the process. The Buddha left us a clear demonstration, but what did Jesus do? There are two stories of the Buddha, first is that he was destined to be the Buddha from birth, the second is that he was a ordinary man before he attained enlightenment. In Christianity the story goes that Jesus was born the Christ child, this is another reason why or how Christianity does not teach us that we can attain ‘Christhood’ (in contrast to Buddhism). So if Jesus was not born the Christ, how did he attain nirvana? If he was not born the Christ, how did Jesus give everything away? Although we do not know how Jesus may have attained nirvana, he said a lot about money and possessions. For example, such as Matthew 6:3 above “But when you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing“ clearly demonstrates that Jesus must have had experience of practicing charity and generosity.


The Widow’s offering.

As Jesus was sitting opposite the treasury, He watched the crowd putting money into it. And many rich people put in large amounts. Then one poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amounted to a small fraction of a denarius.

Jesus called His disciples to Him and said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more than all the others into the treasury. For they all contributed out of their surplus, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”

Luke 21:1-4

Jesus and His disciples watch a widow put coins into the treasury offering box.
Jesus and His disciples watch a widow put coins into the treasury offering box.

Relativity with infinite ‘energy’.

The above story of the Widow’s offering is obviously relative. For example, Bill Gates is the richest man in the world, and has a net worth of $105 billion dollars, hence even if Bill Gates gave away $104 billion dollars, that is 99.047619047619% of his net worth to charity, although this may seem like a lot, (even to the receivers of the donation), it is not relatively, this is because percentage does not matter. This is the really important part, in that giving $104 billion dollars away does not affect or threaten Bill Gate’s life and survival in any way at all, he would still be a billionaire! He would still not have to worry about food or bills etc ever again! For example imagine if a being had a googolplex dollars, even if this being gave away 99.99999999999999999999999999% of it’s net worth away to charity, this being would still be a trillionaire! Therefore, percentage does not matter, relativity does! Or even more relative imagine if a being had infinite dollars or infinite ‘energy’, how charitable and compassionate do you think this being would be? This being is YHWH, the Buddha or Jesus Christ. How did this being attain infinite ‘energy’? By giving it all away in the first place!

39BACB4E-3F8C-4918-BDC3-9FE4C1773E5B
Before Siddhārtha Gautama became Buddha he was the son of a king and lived a life of opulence in a palace, hidden from the miseries of the world. He then renounced his wealth and deliberately pursued poverty and practiced extreme self-mortification, almost dying of starvation in the process. Because of this Herculean sacrifice from a rich life to one of abject poverty and suffering (or inverse of deserved divinity), Siddhārtha Gautama then consequently attained nirvana and became the Buddha.

“That is why all the particles that move at the speed of light (e.g. photons) have zero rest mass. As a particle with mass approaches the speed of light, its energy increases and becomes infinite at the speed of light, which is the reason why it can never be accelerated to reach that speed.”

https://bit.ly/2qb3mr9

This is what Jesus Christ meant by “For they all contributed out of their surplus.” However, for example, when the lower class or the poor give away money to charity, even though it is infinitely smaller than $104 billion dollars (or a googolplex dollars), you can be rest assured it has really hurt them and has seriously threatened their life and survival! This is because they are probably only hundredaires, tenaires or even oneaires. This is what really matters! If you are going give money away you have to make sure it hurts or threatens your life and survival. The only thing Bill Gates could do is mimic the Buddha, that is to join the ranks, realm or class of those of the lower class, those whose life and survival is a struggle, and who worry about food and bills etc. This is what Jesus Christ meant by:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 19:23-24.

67915E82-B194-40F5-9A17-2BB2FE52FF33
Good luck Bill!

For example I have given away £240 since April/May 2019, as of October 2019, that is just 4.7058823529412% of my total income which is only £850 a month. Giving up this money seriously affected my life and survival and caused me a lot of pain. This is what Jesus Christ meant by “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more than all the others into the treasury“ and “but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.” The “two small copper coins” that the old lady put into the treasury were relatively more than those “rich people [who] put in large amounts”. What is the lesson? Even though you are poor, get charitable. For example, imagine if a homeless person had £4 to his/her name and went and give it all to another homeless person. That is a Golden Parable or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity). That is what YHWH looks out for. The rich and famous, such as actors and singers are very charitable “out of their surplus”, but it is never a threat to their life and survival. The lower class and poor do not want to be beaten by rich superstars when it comes to charity!

Give, even if you only have a little.

(The Buddha, Dhammapada, verse 224).

Mesolithic man.
Mesolithic man.

Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

Matthew 6:26.

Animals do not have money yet they still survive, similarly natives and primitives like Palaeolithic man did not even comprehend the meaning of money or currency. Prehistoric men had no money yet they still survived. The Golden Parables or inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) are without sin because they pay every single last penny, they are absolutely nothing. Imagine the possessions of a Palaeolithic man. Similarly natives and primitives do not care about money. Why be a business man or woman and rip-off people to make money for yourself? Why be a highflier and make money for someone else? Why be rich at all? Why keep up appearances? Why have social classes? Why compete with peers or old school friends? Why always look or point to the rich, elite, famous and upper classes? Why compete with colleagues for the top position and higher wage? The top is the bottom and bottom is the top. As will be seen, we do not want to be like the Ancient Romans, measuring people’s value, worth, honour, respect and esteem by their wealth.

Panel of the lions.
Panel of the lions, Chauvet Cave, France, 32000 BP.

The Middle Way.

How can we give every last penny away? Just do it and walk out the door? Will YHWH provide? What about food? What about my phone? The Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path as the Middle Way of moderation, between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification.

In the time of the Buddha (and in the traditions that continued to adhere to the full monastic code—the vinaya), monks and nuns were prohibited from handling or soliciting money and were allowed to own just a few simple belongings, which included items like several robes, a bowl, a razor, and an umbrella for protection from the sun. They took vows of celibacy, ate only before noon, and received their food from laypeople, either during alms rounds or through offerings brought to the monastery. The point of these regulations wasn’t to cause hardship or suffering; in fact, the Buddha’s approach was known as the “middle way” between asceticism (severe restrictions in the comforts of life) and materialism. Instead, the point was to free the monastics to dedicate their life to practice and teaching.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 135).

Even though the full monastic code (the Vinaya) seems ascetic and relatively extreme to us westerners today, in that it entails owning just a few simple items, such as several robes, a bowl, a razor, and an umbrella, taking vows of celibacy and eating only before noon, however, as stated it is actually only the ”middle way”. This must demonstrate how even more extreme the Buddha‘s six-year fast was and how extreme his becoming emaciated was. Even though the vinaya seems extreme to us capitalists, because the Buddha’s sacrifice was even more extreme, therefore the vinaya is actually relatively only the middle way. That puts it into perspective.

The Buddha practicing self mortification (before he realised the middle way).
Pursuing enlightenment, Buddha first practiced severe asceticism before recommending a non-ascetic middle way. The Buddha deserved divinity because of his Great Renunciation of wealth and his almost dying of starvation.

Capitalism educates you that you need to save up more and more and that you need as much as possible. Like the Golden Parables, I am trying to point or think in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts. I am deliberately maintaining hundredaire status. The most native and primitive people of the world are not even thousandaires, hence, I am comfortably a hundredaire. However, occasionally and briefly I am not even a tenaire, but a oneaire.

Francis of Assisi.
In Christianity, Francis of Assisi and his followers practiced extreme acts of asceticism. His sanctity was based first and foremost on his deliberate pursuit of poverty.

The Last penny.

The Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) are without sin because they pay every single last penny, this is because natives or primitives such as bushmen or prehistoric man are/were literally penniless.

Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Matthew 5:26.

The last penny.
The last penny.

When Jesus Christ spoke this was he being metaphorical or literal?

Therefore, is it ‘scum, scaff and chav’ to literally possess not a single penny?

Or is it without sin?

Give us this day our daily bread.

As mentioned I am trying to attain or explain the literal and material Lord’s Prayer. I will start by mentioning daily bread. Jesus Christ meant that daily bread is all you need, that is you do not need riches to be in the kingdom of heaven.

Feeding of the 5000.
Feeding of the 5000.

For thine is the kingdom.

Because of our Abrahamic and biblical history, Judaism, Islam and Christianity, the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) determines that the kingdom of YHWH is Egypt and the Holy Land, that is the Nile Valley, North Africa and the Near East. Egypt and Holy Land are the old power and glory of the Old Testament and they gave us agriculture, architecture, bronze, iron, writing, recorded history, the Bible and YHWH etc, therefore the Nile Valley, North Africa and the Near East connect us to the prehistoric.

In particular, it was generally assumed that major advances in European prehistory resulted from the diffusion of ideas from the classical civilisations of the Levant, the Mediterranean, and Egypt. This view was known as Ex Oriente Lux (‘Light from the East’).

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 228).

Egyptian prehistory is as old as human evolution itself, this is because hominins evolved in Eastern Africa.

Because of its geographical position, Egypt certainly served as an important conduit for early humans migrating from East Africa towards the rest of the Old World. We know that early Homo erectus left Africa and arrived in Israel as early as 1.8 million years ago.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 16).

In fact 23andMe state that every person on earth is descended from one man and one woman who lived in Eastern Africa 275,000 and between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago respectively. Egyptian prehistory goes back some 700,000 years.

Egyptian prehistory.
Egyptian prehistory.

Therefore, unlike Britain which received the Latin alphabet and recorded history through being conquered and subjugated by the Romans, the Egyptians started ab initio or from scratch or from the ground up, that is they started from prehistory and the stone age, (the Palaeolithic and Neolithic) into the Predynastic (Maadi and Naqada cultures), and then into the Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom periods.

According to Petrie, it was during the Naqada III phase that an Asiatic ‘New Race’ arrived in Egypt, bringing with it the seeds of pharaonic civilisation.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 43).

The first Naqada phase (Amratian) lies between 4000 and 3500 BC, followed by the second phase (Gerzean), from 3500 to 3200 BC, and the final Predynastic phase runs from 3200 to 3000 BC.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 44).

The ancient Egyptians literally got recorded history off the ground from the Stone Age, that is by making stone and flint tools and vessels etc.

In contrast to the Upper Palaeolithic Period, many Late Palaeolithic sites have been found in Upper Egypt, dating between 21,000 and 12,000 BP.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 23).

During the Naqada II phase, there was considerable development in techniques of stoneworking: various limestones, alabasters, marbles, serpentine, basalt, breccia, gneiss, diorite, and gabbro were being discovered and exploited all along the Nile Valley as well as in the desert, particularly at Wadi Hammamat. The increasing skill in the carving of stone vessels prepared the way for the great achievements of pharaonic stone architecture. The ripple-flaked knives of this period are among the most accomplished examples of the working of flint anywhere in the world.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 51).

The Egyptians invented the alphabet, recorded history and architecture, that is they built the first large entirely stone building in the world, that being Djoser’s Step Pyramid.

Tradition had it that Imhotep (Greek form: Imouthes) was the architect of Djoser’s pyramid and inventor of building in stone.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 86).

DAFDF3BC-8561-43B6-AA30-03E6BF794601
Djoser’s Step Pyramid was built in the 27th century BC during the Third Dynasty for the burial of Pharaoh Djoser by his vizier, Imhotep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

Exodus (non-archaeological).

The Old Testament drills it into us, that YHWH stretched out his arm and brought the Israelites up out of the land Egypt, thus giving us YHWH and the Bible etc.

And on that very day YHWH brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their hosts.

Exodus 12:51.

In terms of recorded history there is nothing as real or as important as Moses and the Israelite Exodus from Egypt. Exodus is an eternal or living (non-archaeological) record of the ancient Egyptians and Israelites. To exemplify Exodus’s importance, for example with prehistoric man we have to gather whatever we can from archaeology (or bones and stones). Prehistoric man is non-living or non-eternal.

Exodus.
Exodus.

The Nile Valley is the kingdom of YHWH that Jesus Christ referred to in the Lord’s Prayer. The most famous people in life or on earth are the Americans, however, the most famous people of the afterlife are probably prehistoric, ancient and medieval, this is because we know so little about them in life, therefore the opposite will be true in the afterlife. The older you are the more famous and illustrious you are. Therefore because we do not and cannot ever know the names of our Holy Fathers down here on earth but only in heaven, hence hallowed be your name and on earth as in heaven.

5B724BA5-16B1-4A5A-8116-D17AF9537F54
Tetragrammaton. The Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah. “He who pronounces the Name with its own letters has no part in the world to come!” Such is the prohibition of pronouncing the Name as written that it is sometimes called the “Ineffable”, “Unutterable”, or “Distinctive Name”. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton).

Nameless.

The names of prehistoric men are “Ineffable” and “Unutterable” because we do not and can never know them in life or on earth. Therefore, because we do not and cannot know their names, the answer to the question who is prehistoric man? Is YHWH. This very important for those primitive hominins or creatures whom did not even have a name, all these nameless entities must be called YHWH.


For ever and ever.

There is no eternity without recorded history, that is that cavemen and prehistoric man (excepting cave art) did not attain eternity because they left no buildings, writing or literature behind. We do not know their names or deeds, so they are not eternal, hence hallowed be your name. However, thanks to themselves and archaeology, it was firstly the Egyptians who invented recorded history and architecture and who put thousands of years of ‘time’, ‘energy’ and devotion into eternity and the afterlife through religion, writing, mummification and tombs etc, that accomplished this. Recorded history is living and eternal. To reiterate, with the cult of the ruler, funerary cults, mortuary cults, mummification, pyramids, saff-tombs and mastaba-tombs (mastaba meaning “house of eternity” or “eternal house”), the Ancient Egyptians put thousands of years of effort and devotion into the eternal life or afterlife for themselves and the god-kings. We know their names and deeds, hence they are eternal. The ancients actually nailed it with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Ankh
The ankh is an ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol that was most commonly used in writing and in art to represent the word for “life” and, by extension, as a symbol of life itself. Known as “the key of life” or the “cross of life”, and dating from the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150 – 2613 BCE), it is also the Egyptian symbol for the “eternal life.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankh

Self-deification.

In the beginning’ nobody told Egyptian kings not to exalt themselves, self-deify or make themselves gods. This is what mankind did in the very first place, without any warning, that is they ascribed divinity to the wealthiest and most powerful, this is in contrast to the humble origins of Christ, the true incarnation of YHWH. For example, Nebhepetra Mentuhotep II of the 11th-Dynasty (2055-2004 BC) instituted a programme of self-deification, and was described as ‘the son of Hathor.’

In addition to the emphasis on his lineage, part of Mentuhotep’s strategy to enhance his reputation with his contemporaries and successors was a programme of self-deification. He is described as ‘the son of Hathor’ on two fragments from Gebelein, while at Dendera and Aswan he usurped the headgear of Amun and Min, and elsewhere wears the red crown surmounted by two feathers. At Konosso, near Philae, he took on the guise of ithyphallic Min. Both this iconography and his second Horus name, Netjeryhedjet (‘the divine one of the white crown’), emphasize his self-deification. Evidence from his Deir el-Bahri temple indicates that he intended to be worshipped as a god in his House of Millions of Years, thus pre-dating by hundreds of years ideas that became a central religious preoccupation of the New Kingdom. It is evident that he was reasserting the cult of the ruler.

(The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt (Oxford Illustrated History), Ian Shaw, page 140).

B35DDA75-A738-4287-8F87-CF7FD95148F6
Mentuhotep II on a relief from his mortuary temple in Deir el-Bahari. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentuhotep_II#/media/File%3AMentuhotepII.jpg

Egyptian kings self-deified and the ancients ascribed divinity to the wealthiest and most powerful until they figured out that YHWH and divinity works or operates in the opposite or inverse direction, in that it is the poor deserve divinity and not the rich. The ancients then orchestrated the story of the humble origins of Jesus Christ; being born in a manger and the coming of the true incarnation of YHWH to serve and not be served.

The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

Matthew 23:11-12.

Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

Luke 22:26-27.


Rome.

The Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) are also demonstrated by super-rich divine Roman emperors.

Christians, in particular, both ridiculed the very notion that the obviously human emperor was divine and occasionally paid with their lives for their refusal to give him any kind of religious honour. But that is not to say that the divine status of the emperor was unproblematic for pre-Christian Romans or that there were no debates and disagreements about just how godlike the human ruler, let alone his family was. It was another awkward balancing act bequeathed to his successors by Augustus, who straddled the boundary between the human and the divine with greater success than some of those who followed.

1DC867EA-4531-407B-82A8-E1677370374C
Augustus of Prima Porta, 1st century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus

Throughout the Roman world, the living emperor was treated very like a god. He was incorporated into rituals celebrated in honour of the gods, he was addressed in language that overlapped with divine language, and he was assumed to have some similar powers. Augustus’ name, for example, was included in the wording of some religious litanies. Runaway slaves could claim asylum by clinging to a statue of the emperor, just as to a statue of a god.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 429-430).

547EC5A8-24C9-4697-8ACC-6791B845F02B
In 42 BC, Julius Caesar was formally deified as “the divine Julius” (divus Iulius) after his assassination. His adopted son, Octavian (better known as Augustus, a title given to him 15 years later, in 27 BC) thus became known as divi Iuli filius (son of the divine Julius) or simply divi filius (son of the god). (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divi_filius).

Christianity.

Christianity always had the moral of poverty being a noble virtue and the moral of the rich man and the poor man, something which the Romans did not have at all until they adopted it.

Elite Roman writers were mostly disdainful of those less fortunate, and less rich, than themselves. Apart from their nostalgic admiration of a simple peasant way of life – a fantasy of country picnics, and lazy afternoons under shady trees – they found little virtue in poverty or in the poor or even in earning an honest day’s wages.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 440).

Apart from a very few philosophical extremists, no one in the Roman world seriously believed that poverty was honourable – until the growth of Christianity which we shall explore further in the next chapter. The idea that the rich man might have a problem entering the kingdom of heaven would have seemed as preposterous to those hanging out in our Ostian bar as to the plutocrat in his mansion.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 471).

1DB9F7F9-D8C5-4240-B6DA-F5569B51109D
As the first Roman emperor to claim conversion to Christianity, Constantine played an influential role in the proclamation of the Edict of Milan in 313, which decreed tolerance for Christianity in the empire. He called the First Council of Nicaea in 325, at which the Nicene Creed was professed by Christians. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great).

Wealth assessments.

The Roman state was built on wealth in that your status as plebeian or patrician and your eligibility to vote and hold office such as senator or consul was based on financial tests or wealth assessments.

A different set of priorities is reflected in the political institutions attributed to Servius Tullius – sometimes now given the inappropriately grand title of ‘the Servian Constitution’, partly because they were so fundamental to the later working of Roman politics. He is supposed to have been the first to organise a census of the Roman citizens, formally enrolling them in the citizen body and classifying them in different ranks according to their wealth. But more than that, he linked this classification to two further institutions: the Roman army and the organisation of the people for voting and elections.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 105).

Cicero reflects exactly that when he sums up Servius Tullius’ political objectives in approving tones: ‘He divided the people in this way to ensure that voting power was under the control not of the rabble but of the wealthy, and he saw to it that the greatest number did not have the greatest power – a principle that we should always stand by in politics.’ In fact, this principle came to be vigorously contested in the politics of Rome.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 109).

4E3A2024-38B9-4510-B7DF-0F99840BD772
Servius Tullius was the legendary sixth king of Rome, and the second of its Etruscan dynasty. He reigned 575–535 BC. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servius_Tullius).

It is easy enough to paint a picture of Republican political processes as completely dominated by the wealthy minority. The upshot of the Conflict of the Orders was not popular revolution but the creation of a new governing class, comprising rich plebeians and patricians. The first qualification for most political offices was wealth on a substantial scale. No one could stand for election without passing a financial test that excluded most citizens; the exact amount needed to qualify is not known, but the implications are that it was set at the very top level of the census hierarchy, the so-called cavalry or equestrian rating.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 189).

We are still like the Ancient Romans.

It is like a measure, like the Ancient Romans we still measure or rank people’s class, value, worth, honour, respect and esteem according to their wealth. But what if like the Buddha and Jesus Christ we did the complete opposite or inverse and measured people’s worthiness by their renunciation of wealth and worldly fashion and their deliberate pursuit of poverty instead? Therefore, what if like Buddhist or Christian monks the poorer you are the more revered you are?

The richest man in Rome.

Marcus Licinius Crassus, the Roman plutocrat notoriously remarked that you could count no one rich if he did not have the cash to raise his own private army.

(SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome, Mary Beard, page 25).

3C6724F3-D99C-415E-A57B-EB943314922E
Marcus Licinius Crassus c. 115 BC or 112 BC – 6 May 53 BC) was a Roman general and politician who played a key role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. He is often called “The richest man in Rome”. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Licinius_Crassus).

Catholicism.

I am Church of England, but next to a Christian I would be a Buddhist. However, concerning the schism in Christianity, Catholicism and Rome are more southern and are closer to the Nile Valley, North Africa and the Near East. I have read one book on the reformation and it revealed nothing to me as to who was right. However, to me a connection to the kingdom of YHWH would be better.

Pyramids of Giza.
Pyramids of Giza.

Conclusion.

Like the Golden Parables, through this inverse of divine ascription or inverse of deserved divinity, from Egyptian god-kings to Jesus Christ (that is that the poor deserve divinity and not the rich), the ancients actually nailed eternity. The moral of the Christ’s humble birth, life and death, that is being born in a manger, the coming of the true incarnation of YHWH to serve and not to be served and dying for the forgiveness of sins etc, matches the sentence that the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are. The Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) are a historical lesson for mankind. The examples given above show that in the first place humanity instinctively ascribed divinity to the most wealthy and powerful. Jesus Christ and the Buddha both proved that divinity thinks or points in the inverse or opposite direction to capitalism or instincts, in that it is the poor who deserve divinity and not the rich.


Recorded history.

It is the invention of writing that brings us, via semi-mythical figures such as Gilgamesh, to the earliest dawning of recorded history.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 346).

What is meant by non-archaeological? I mean that recorded history such as the bible is living and eternal because it is a non-archaeological account of the inventors of recorded history, the ancient Egyptians and Israelites. This is why the bible is the most famous and best selling book in ‘history’, because it is the first truly living and eternal (non-archaeological) recorded history in ‘history’.

It is about who was recorded history? Who was the power and the glory of the age? Not who is the new super power of the present. You have to look back instead of forward. It is better to say who was recorded history at the time?

For ever and ever.

There is no eternity without recorded history, that is that cavemen and prehistoric man (excepting cave art) did not attain eternity because they left no buildings, writing or literature behind. We do not know their names or deeds, so they are not eternal, hence hallowed be your name. However, thanks to themselves and archaeology, it was firstly the Egyptians who invented recorded history and architecture and who put thousands of years of ‘time’, ‘energy’ and devotion into eternity and the afterlife through religion, writing, mummification and tombs etc, that accomplished this.
Recorded history is eternity.

Inextricable link.

BAD26E7A-3C24-45DE-9A9D-0F5C9B66819E
What is the connection between Jesus Christ and the Buddha and recorded history?

There is an inextricable link between Jesus Christ and the Buddha and recorded history, in that despite the fact that writing only reached India after the time of the Buddha, an absolute prerequisite for a nation or civilisation to gloriously attain the Christ or the Buddha is that it must have or be recorded history. You have got to have it! You cannot attain Christ or the Buddha without first attaining recorded history. Why? Because recorded history is eternal and living. The Christ and the Buddha come at the earliest possible moment in ‘history.’ Both Christ and the Buddha would never come unless recorded history was firmly in place in that country or civilisation, as they would never be famous and their teaching would never be remembered.

Writing wasn’t in use at the Buddha’s time. Because the earliest Buddhist texts were orally transmitted and written down only many centuries after the Buddha’s death, scholars aren’t certain about what the Buddha himself taught and what was later ascribed to him.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 11).

The Buddhist spiritual community (Sangha) took great pains to preserve and transmit his teachings as purely as possible so that they could pass from one generation to the next. These extensive teachings were eventually written down, producing a vast collection (or canon) of the Buddha’s discourses (Pali: suttas; Sanskrit: sutras).

Thanks to the efforts of teachers and their disciples, the Buddha’s teachings (known as Dharma) have been handed down from generation to generation up to the present day.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 13).

During the Buddha’s lifetime, his followers collected and codified these guidelines, which eventually became the code of discipline (vinaya) that has continued to shape the monastic life for more than 2,500 years.

(Buddhism For Dummies, Jonathan Landaw, Stephen Bodian, Gudrun Bühnehmann, page 16).

That is why Jesus Christ came an Israelite, because they invented recorded history, writing and the Bible. It is no coincidence that Jesus Christ, the Son of YHWH came an Israelite. Israel is the site of the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, that being Jericho.

The city of Jericho is thought to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. Like Homer’s Troy, Jericho inevitably attracted the interest of nineteenth century archaeologists, in search of evidence for walls supposedly destroyed by Joshua’s invading Israelite army.

Dating the beginning of the Neolithic occupation is problematic, but the oldest radiocarbon date, for Sample P-378, suggests that the site [Jericho] was in use by 9250 BC (7825 radiocarbon year BC).

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 244).

Why did Jesus Christ or the Buddha not come at a different ‘time’, say in the Palaeolithic period? It is not evolutionary, it is because it would have been useless as they would never have been famous or remembered.


Sub-Saharan Africa.

Why has there been no Jesus Christ or Buddha in sub-Saharan Africa? It is nothing to do with race or phenotype, it is because there has never been recorded history in sub-Saharan Africa.

“The African, however, laments his ignorance of the art of writing, with more ostentation than sincerity; for he boasts at the same time that his gods like to be served with vigor and activity in the field, rather than by prayer and actions such as we term moral…”

(Journal of a residence in Ashantee, comprising notes and researches relative to the Gold Coast, and the interior of Western Africa, chiefly collected from Arabic mss. By Joseph Dupuis, c. 1820, page 247).

200 years ago sub-Saharan Africa had no writing or recorded history. If sub-Saharan Africa wanted to attain Jesus Christ or the Buddha they would probably have to be 100% independent like the ancient Israelites. Almost the time of day can be given of when recorded history began on the various coasts of sub-Saharan Africa.

The next forward step in the Portuguese advance was initiated when the King in 1469 leased the monopoly of trade on the West African coast to Fernão Gomes for five years, on condition that he secured the exploration of one hundred leagues of new coastline beyond Sierra Leone each year…

The immediate result of this contract was the voyage of João de Santarém and Pêro de Escobar in 1471 along the Gold Coast to the point near which the fortress of El Mina was afterwards built…

(The Voyages of Cadamosto and Other Documents on Western Africa in the Second Half of the Fifteenth Century, page xxvii).

This is how recorded history began for the Gold Coast (Ghana).

The unbelievably early date of May 1488.

Further South Bartolomeu Dias discovered and rounded the Cape of Good Hope in what is now South Africa in the unbelievably early date of May 1488.

Most important among these independent witnesses is a marginal note on folio 13 of a copy of Pierre d’Ailly’s “Imago mundi”, which was the property of Christopher Columbus. This reads as follows:

“Note, that in December of this year, 1488, there landed at Lisbon Bartolomeu Didacus [Dias], the commander of three caravels, who the King of Portugal had sent to Guinea to seek out the land, and who reported that he had sailed 600 leagues beyond the furthest reached hitherto, that is, 450 leagues to the south and then 150 leagues to the north, as far as a cape named by him the Cape of Good Hope, which cape we judge to be in Agisimba, its latitude, as determined by the astrolabe, being 45° S., and its distance from Lisbon 3100 leagues. This voyage he [Dias] had depicted and described from league to league upon a chart, so that he might show it to the king; at all of which I was present (in quibus omnibus interfui).”

This date (namely 1488) is further confirmed by Duarte Pacheco Pereira, the “Achilles Lusitano” of Camoens, for in his “Esmeraldo de Situ Orbis”, written soon after 1505, but only published in 1892, we are told that the Cape was discovered in 1488. Pacheco is a very competent witness, for Dias, on his homeward voyage, met him at the Ilha do Principe.

(Bartolomeu Dias, Ernst Georg Ravenstein, William Brooks Greenlee, Pero Vaz de Caminha, page 20-21).

FFC6B8A9-7138-40E7-9403-8E1572749D73
Bartolomeu Dias discovered and rounded the Cape of Good Hope in the unbelievably early date of May 1488.

These ‘histories’ demonstrates why sub-Saharan Africa has not yet attained Jesus Christ or the Buddha.


Recorded history ratio.

So while … the archaeological record gives us only the most incomplete perspective of the evolution of technologies, the situation is very much worse when we approach the area of cognition. … Thoughts and perceptions aren’t [preserved], or at least they weren’t until the invention of writing, a mere 5,000 years ago.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 147).

Just to demonstrate how utterly ignorant we modern advanced ‘historic’ Homo sapiens are of prehistory, consider this. Australopithecus evolved in Eastern Africa 4 million years ago, and the derivation of the genus Homo from Australopithecina took place in East Africa after 3 million years ago. Homo habilis inhabited parts of sub-Saharan Africa from roughly 2.4 to 1.5 million years ago. Homo erectus emerged about 2 million years ago. Homo antecessor of the Lower Paleolithic, is known to have been present in Western Europe (Spain, England and France) between about 1.2 million and 0.8 million years ago. Homo heidelbergensis radiated in the Middle Pleistocene from about 700,000 to 300,000 years ago. Homo neanderthalensis lived from 430,000 years ago to 40,000 years ago. And finally the earliest fossils of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) are from the Middle Paleolithic, about 300-200,000 years ago. Hence, despite the fact we do not know their names, memories, deeds, stories or individual characters, ‘prehistoric man’ has been around for 4 million years, while ‘historic man’ has been around for a piddling 5000 years! That is literally a fraction or 1/800 or 0.00125 out of 1 or 0.125% of the length of time ‘prehistoric man’ was around. That is a ratio of 600 : 0.75 or 800 : 1. Prehistoric man constitutes 99.875% of our total time on earth. If 4 million years was crammed into 24 hours, then relatively recorded history has been around since 23:58:12. We modern ‘historic’ H. sapiens sit here with our crumby 5000 years of history and think we are so great, smug and smart for knowing where we have come from for 5000 years, yet we are practically nothing in the scheme of things! Relatively ‘prehistoric man’ has been around for an inordinately longer time than ‘historic man’. That is 4 million years of memories, deeds, stories, characters and eventually names that we will never know about. Surely in heaven ‘prehistoric man’ must be compensated for this total lack of knowledge and appreciation with much fame and illustriousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

5D78DF87-94A6-4758-9442-A5BEF499B8D9
Pie chart showing how long prehistoric and historic man have existed relatively.

The Golden Parables or inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) could determine that we modern Homo sapiens should identify with recorded history and call ourselves ‘historic man’. We could be just 5000 years old?

Even if we just take into account anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) from the Middle Paleolithic, about 300-200,000 years ago. Again even though we do not know their names, memories, deeds, stories or individual characters, ‘prehistoric H. sapiens’ has been around for 300,000 years, while ‘historic H. sapiens’ has been around for a piddling 5000 years! That is literally a fraction or 1/60 or 0.01667 out of 1 or 1.667% of the length of time ‘prehistoric H. sapiens’ was around. That is a ratio of 600 : 10 or 60 : 1. Prehistoric H. sapiens constitutes 295/3% or 98.333% of our total time on earth. If 300,000 years was crammed into 24 hours, then relatively recorded history has been around since 23:36:00. We modern ‘historic H. sapiens’ sit here so high and mighty with our measly 5000 years of history and think we are so great, smug and smart for knowing exactly where we have come from for 5000 years, yet we are only a fraction in the scheme of things! Relatively ‘prehistoric H. sapiens’ has been around for an extraordinarily longer time than ‘historic H. sapiens’. That is 300,000 years of memories, deeds, stories, names and characters that we will never know about. Surely in heaven ‘prehistoric H. sapiens’ must be compensated for this total lack of knowledge and appreciation with much fame and illustriousness.

8FC52332-EF0A-4E1A-900C-D4788220685B
Pie chart showing how long prehistoric and historic H. sapiens have existed relatively.

Hominins are unnatural.

Imagine in the afterlife if you could go back to the Cambrian era or Paleozoic era and explore and hang out and stuff. It must have been sublime, just perfect and pristine, 100% natural, not a single man made object or anything unnatural whatsoever anywhere; no concrete buildings, roads, plastic waste, geometric designs or graffiti anywhere. Life has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years yet symbolic thought, creativity and art have only been around for hundreds or even just tens of thousands of years.

E2AE0825-6605-466F-A1EA-7F80ACD36F49
Paleozoic era.

If you think about it man with his unnatural or supernatural creativity and inventiveness may have spoiled this pristine nature. In fact the very first symbolic art or geometric designs on bones, stones and in caves must have spoiled or ruined this state of total perfection.

826DBEB5-A4C5-46CE-92B1-D869166D676B
Ochre pieces from Blombos Cave, South Africa, deliberately engraved or incised and it is argued that they represent a kind of early abstract or symbolic depiction and is arguably among the most complex and clearly formed of objects claimed to be early abstract representations. The surfaces were intentionally modified by scraping and grinding, and the engraved pattern formed a distinct cross-hatched design in combination with parallel incised lines. Middle Stone Age, dated to between 70,000 and 100,000 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blombos_Cave

This must mean that to be unnatural or supernatural is the object of life. It could also mean that the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) could encourage conservationism.

Prehistoric art.

Pareidolia is where a living being perceives the shape or form of another living being in completely natural or unintentional man-made objects.

For example humans can perceive shapes of animals in clouds or anthropoid faces in unintentional man-made objects. Art is similar to pareidolia, only the object is unnatural or man-made and the perceived image is intentional. This is the difference between humans and animals, as in animals cannot perceive pareidolia, recognise art or understand writing (symbols). For example animals cannot perceive cave paintings, or recognise the object or image of the lines and shapes of pigment, they just see a wall.

Not a single animal in creation has ever appreciated art, only humans.

That is the difference between humans and animals, as in only humans appreciate art. If a living creature can perceive and appreciate art, it is by definition non-animal.

The main difference is that humans use symbols and chimpanzees do not. There is little doubt that archaic humans were capable of symbolic thought, though the extent is disputed, and the ability may not even be entirely absent from chimpanzees. However, its expression in modern humans is not found elsewhere and it sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom past and present.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 418).

Altamira bisons.
Altamira bisons, Cave of Altamira, Spain, Upper Paleolithic, around 36,000 years ago.

Unless it is moving or stinking animals cannot perceive another animal. To an animal the ability to read, recognise art and perceive pareidolia is telepathy. When Palaeolithic man and woman started to (not coincidentally) paint ‘animals’ in caves he or she must have perceived pareidolia, therefore by creating such timeless masterpieces, Palaeolithic man and woman proved beyond a doubt that he or she was far beyond animal.

5CF71294-7164-4E2C-88DF-C4D894C20A38
Lascaux cave paintings, the Upper Paleolithic, estimated at around 17,000 years old (early Magdalenian).

Among these was the Catholic priest and archaeologist Abbé Henri Breuil, who was able to attest to the great antiquity of the caves [Lascaux] and described them as ‘The Sistine Chapel of Prehistory’. Another early visitor was Pablo Picasso, who on emerging from the cave, is said to have remarked – in reference to modern art – “We have invented nothing”.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 176).

33,000 year old hand stencil by a paleolithic visitor to a cave at Chauvet Pont d’Arc in the south of France.
33,000 year old hand stencil by a paleolithic visitor to a cave at Chauvet Pont d’Arc in the south of France.

Prehistoric man’s memories.

Note the primitive innocence in the above cave painting, Palaeolithic man was responsible for nothing! Also note the above image is how humans did a signature before they could write. However, I wonder what his or her name was? We know nothing about prehistoric people other than bones and stones, that is we know nothing about their names, memories, deeds, stories or individual characters, although for example they may have proven their bravery by killing large animals, and they may also have been spiritual and yearned for eternity and the afterlife.

These [three skulls] were dated by argon-argon dating of volcanic material found in the geological stratum containing the remains, and found to be between 154,000 and 160,000 years old. All three of the skulls show cut marks indicative of some form of mortuary ritual: the earliest example of such practice documented for modern humans.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 118).

Our Father, which art in heaven.

The problem for prehistoric people is that they obviously did not have writing or recorded history, so we do not know their names, memories, deeds, stories or individual characters, therefore they did not achieve eternity down here on earth or in life. Hence, because we do not and cannot ever know their names down here on earth but only in heaven, therefore hallowed be your name and on earth as in heaven is for them.

5B724BA5-16B1-4A5A-8116-D17AF9537F54
Tetragrammaton. The Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah. “He who pronounces the Name with its own letters has no part in the world to come!” Such is the prohibition of pronouncing the Name as written that it is sometimes called the “Ineffable”, “Unutterable”, or “Distinctive Name”. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton).

No name.

The names of prehistoric men are “Ineffable” and “Unutterable” because we do not and can never know them in life or on earth. Therefore, because we do not and cannot know their names, the answer to the question who is prehistoric man? Is YHWH. This is especially important for those prehistoric hominins or animals whom did not even have a name, in this case all these nameless beings must be called YHWH.

Thus the hypostases Father, Son and Spirit should not be identified with God himself, because, as Gregory Nyssa explained ‘the divine nature (ousia) is unnamable and unspeakable’; ‘Father’, ‘Son’ and ‘Spirit’ are only ‘terms that we use’ to speak of the energeiai by which he has made himself known. Yet these terms have symbolic value because they translate the ineffable reality into images that we understand.

(A History of God, Karen Armstrong, pages 140-141).

Unspeakable!

Prehistoric man did some unspeakable things such as rape, murder and cannibalism, however, their names are “Unutterable” and some of them couldn’t even speak! Therefore, such deeds were relatively less of an issue for prehistoric man. Unfortunately however, some Homo sapiens today such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish also did some pretty unspeakable things. What can we do about it? It is not good enough to make them serve ‘time’ in prison and hope it all goes away. We must correct sin. Obviously there is the connection between such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish to prehistoric men, in that the only place and ‘time’ such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish could be accepted, forgiven and at peace is with prehistoric man such as Homo erectus or Homo antecessor. Therefore, as will be seen, if such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish became, thought like or accepted that they were primitive, prehistoric or even animal, then their sins would be much ‘lighter’.

Crime relativity.

There is no morality in advanced sciences, however, there is morality and even forgiveness in generic relativity or https://crimerelativity.com. To demonstrate, consider the following. What has relativity got to do with such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish? Time! Crime and sin are relative, in that child molestation, rape, murder and cannibalism were relatively no issue with prehistoric man, this is because prehistoric man was so primitive and ancient, in that they had no infrastructure, emergency services or medicine etc and because they came from such an older and different ‘time’ period. For example, slavery was relatively acceptable in the ancient and medieval periods. Therefore, the only issue with such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish is that they were anachronistic, in that they committed crimes or sins that are out of place or in the wrong ‘time’ period, this is why they are so ‘relatively evil’ compared to the killings and cannibalism of such as Homo antecessor. Also obviously there is the connection that criminals have to serve ‘time’ in prison for their crimes or sins. Let us pray that crime relativity or relativity of evil will shed ‘light’ on these dark crevices of life.

https://relativityofcrime.com

https://crimerelativity.com


Hallowed be thy Name.

In heaven the older you are the more famous and illustrious you are, (as in prehistoric, ancient or medieval people).

8EFA481D-1B1B-44F7-BAF7-359B24D367AD
Lascaux cave paintings, the Upper Paleolithic, estimated at around 17,000 years old (early Magdalenian).

Note the primitive innocence in the above cave painting, Palaeolithic man was responsible for nothing! For example, how famous do you think the painter or painters of the Lascaux or Altamira cave paintings is/are in the afterlife? In the afterlife how famous do you think the Israelite patriarchs of the bible are such as Abraham, Issac, Moses, Aaron and Joshua etc? Imagine meeting them. There is no one more holy and famous in the world. And despite the fact that no one has seen a photograph or video footage of Christ or the Buddha, because they are the most famous men in history, we all feel like we have seen their faces anyway. Therefore, also imagine being a real soldier who fought in the Greco-Persian Wars or the Trojan War (if it were real). Or imagine being an authentic and indigenous Roman citizen. That must be pretty awesome.

And although ancient and medieval people did have writing and recorded history they had no cameras or photography, therefore, because we know so little about prehistoric, ancient and medieval people on earth, therefore in the afterlife they will be the most famous and illustrious. In the afterlife imagine being a prehistoric man such as Palaeolithic man. It has got to be pretty awesome. Like animals prehistoric man is innocent and funny because as he was so primitive and had no wealth or infrastructure, he literally got away with murder and cannibalism etc. I would have so many questions for prehistoric man. Who are you? What is your name? What are your memories? What was it like? Do you have any stories?

The less the more, the more the less.

Ancient and medieval people had to prove their bravery on the battlefield, but prehistoric men and women such as Palaeolithic and Mesolithic men and women were brave simply by being alive such a long ‘time’ ago. They had no infrastructure, military or emergency services to rescue them, so if they were attacked by large animals such as lions, wolves, bears and mammoths etc it was a case of ‘hard luck mate, you’re on your own!’ This lack of infrastructure is why or how prehistoric man could literally get away with murder and cannibalism relatively, and proves that the older you are the more primitive you are, therefore, the less responsible you are, and therefore, the more innocent you are.

The most dramatic evidence for Neanderthal hunting comes from the 130,000-year-old site of Lehringen in Germany, where a wooden spear with a fire-hardened tip was found lodged between the ribs of a mammoth. Neanderthals clearly weren’t afraid to take on the largest of mammals.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 100).

They also had no medicine, hence if they got an infection or broke a bone, their lives were in danger. This is not to detract from medieval or ancient people who also had no option but to fight for their tribe, family and lives, for example against Viking marauders. They too had little medicine. In fact the further you go back in ‘time’ the harsher and more violent it was.

Nameless.

The older you are the more holy you are and the older you are the more respect you command. Therefore, because we do not and cannot know their names, the answer to the question who is prehistoric man? Is YHWH. This particularly important for those prehistoric ‘men’ or primitive animals whom were nameless, in this case all these anonymous entities must be called YHWH.

Palaeolithic man.
Palaeolithic man.

Control.
EC9DA152-ECB5-4262-9CB6-B4D0ED24A34D

Our species exhibits a series of adaptations, which are collectively unique among carbon-based life forms on earth. These include high intelligence, linguistic ability, the hand, high-acuity vision, the upright stance, and sociability. Moreover, the design and dimensions of the human body are fit for the handling of fire—a crucial ability, because it was only through the conquest of fire that humans discovered metals, developed technology and science, and ultimately came to comprehend the laws of nature and grasp the overall structure of the cosmos.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 103).

Because the smallest sustainable fire is about 50 centimeters across, only an organism of approximately our dimensions and design—about 1.5 to 2 meters in height with mobile arms about 1 meter long ending in manipulative tools—can handle fire. An organism the size of an ant would be far too small because the heat would kill it long before it was as close as several body lengths from the flames. Even an organism the size of a small dog would have considerable difficulty in manipulating a fire. So we must be at least the size we are to use fire, to utilize metal tools, to have a sophisticated technology, to have a knowledge of chemistry and electricity and explore the world.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 103-104).

How did a relatively gentle ape who was never top of the food chain come to master and dominate the world? We are only moderately sized and strong, we do not have big or sharp teeth and we do not have flesh-ripping claws. The control of fire probably had something to do with it. What is a saber-toothed cat when confronted with a fire? And although the roar of a fierce lion or bear is enough to create sheer terror in any creature on earth, a roaring fire is infinitely more violent, fierce and vicious! Even lions are afraid of fire. Man with his control of fire is the most vicious animal to have ever walked the earth. Fire was first discovered, controlled or harnessed in sub-Saharan Africa, but who or what was the discoverer of fire? Although the genus (Homo erectus) is known, it could be difficult to hypothetically establish or pin the discovery of fire to one individual. For example, we could say the honour of the true discoverer and inventor of the creation of fire goes to that individual who not only successfully and independently created fire but also successfully passed on the knowledge to others, there by creating an eternal flame that has not gone out to this very day? But this is a bit far-fetched. We could suggest that the honour and privilege just goes to that person or individual who first created fire? Even though he/she may have died without successfully passing on the knowledge. However, primitive hominins probably first lost their fear of and then simply controlled wild fires to begin with, does this count as the discovery of fire? I believe so. How famous do you think the discoverer of fire is in the afterlife? Was the discovery of fire a spiritual experience? Was it ‘enlightenment’?

There is little doubt that fire use was a key breakthrough for early humans. Fire can be used to deter predators, to provide heat and lighting, and for cooking. Human activities can be carried on through the hours of darkness, and fire would certainly have been an asset in the colder regions beyond Africa.

The earliest archaeological evidence for fire use in Africa is inconclusive. Localised red patches of oxidised sediment found at the site of Koobi Fora (FxJj20) in Kenya date to around 1.6 million years ago and are thought to be remains from fire use by early humans. Similar evidence has been reported from the slightly younger site of Chesowanja, also in Kenya. Stronger evidence has been found at Swartkrans Cave, near Sterkfontein, South Africa, which is about 1.0 to 1.5 million years old.

The earliest currently-known evidence for fire use that does qualify as ‘extraordinary’ is that from Wonderwerk Cave, an Acheulean-era site in Northern Cape Province, South Africa, dating to approximately one million years ago.

This evidence tells us that African Homo erectus was making use of fire no later than one million years ago, and probably earlier.

(Humans: from the beginning, by Christopher Seddon, page 67-68).

68923D66-2544-4F14-A7A4-11838903F15B
The first control of fire.

I believe the above image is amazing! Relatively the first control of fire is just as amazing as is a man walking on the moon or a rocket launch, (which is just extremely advanced control of fire or an explosion) is to us.


The power and the glory.

Is the power and the glory that Jesus Christ ascribed to YHWH, some mysterious magic mumbo-jumbo or miraculous hocus-pocus that helped Jesus Christ perform miracles or is it more literal and down to earth than that? Is the power and the glory not just political power and national glory?

It is, however, well known, that the Gold-Coast, as well as other parts of the coast of Guinea, has been the source of much wealth; that it has given employment to many classes of our countrymen; and that it has contributed to support the great bulwark and glory of the Nation!

(An Account of the Gold Coast of Africa: with a Brief History of the African Company, Henry Meredith, page v.)

The Golden Parables or inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) work economically or socially in the inverse or counter direction to conventional social standards or norms. This means that they look back to or point back in the direction of the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. Instead of looking to or pointing in the direction of those whose names we know down here in life and who are famous, such as superstars, the Queen, Bill Gates and Apple Inc, they look back to or point back in the direction of those whose names we do not know in life but can only know in heaven, such as the lower class, destitute, ancient and prehistoric.

Lascaux cave paintings.
Lascaux cave paintings. Depiction of aurochs, horses and deer, 17,000 BP.

To attain the power and the glory you have to look back instead of forward.

It is not just individually but also internationally. For example, instead of always looking to the new world super power, I look back to the kingdom of YHWH or the old power and glory of the Old Testament, such as the Nile Valley, North Africa and the Near East then the New Testament such as Greece, Rome, Britain then America etc.

It works backwards or inversely because the poorer you are the more native or primitive you are.

Joseph interpreting Pharaoh’s dream.
Joseph interpreting Pharaoh’s dream.

It is the oldest story in the book. It is about who it was at the time, who was the power and the glory of the age? Not who is the new super power in the present. You have to look back instead of forward. It is about being right not bigger or more powerful. It is the Christian moral of the rich man and the poor man.


Thy will be done.

Yours will be done means we should do whatever YHWH commands us, that possibly being to create the kingdom on earth as in heaven. As above so below.

In earth, as it is in heaven.

This also means we should live on earth as in heaven, for example we should never care about money or ‘energy’.


And forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive them that trespass against us.

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Mark 2:17.

Relatively, who cares?

Therefore, I am not dealing with minor or petty sin such as Mother Teresa feeling contrite and repentant for taking the largest slice of cake.

Petty sin.
Relatively, who cares?

Nor am I concerned about such as British Prime Minister Theresa May who in an interview with Julie Etchingham on ITV’s Tonight programme on 5 June 2017, said the naughtiest thing she had ever done was to ‘run through fields of wheat’ as a child.

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_through_fields_of_wheat).

0FCD255E-C893-4E76-B7C5-EBD878779965
Relatively, who cares?

I am dealing with real sin such as crimes against humanity, genocide, homicide, child molestation and rape etc. The idea is that it does not get any worse than the above, and if you can fix such as the above then nothing is really a problem and therefore, all sin is fixed. For example, if you have hit your father, or slapped your wife, or if you are serving ‘time’ for minor crimes such as ABH or burglary etc, as will be seen, if we can forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Savile, then relatively, who cares?

Light.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Genesis 1:3.

What do I mean by let us pray crime relativity or relativity of evil will shed ‘light’ on these darkest areas of human existence? I do not mean ‘light’ as in a torch or photons, but ‘lightheartedness’. Shedding ‘light’ on evil does not need to be a miracle, it just needs to be ‘lightheartedness’.

The Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and primitive innocence (crime relativity) can absolve of sins for many reasons.

  1. Crime is relative.
  2. Primitivism is innocence.
  3. Because prehistoric man, such as Neolithic man had stone tools, they were as innocent as new born babies!
  4. Good guys can go deranged (trust me).
  5. Greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are no sweat with prehistoric men.
  6. Sin and guilt are good because early or primitive hominins and animals were/are ignorant of sin and did/do not feel guilt. Sin is intrinsically good because it is by definition non-animal. YHWH loves and is amazed by humans because we are not animals, we are not ignorant of sin and we feel guilt.
  7. Guilt is human. Guilt is good.
  8. What has relativity got to do with such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish? Time! Sin is relative, because child molestation, rape, murder and cannibalism were relatively no sweat with prehistoric man, this is because prehistoric man was to so primitive and had no technology, infrastructure or medicine and came from a much older and different ‘time’ period. Therefore, the only issue with such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish is that they were anachronistic, in that they committed sins that are out of place or in the wrong ‘time’, hence they are only ‘relatively evil’.
  9. The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are. Therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are.

    What does this mean?

    There are two opposite ways in which one can be advanced or primitive: collective or individual.

    • Collective: The younger or more modern you are the more advanced you are, therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are. Therefore the older or more ancient you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. This means that slavery was relatively more acceptable in ancient and medieval times, also that such as Jeffrey Dahmer got into much more trouble for cannibalism than did Homo antecessor.
    • Individual: The older or more adult you are the more advanced you are therefore the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are. Therefore the younger or more juvenile you are the more primitive you are therefore the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. This means that adults get into much more trouble than kids for sin.
  10. It does not matter to YHWH if a primitive animal kills another animal or even a human and similarly it was less of an issue for primitive prehistoric people to kill another human than it is for advanced modern people to do so today. We advanced modern people get in much more trouble with YHWH for such acts today, as we should know better.
  11. It is also the reason why Islam and the Muslim world can get away with violence, such as terrorism and punishment such as amputation for thieves, while the Christian and capitalist western countries cannot use violence. Why? Because Islam is primitive and the west is advanced.
  12. It is also the reason why rich people such as the Queen have to have such good manners and elocution, while the poor lower classes can have thick accents and can comically get away with murder with foul language and vulgar humour. The lower class can say or do what they like.
  13. Africans are innocent and funny because they are primitive, like animals or prehistoric man, for example, certain things that are taboo or sinful in the UK are no sweat in the continent of Africa. For example drink driving (especially in the bush) is not an issue there, where as in the UK it is very serious. Why is such as drink driving acceptable in Africa, but not in the UK? Because Africa is more primitive and the UK is more advanced. Which would you prefer?
  14. Animals such as birds are funny because they never think about sharing food, they just go for the belly or the energy of life, that is the fats, protein and nutrients etc, without even considering another bird (unlike the Golden Parables). Therefore, if someone who commits a sin makes themselves equal to animals, this animal comedy ‘lightens’ his/her sins and hence he/she is forgiven.
  15. If someone who commits a sin (such as Jeffrey Dahmer) does not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead becomes, thinks, acts or accepts that he/she is primitive, prehistoric or even animal, then his or her sin is much ‘lighter’ or even forgiven.
  16. For example, because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal, therefore the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an animal. If he accepts this then his sins are ‘lighter’.
  17. The Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) are without sin because they pay every single last penny, this is because natives or primitives such as bushmen or prehistoric man are/were literally penniless.

https://giveeverythingaway.com

Mesolithic man.
Mesolithic man.

Give everything away.

This hypothesis determines that if a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmer really wanted forgiveness, then if he thought like or accepted that he was an animal or a prehistoric man, such as Homo antecessor, and gave away every last penny and possession that he owned, he might ‘lighten’ his sins and be forgiven.

Think differently to animals.

Crime relativity.

There is no morality in advanced sciences, however, there is morality and even forgiveness in generic relativity or https://crimerelativity.com. To demonstrate, consider the following. What has relativity got to do with crime? Time! Crime and sin are relative, because greed, theft, rape, child molestation, murder and cannibalism were relatively no sweat with primitive animals and prehistoric man, this is because prehistoric man was primitive and old, in that he came from a much more ancient and different ‘time’ period. For example, slavery was relatively acceptable in the ancient and medieval periods. Therefore, the only issue with modern crimes is that they are anachronistic, in that they are out of place or in the wrong ‘time’, this is why they are so ‘relatively evil’ compared to the sins of prehistoric man. Also obviously there is the connection that criminals have to serve ‘time’ in prison for their crimes or sins. Let us pray crime relativity or relativity of evil can shed ‘light’ on these dark corners of life.

https://relativityofsin.com

Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Luke 23:34.


Natural versus unnatural or supernatural selection.

There is a connection between Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species and his theory of descent with modification through natural selection and Genesis or creationism. Apart from the well known fact which everyone knows, that being that Charles Darwin’s Origin practically made Genesis or creationism redundant, there is actually a connection that makes the two not too dissimilar or totally incompatible. This subtle connection is the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) and because both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil of Genesis are connected to evolution by ‘unnatural or supernatural’ selection. The story of Adam and Eve is innocence because not only were Adam and Eve primitive, but also so were the authors of Genesis.

The answer is simple: Darwinism is first of all a philosophy and only secondly a science. It is the philosophy of naturalism in contrast to the supernaturalism believed in for millenia by most of earth’s inhabitants.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 182).

What is unnatural or supernatural selection? Like the Golden Parables, unnatural or supernatural selection always chooses those who go against nature, the non-animal or the good, moral and kind, as evidenced by the fact that Homo sapiens have come to dominate life on earth through being moral and good.

The significance of a mechanism can be understood only within the worldviews of its proponents. The ‘naturalism’ that initially proposed and supported Darwin’s mechanism was both a world view and a social movement. These individuals viewed the world as autonomous, and the Darwinian mechanism as autonomous creator. The scientific members of this movement, Huxley’s ‘X’ club, were engaged in a successful campaign to wrest the university chairs in the sciences from the clergymen/naturalists of the Established Church. The ability of Darwinism to replace the divine with a natural process was a critical support.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 189).

Creationists vehemently disagree with Darwinists and neo-Darwinists, they are abhorred by natural selection because it means everything comes down to chance and that therefore there is no meaning to life.

The traditions I refer to have to do chiefly with the early chapters of Genesis. University professors usually ridicule the creation story of Genesis chapter 1 and the stories concerning Adam and Eve, the serpent, and the Fall. But these chapters are the foundation of the whole Bible, and if they go, the whole edifice of revelation crumbles. When that happens, for most, life threatens to become a meaningless affair based on chance. There is now no protection against the temptations that wreck so many. The licentiousness, violence, and drunken pursuits, and the temptation to suicide, which characterize city living in particular are the result of hidden anger which springs from the apparent meaninglessness of life.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, Foreword).

And Darwinists do not like creationism and take a dim view of blind faith in Genesis because it obviously does not provide an accurate or scientific account of the beginning of the universe, the world and life.

This book is a protest against the propaganda of neo-atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens—they worship Darwin and Chance, but the two deities combined cannot produce even a thimble, let alone a universe. Such men forget that while the believer has one problem—to account for suffering and evil—unbelievers have to account for everything else. Our troubled world has one billion professed atheists and one-and-a-half billion inhabitants who say they have no interest in religion. But, if there is no God, there is no right and wrong. Professor Sedgwick summarized the impact of Darwinism long ago. He labeled the Origin as “a dish of rank materialism, cleverly cooked and served up merely to make us independent of a Creator.” He prophesied that if Darwin’s teachings were accepted, humanity would suffer a damage that might brutalize it and sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records of its history. Due to the Darwinian stress on the “survival of the fittest”—taken up by philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, politicians and dictators—war has been deemed desirable by many world leaders. The consequence has been over 100 million deaths from war in the twentieth-century alone.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, Foreword).

However, unnatural or supernatural selection could satisfy both parties. It is supernatural and hence it could satisfy the creationists’ morality, yet it is still ‘selection’ and evolution and hence it could satisfy the Darwinists’ rationality.

The conflict between Genesis and Darwinism is over the nature of man. Darwin wrote “man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears.” He told the world that the arrival of this creature had nothing to do with God. He was only the product of chance. Since that doctrine has spread, humans have become disposable insects of no value, and dictators have multiplied.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, Foreword).

The fact that not only the tree of life is connected to unnatural or supernatural selection but also the tree of knowledge of good and evil proves beyond a shadow of doubt there is a deeper kabbalistic connection to Darwinism.

The trees.

“Petter Hellström has demonstrated that Darwin consciously chose to name his tree after the biblical tree of life, as described in Genesis, thus relating his theory to Christian mythology, and suggesting that he did so to mobilise the imagination of his readers.“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

The tree of life or universal tree of life is a metaphor, model and research tool used to explore the evolution of life and describe the relationships between organisms, both living and extinct, as described in a famous passage in Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree.

As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications.

(On the Origin of Species: Penguin Classics, Charles Darwin, page 123).

Charles Darwin (1809–1882) used the concept of a tree of life in the context of his theory of evolution. In On the Origin of Species (1859) Chapter IV he presented an abstract diagram of a theoretical tree of life for species of an unnamed large genus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

E0D043AD-9156-4F07-973B-E8FF3ECF5436
The tree of life image that appeared in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, 1859. It was the book’s only illustration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

In contemporary usage, tree of life refers to the compilation of comprehensive phylogenetic databases rooted at the last universal common ancestor of life on Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(biology)

The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground – trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:9.

E5F1DBC9-300D-4D5D-9F0F-649AEB564699
Trees in the centre of the biblical Garden of Eden.

In the beginning (primitive innocence).

Darwin’s revolution in science grew from the concept that one or a few original one-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then into fish, then into amphibians, then into reptiles, then into lower mammals, then into primates, then into man.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 110).

In the beginning’ nobody told cavemen not to be harsh, nobody told cavemen not to be greedy, nobody told caveman not to steal, nobody told cavemen not to rape, nobody told cavemen not to murder and nobody told cavemen not to cannibalise. Therefore, he obviously did all these things. It also means that greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are relatively no issue with prehistoric men. Primitive animals such as mudskippers had no Ten Commandments. How did our primitive ancestors such as Homo erectus figure out or learn what was good and what was evil? We just made loads and loads of mistakes.

36715E1A-B674-4255-8185-63AFE8A646FA
Paleozoic Landscape.

A single drop of regret.

Life has existed on this planet for 3.5 billion years, and in all that time there has been nonstop violence and carnage without a single drop of regret. Most wild animals have either killed and eaten other animals, or been killed and eaten by other wild animals. Therefore, in contact with humans (or other animals), all wild animals automatically presume the worst, that is that you are going to kill them and eat them. We have all seen for example how a trapped wild animal, such as a bird or rabbit reacts to you trying to help it. Because they have no language, no matter what you do you cannot explain to that animal that you are not trying to kill it, but that you are trying to help it. 3.5 billion years of trained instincts and statistics determine animals just do not understand that another animal species would ever try to help them. There is no such thing as trust in the animal kingdom. After 3.5 billion years of viciousness, violence, I have bigger teeth than you, and eat or be eaten, animals do not trust us in the slightest. Therefore, how much do you think YHWH will appreciate the fact that one animal species has trust and does not necessarily and automatically kill and eat every other animal that it sees? It is not an automatic guarantee that humans will kill every animal they see, infact 99.9% of the time they will not, as there is no reason to. You cannot predict a human. We think about it and we are compassionate and magnanimous toward wild animals. After 3.5 billion years of killing and cannibalism without a single drop of regret, how much do you think YHWH will appreciate mankind?

Print
Cambrian explosion.

‪Concerning sin and forgiveness one must have the eternal eyes of YHWH or His perspective of ‘time’, evolution or creation. If the whole ‘time’ of the earth was crammed into one single day or 24 hours, then relatively humans have been around since 11:58:43 pm.

History of the earth in 24 hours.
History of the earth in 24 hours.

Humans are not animals or at least they have not been for a relatively long ‘time’, perhaps over a million years or so and YHWH knows this or can see this in an instant or in a way that we cannot see. YHWH waited billions of years or for nearly an eternity of ‘time’ simply for a living being to feel guilt or remorse.

5CA920BB-6692-4297-939B-4642DE3529A7
Cambrian explosion.

That being is by definition non-animal. YHWH has seen it all. Compared to the animal kingdom we are marvellous. To reiterate YHWH is amazed by you because you are not animal and you feel guilt, therefore, YHWH will forgive you any sin. However, the consequence is that if someone sins against you, you cannot have the eternal eyes of YHWH or His eternal perspective of ‘time’ and creation until you forgive first.‬

If someone sins against you say I get the eternal eyes of YHWH for forgiveness and so do you. (I am not talking about Mother Teresa’s taking the largest slice of cake, but such as Jeffrey Dahmer). Note the similarity with forgive us our sins, as we have forgiven those who sin against us.

4E5260AA-5799-4D70-87E6-7EBA43607B2E
The eternal eyes of YHWH.

Why isn’t the world perfect?

  1. Why did humans not come with knowledge of good and evil from the beginning?
  2. Why did humans have no ethics and morality right from the start?
  3. Why were humans not perfect angels from the beginning?
  4. Why did humans have to evolve out of vicious animals?
  5. Why did humans have to learn the hard way?
  6. Why does life start out evil and then become good?
  7. Why must there be hell before heaven?
  8. Why isn’t the world perfect?
  9. Why is there sin?
  10. Why did we only learn by making loads and loads of mistakes?
  11. Why do humans have to die before they attain eternal bliss?
  12. Why can’t humans attain nirvana like Christ and the Buddha before they die?

Genesis tells us that before the fall, that is before Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that humans were innocent and that they did live in paradise in the Garden of Eden and that they did not suffer. So without knowledge of good and evil there was innocence and bliss and with it there was guilt, death, pain, toil and suffering. In reality we probably evolved out of vicious animals who had no knowledge of good and evil up until some point.

It may be the final basis of all sanity in our religious psychology to understand that even God can not give unto his beloved children the bliss and blessedness of divine life without imposing on them the ineluctable condition that they earn the right to it by developing the capability for it in the time-tempting mill of evolution.

(The Tree of Knowledge, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 10th chapter, The Fruit Leads Man to Death).

Natural versus unnatural or supernatural selection.

If Darwinism is true there is no God, no afterlife, no distinction between good and evil, nothing wrong with Auschwitz, or the murders in our cities.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 108).

I believe that sin and the tree of knowledge of good and evil are connected to and therefore not incompatible with Darwinism. What has the tree of knowledge of good and evil got to do with descent with modification through unnatural or supernatural selection? For example how did we learn knowledge of good and evil? We just made loads and loads of mistakes! We living creatures of life receive no help or warning from YHWH or anyone whatsoever, we are on our own, we are 100% independent and we learn on our own through unnatural or supernatural selection and evolution. You could say that being evil or animal, as in being the strongest, most vicious and having the biggest teeth, like a lion is the best advantage or benefit to a creature that will tend to lead to its increased chances of survival and natural selection. However, look at yourself, you are a good human being, and human beings have clearly won the struggle for life and come to dominate life on earth, not by being the most vicious or strongest, but by learning the difference between good and evil, and by being as good as possible to the best of their abilities. This determines that morals, ethics and righteousness are connected to descent with modification through unnatural or supernatural selection, in that (like Golden Parables) it always chooses those who go against nature, the non-animal or the good, moral and kind. Clearly being good, moral and kind is a huge benefit not only to yourself but also your species! For example, someone or something had to learn the hard way by fighting over food in order to learn that sharing is good and leads to things like manners and etiquette, and that greed is evil and leads to things like anger and hate. Clearly unnatural or supernatural selection definitely chose manners and etiquette over greed or having the most food. What is unnatural or supernatural selection? I do not mean artificial selection, but for example, like the Golden Parables, animals such as birds or lions never perform the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity), that is like natural selection animals are purely 100% natural, in that in reality animals never go against nature (like the Golden Parables). But humans are supposed to be more than animals, more than nature, we are supposed to be unnatural or supernatural. Unfortunately most people, especially capitalists are 100% natural and do behave like animals such as (non-Golden) birds or lions. Perhaps if there was such as thing as unnatural or supernatural selection, this would satisfy the more religious and spiritual of us, that is creationists or anti-Darwinists such as Desmond Ford?

In this chapter she quotes the evolutionary geneticist H. Allen Orr: “The ugly fact is that we haven’t a shred of evidence that morality did or did not evolve by natural selection.”

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 222).

The story of Adam and Eve is innocence because not only were Adam and Eve primitive, but also so were the authors of Genesis.

C3BADA90-E6DF-4FF1-8E5F-33B312D853A0
The tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden bearing the forbidden fruit which Adam and Eve disobediently ate.

https://innocentprimitivism.com

At what point in evolutionary terms does killing another member of the same species become murder? For example Homo erectus or Homo antecessor did not feel any guilt or remorse for killing or cannibalising another member of the same species, and it was never murder. To reiterate, greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are relatively no sweat with prehistoric men. However, at some point YHWH had had enough and then more evolved or advanced hominins began to feel guilt or remorse for so called ‘murder’ or ‘cannibalism.’ It was only through unnatural or supernatural selection, through learning the hard way, through the mistakes of early hominins and prehistoric man that we learned ethics and morality and gained knowledge of what is good and what is evil.

3600FE92-EE44-4E78-8DF7-4D3E8D649786
Adam and Eve a painting by Peter Paul Rubens.

https://innocenceofprimitivism.com

That is what humans do, we bravely come here without consent to learn about sin for YHWH. Humans are brave, we feel unpleasant things like guilt, shame, embarrassment, wrath, anger and hate then we die.

And lead us not into temptation.

To “tempt” is to present to the intended victim or subject a lure, or prospect of an appealing or desirable nature with the hope that he may “bite” on it and thus fall into the designed trap set by the tempter.

(The Tree of Knowledge, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 9th chapter, Why Was Man Tempted?).

What does and lead us not into temptation of the Lord’s Prayer mean?

And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

Genesis 2:16-17.

There are many fascinating parallels between the Garden of Eden with its first temptation and the Garden of Gethsemane and what might be called Christ’s last temptation (there he made the decision to go through with the Cross).

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 28).

Likewise Jesus was tempted by Satan, “that old serpent” of Revelation; and so we have four central items of the same story, the tree, the cup, the serpent and the temptation, in both the Genesis and the New Testament formulations of the archaic typology.

(The Tree of Knowledge, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 5th chapter, The Juice of The Fruit).

Still the ignorant gape and their wonder grows as to why God, omnipotent and all wise, allowed a snake to come in to annoy the first human pair and so quickly seduce them to their—and our—eternal “fall”. Common reasoning suggests that it was a bit unfair and inconsiderate of the Almighty Father to throw a giant temptation in the way of our first progenitors at the very first moment of their career.

(The Tree of Knowledge, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 6th chapter, The Wily Serpent).

I hate him and I ate him?

If I were a caveman who got punished for killing another caveman, I would say to YHWH, why did you not warn me? Therefore, it means that because YHWH does not warn us, hence, at the least lead us not into temptation. For example ‘in the beginning’ nobody told caveman ‘thou shalt not steal’ and ‘thou shalt not kill’ etc and therefore he obviously stole and killed etc. Also ‘in the beginning’ nobody told medieval man, such as Henry the Navigator, ‘thou shalt not slave!’ Therefore he obviously slaved. We hominins only learn ourselves by making loads and loads of mistakes, and because there is no warning, therefore, there is a second chance. Therefore, it means that we (especially the more ancient and primitive of us) committed sin without warning, hence, at the least lead us not into temptation. For example, someone or something had to learn the hard way by fighting over food in order to learn that sharing is good and leads to things like manners and etiquette, and that greed is evil and is uncivilised and animalistic. Also someone or something may have had to cannibalise and get into a lot of heat with YHWH, in order to learn that never cannibalising is a very good thing indeed and leads to great things like friendships, bonding, trust, chivalry, greatness, esteem, civility and righteousness, where as cannibalism is evil and leads to distrust, envy, malice, ignorance and hate.

Temptation comes when we disobey or neglect the Word and warnings of our Maker and reject the truth of his love.

God, after drawing our attention to the sin problem and temptation its precursor, now warns us about the cost of living for him—another temptation. As we thus review chapters two, three, and four of Genesis it is clear that morality and religion are their theme, not history, and certainly not science.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 87).

Representations and vignettes found in ancient documents picture the scene of the “temptation” in the garden. There is the tree, with the woman standing close beside its branches, the serpent reaching out its head from the foliage and whispering into her ear, while she hands a cup of the juice of the fruit of the tree to her husband at her side. It is the allegory done over in vignette.

(The Tree of Knowledge, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 4th chapter, That “Forbidden” Fruit).

‘You will not certainly die,’ the snake said to the woman. ‘For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Genesis 3:4-5.

Here is the clinching certification that man’s deification, the distant goal and crowning achievement of his long course of evolution, comes with and through his rising in mind estate to the mountain-top of vision wherefrom he can see good and evil melt together in one transcendent consummation of beneficence.

(The Tree of Knowledge, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 6th chapter, The Wily Serpent).

Evolution.

In the beginning’ because nobody gave humans the knowledge of good and evil, and because we had to learn the hard way by evolving out of vicious animals through unnatural or supernatural selection and because YHWH does not warn us, therefore, at the least lead us not into temptation. How did we learn knowledge of good and evil? We just made loads and loads of mistakes! To reiterate because we (especially the more ancient and primitive of us) committed sin without warning, hence, at the least lead us not into temptation. Because there is no warning of sin, therefore, there is forgiveness and a second chance. The second chance is the afterlife. Cavemen certainly needed a second chance. Who doesn’t need a second chance apart from Jesus Christ?

Jesus carrying the cross.
Jesus carrying the cross.

Like how prehistoric man with his stone tools was innocently primitive like a new born baby, similarly the Christ was primitively innocent like a new born baby, yet despite His pure innocence Christ was crucified for the forgiveness of all our sins. Both prehistoric man and The Son of Man touch us with their primitive innocence. Jesus even told us that we will never enter the kingdom of heaven unless we become like little children.

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,”He said,“unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Matthew 18:1-6.


Guilt is good.

Humans should compare themselves to animals more often and appreciate themselves. Compared to the animal kingdom we are awesome. But hypocritically we humans should not make ourselves superior to animals, as it is not healthy. YHWH does not really care, in fact YHWH loves it when you make yourself not superior to animals. To make yourself equal to animals is very modest and humble, and as mentioned the more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. What is more impressive to YHWH a non-animal who feels guilt or an animal who feels guilt? We know that if we ever commit a sin or a crime that humans are better than the animal kingdom because we feel guilt. Do not think of Jesus Christ all the time, because he was without sin, think of prehistoric men because they did much sin. If you have sinned do not be too advanced, special or a supreme being, be primitive, prehistoric or even animal and then your sin is much ‘lighter’ or even forgiven. God loves and is amazed by humans because we are not animals and we feel guilt. Guilt is human. Guilt is good.

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’

Genesis 3:21-22.

Prehistoric man.
Prehistoric man.

You cannot sin unless you are conscious of sin.

To YHWH the knowledge of sin is intrinsically noble and good because animals are completely ignorant of sin. You cannot sin unless you are conscious of sin. That is that children and animals cannot sin. Also for example, if someone is tricked into consuming human flesh, by being given meat and told it is kangaroo meat when it is actually human flesh and then that person eats it, in this scenario because that person who eats it is not conscious of the fact that they have consumed human flesh, then they have not sinned and no sin has been committed. Therefore, the idea or concept of sin is intrinsically noble and good. After billions of years of evolution of life on Earth, YHWH simply appreciates the fact that one animal species is not wholly ignorant of sin. (Notice we have to say “wholly” because of the Holocaust). Early hominins or hominids did not sin because they were ignorant of sin. In a way despite the viciousness and violence the animal kingdom is perfect or without sin.

952A8E25-28F5-4173-B4D9-81B6670768F4
Cambrian explosion.

Sin is intrinsically good because it is by definition non-animal.

Sin is human because humans have knowledge of sin, and because we have knowledge of sin we are non-animal. That is what is amazing about sin, because only non-animals know they have sinned. Homo sapiens are awesome because they do not have to care about sin, nobody makes them, and there is no reason why they should care. What is the benefit of knowing? It is a miracle we know about sin at all. We could be animals and get away with sin. Clearly descent with modification through unnatural or supernatural selection chooses those creatures who are most conscious of sin and who have the most knowledge of sin (or good and evil). That is what is amazing about sin, because the idea or knowledge of it is by definition non-animal. It is miraculous because we do not have to care about sin. It is intrinsically noble and good that one animal species has taken it upon itself to know and learn about sin for YHWH. That is what humans are, that is the difference between humans and animals. Sin is beautiful. Animals do not feel guilt. Guilt is good.

Prehistoric man.
Prehistoric man.

Hear me further: I will give you the comforting assurance that if ye eat of this fruit, ye shall not die in any final sense; nay more, if ye eat of this fruit, ye shall from the eating thereof become as gods, knowing good and evil, for your eating will open your eyes to see all life with the understanding of gods.

And the revealing utterance of the serpent is his statement to Eve that “God doth know” that the eating will make you as one of the Elohim, who know the eventual beneficence of the tension between good and evil.

(The Tree of Knowledge, Alvin Boyd Kuhn, 10th chapter, The Fruit Leads Man to Death).

Deal.

The deal is that if you have knowledge of sin (or good and evil) then you will be more technologically advanced, however, the catch of the deal is that you will get into much more trouble for sins than primitive animals.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Genesis 3:7.


Primitive innocence.

Sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world can give us many examples of primitivism, for example Africans are innocent and funny like prehistoric man and animals because they are poor and primitive, therefore they can do or get away with things that we advanced, clumsy/stupid white people cannot simply do. Remember greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism were relatively no sweat with prehistoric men, similarly, many things that are taboo, sinful or illegal in the UK are no sweat in the continent of Africa.

Indecent exposure.

Public nakedness is no issue for Africans in the continent of Africa whatsoever, it is not rude or pornographic, even in capital cities, (I saw full male nudity in Accra in 2012) where as public nakedness for white people in the UK (or anywhere else), is rude, pornographic, unacceptable and would lead to your arrest for indecent exposure. To explain differences in nudity perspectives between Africans and the Europeans consider the following. Why are Europeans advanced and Africans primitive? It could possibly be down to temperature and climate. In tropical Africa you can relax about the predictable temperature and less extreme seasons. Being in the perennial warmth and humid climates of sub-Saharan Africa is not the same as being in the freezing wildernesses of Northern Europe. Europeans are native to the cold. It was probably a lot harder to live and survive in temperate or arctic climates during the winter seasons (for European prehistoric people), so they probably had to use more ingenuity, planning, storing and construction to stay warm and alive during such freezing winter months. Where as in tropical Africa one can relax more and have a more laid back attitude towards the climate and seasons. Therefore, hot and tropical climates are not as conducive as cold and temperate climates to ingenuity, invention and technological development, such as writing. Obviously the cold temperatures and climate made Europeans white as well, as the further north prehistoric men trekked, the more vitamin D they required and the lighter they got over the generations, due to natural selection. Northern Europeans have many slang words for cold temperatures that Africans have probably rarely used, for example: Chilly! Nippy! Bitter! Frosty! Freezing! Baltic! Arctic! Nithering! Knackering! Biting! Bitch cold! Bollocking! If the reason the Europeans are advanced and the Africans are primitive is not down to climate or temperature, then what else is it? For example, to fully explain the difference in nudity perspectives between Africans and Europeans, temperature is probably the reason why it is not rude or pornographic and is totally acceptable for Africans to be naked in public, even in capital cities, while is it absolutely shocking, rude, pornographic and totally unacceptable for white people to be naked in public anywhere. This is because evolutionarily, it was always absolutely imperative for white people to have clothes or skins to protect themselves from the freezing cold temperatures, where as Africans are never cold, therefore the impetus for Africans to have clothes or skins was/is no where near as imperative as Europeans, having such milder elements and being in such warmer and humid climates.

DC7C703C-D793-4FCC-A710-2ABEE2ACBFBB
Naked native African.

https://innocentlyprimitive.com

Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Genesis 2:25.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realised that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Genesis 3:7.

The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.’

Genesis 3:21-22.

The Original Sin (primitive innocence).

White people feel shame when naked anywhere on earth, while for Africans in Africa it is much less taboo, therefore this determines that white people may have eaten the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, while Africans may have not. This also could mean that Africa is the biblical Garden of Eden, and that white people have been banished from it.

2E870862-8376-4870-B2AA-F82AD648CBF5
The Fall, After 1479 (Oil on panel) (Detail of 13000), Goes, Hugo Van Der (C.1440-82) / Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria / Bridgeman Images. https://www.lionsroar.com/the-real-meaning-of-original-sin/

https://primitivelyinnocent.com

Drink driving.

For example drink driving (especially the bush) is not an issue in the continent of Africa, where as in the UK it is a very serious offence. Even in capital cities such offences are handled with a £50 bribe to the police. I have witnessed a nameless paralytic white man pay 300 GHC (£42) to bribe a policeman to ignore his drunkeness while driving in Accra in 2012. I had to finish the journey and drive us home and I wasn’t exactly sober myself. That’s Africa!

Traffic lights.

Traffic lights are not observed for motorbikes in Africa, everybody does it and it is not a problem.

MOTs or Road Worthiness Certificates.

MOTs or Road Worthiness Certificates are no where near of the same high standards or calibre of the UK. To get a Road Worthiness Certificate all you have to do is pay (ahem bribe) someone then he doesn’t even check the car and gives you the certificate. A high percentage of cars in Africa would never be deemed road worthy in the UK. In Africa it is a case of if she goes, she goes. No palaver! The risk is worth it.

People leave the Damara, the last strate
Road worthy vehicle, Africa.

Insurance.

Vehicle insurance is extremely cheap in Africa, it has to be as nobody can afford it, and for the country to function properly people need to get around quickly, despite the risks. I’m talking like £10-15 for 750cc motorbike insurance. You see many ‘road worthy’ cars in Africa with severe body damage and unfixed signs of collisions.

1C69CA9A-3121-47A6-B77F-57E1D4E0E355
Road worthy vehicle, Africa.

Speeding tickets.

Like drink driving, speeding tickets are simply handled at the side of the road with a bribe to the police.

Helmets, L plates and high-viz attire.

Similar to red traffic lights, although wearing helmets for motorbikes is compulsory and the police do sometimes of enforce it, most motorcyclists in Africa flagrantly ignore this rule. When learning to ride a motorbike in Ghana in 2012 my ‘instructor’ and I shared one bike and one helmet. Also, there are no L plates or over dramatic high-viz vests etc. I did not take a test. To get a license I simply asked. Then I literally drove around the block to get the hang of a 750 cc bike, then spent a few days driving around Accra, and then to a more distant village called Abandze, a couple of hours away from Accra, and then I was done. All with an instructor sharing the one bike and one helmet. All in all it took less than a week to go from a total beginner to be a competent motorcyclist.

African motorcyclists.

Health and safety, hazards and death traps.

I once walked over a makeshift 1 ft wide by 100 ft wooden plank bridge across a bottomless railway bridge over a valley between two opposing train tracks in Accra, Ghana in 2012. I was terrified. I saw a 50 year old Ghanaian walk across it like he was walking down the main street, so stupidly I thought I could do so as well. I learned that there are just somethings that skilled native Africans can do that clumsy/stupid white people should never do or even attempt. Needless to say the health and safety, hazard and death trap issues would lead to the immediate removal of the plank bridge in the UK. Where as in Africa it is absolutely fine and serves a useful local function. It would be taken down in the UK because:

  1. It is a dangerous 1ft wide plank bridge across a bottomless railway bridge over a ravine.
  2. It is in between and parallel to two opposing train tracks.
Ian Britton
Railway warning sign.

Sustenance.

As another example of stupid white people, when I was about 6 years old, myself and two other white friends of about the same age went out exploring on an adventure with machetes in the jungle and bush of Obuasi, in the Ashanti region of Ghana in 1987. We hacked our way through the jungle up a hill, then suddenly an old local Ghanaian man came rushing out of his house screaming and shouting at us, “Why you cut down my plantain flower!?” We were absolutely terrified. In fact I have never felt in so much trouble in all my life! The old man really scolded us and threatened to report us. The moral of the story is DO NOT aimlessly cut down vegetation in Africa or other primitive places, you could be cutting down someone’s sustenance!

Planning permission.

There are other parts of the world where people are still primitive, for example Papua New Guinea. The native Papuans make rope bridges across gorges purely from natural materials such as tree vines. Imagine if the native Papuans had to get planning permission and fill out forms and endless red tape in order to build a bridge. It would be unethical as well as undesirable to do so. In the UK obviously health and safety regulations would never allow such a death trap structure to be built, where as the native Papuans do not care, the risk is worth it.

90158D89-2116-4139-8A83-ABE7686FBB3E
Mountain bridge, Papua New Guinea highlands.

Parable of the First Contact Native Amazonians.

There were two American academic explorers and naturalists who were attempting to make first contact with an indigenous native Amazonian tribe in the 1990’s. After months of searching and hacking their way through the Amazon rainforest with machetes, and dealing with insects, animals and disease, they finally found what they were looking for, a pristine and virgin un-contacted tribe of indigenous Amazonians. The initial contact was precarious, the American explorers offered the Amazonians trifles and food and the Amazonians tentatively accepted. However, all of a sudden like a wild animal one of the Amazonians clubbed one of the explorers over the head with a club, smashing his skull, the other explorer tried to defend himself but was also clubbed to death and struck with poison arrows. The Amazonians then took the carcasses of the two American explorers back to their village and cannibalised them. The end. What is the moral of this parable? Would it be moral for the American or Brazilian governments to catch the un-contacted native Amazonians who killed the American explorers and charge, prosecute and incarcerate them? No! You might as well send a jaguar to jail. Why then? Because the indigenous Amazonians are more primitive and the American explorers are much more advanced. The un-contacted Amazonians do not live under our laws. Relatively it would be unethical to charge, prosecute and incarcerate the indigenous un-contacted Amazonians for killing the two Americans. Primitive innocence! Relatively, they have done nothing wrong! We should bare this in mind when judging and condemning our own cannibals, murderers and those who have man-slaughtered in the developed world. It is only a matter of relativity.

There are actual recorded cases such as the killing of Englishman Richard Mason by indigenous Amazonians in 1961.

“Accompanied by a member of the Brazilian Indian Protection Service, Hemming left gifts such as machetes and fishing line at the spot where Mason had been killed to show they bore no ill will to his killers.“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Mason_(explorer)

57D6CAF7-644E-4081-9C4C-F3B6D743017D
First contact Amazonian.

https://primitiveinnocence.com

Recycling.

Another recent innovation in the UK is recycling, in that every homeowner in the UK has to recycle their garbage, where as in Africa recycling is not a priority of life and would not be entertained.

AC0CEBF3-1B98-45C5-A71B-F67C20A8BDEC
Recycling sign.

Why are all these things acceptable in Africa and other parts of the world, but not in the UK? Because Africa and other countries are more primitive and the UK is more advanced. Which would you prefer?

Because I grew up in the Ashanti region of Ghana from 1985 onwards and because of my family having a permanent residence in Ghana for over 30 years, I can tell you I prefer Africa in many ways. This might demonstrate that having such high living standards in the UK, is not necessarily a better way of life.

Primitivism.

There are limitless examples of how Africa and other parts of the world are primitive and metaphorically (and literally) get away with murder especially when it comes to ethics, health and safety hazards and death trap structures and vehicles etc. Primitivism should be studied where it is still present in the world, as we can learn a lot from examples.

The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are. Therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are.


Parable of Two Debtors.

And Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he replied, “Say it, Teacher.” “A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?” And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Luke 7:40-43.

The parable of the two debtors.
The parable of the two debtors.

Parable of extreme survival.

There were two men flying in a helicopter over the frozen antarctic, one was an experienced pilot and the other was a highly trained search and rescue and survivalist expert. While cruising through the crisp and clear sky, suddenly a flock of seagulls collided with the rotor blades of the helicopter and as a result the helicopter span out of control and crashed into the side of a frozen and rocky cliff. The survivalist got away lightly with a fractured leg but the pilot died in the crash. Now the survivalist was 50 miles from civilisation and the radio was broken in the helicopter, and with a broken leg he could not walk to safety. After days and weeks of extreme survival in and near the crash site the survivalist ran out of food. The survivalist facing death and without any other choice decided to cannibalise the carcass of the by now frozen pilot. This decision saved the survivalist’s life in that it gave his fractured leg time to heal and gave him the energy he needed to walk to safety. Why or how is this type of cannibalism acceptable? There are hypothetically two ways primitivism can occur, the first could be past-primitivism, this is the overwhelming general rule that the older you are or the further you go back in ‘time’, the more primitive life was. However, there could also be a present-primitivism, in that you do not need to go back in ‘time’ or be old to be primitive, for example, un-contacted native or indigenous Amazonians are today still relatively primitive, despite being contemporary with us. Also even modern developed world people such as survival experts or explorers (like the one in this parable) could get themselves into present-day-primitive situations, where they need to commit sin such as cannibalism in order to survive. Apart from the need to survive it could be the primitivism or primitive state that makes unacceptable things in the developed world relatively acceptable in extreme survival or primitive situations. It could be that the survivalist might as well have travelled back in ‘time’ technologically to the Palaeolithic period and become a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor. Therefore, this might be why the survivalist is relatively less guilty of sin for cannibalism.

866F6474-1A1B-484D-B560-5B6C73217DA0
Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 was a chartered flight that crashed on a glacier in the remote Andes in 1972. Among the 45 people on board, 28 survived the crash. Facing starvation and death, the survivors reluctantly resorted to cannibalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571

Evil relativity.

Humans who commit sin are ‘relatively evil’ compared to animals. Animals who commit the same sin are not evil.

The are a couple of problems with Adolf Hitler, first is that he could not tell the difference between humans and animals, as in he treated “non-Aryans” such as Jews and Slavs as worthless as or even less worth than animals. For example, “Blondi” was Adolf Hitler’s German Shepherd, a gift as a puppy from Martin Bormann in 1941. The fact that Hitler treated human beings worse than animals, means that he could not even tell the difference between them, and there is nothing else to the matter. This is the reason why today white people cannot even tell the difference between black and white. Secondly and most importantly is that the Holocaust is so unbelievably anachronistic, in that the most tragic and barbaric act in ‘history’ happened so relatively recently in the 20th century. In fact, the Holocaust happened after the discoveries of Special and General Relativity, therefore, the Nazis were very advanced, and knew what they were doing, and therefore, the Nazis were even more responsible and even more guilty of sin. Because of the Holocaust ‘time’ and relativity are screwed.

To demonstrate how much trouble Christian Europeans are in because of the Holocaust consider this. Imagine if the Nazis had murdered Albert Einstein! If they had done so there would have been no going back or anything that Christian Europeans could have said at all. We would be absolutely silenced and mute and we would probably have long ago resigned to our fate. In reality this is exactly the trouble we are in, as there were many famous and genius Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust.

I cannot think of a place in ‘time’ where the Holocaust would not seem so anachronistic, it is hard to find, but for example if the Holocaust had happened in the ancient or medieval periods it may have been less of an issue by now. Therefore, because Hitler was a mass-murderer in 20th century he was ‘relatively evil’. There is an etymological connection between Holocaust and Holocene, which may mean that it will take just as long an amount of ‘time’ (as the Holocene) to heal.

Therefore, for the sins we do not like to forgive, for example the Holocaust, serial killers and child abusers, the way to forgive them is to use primitivism and relativity and call them prehistoric man, primitive or animals. For example, because Hitler cares so much about racism and subhumans, this mathematically determines that he is definitely at the very least an archaic hominid or hominin! That is the relativity of justice!

https://justiceofrelativity.com

To reiterate the only way I can understand Adolf Hitler with any ‘lightness’ is if he were an ape or archaic hominin. If he accepted this then his sins would be ‘lighter’. With these creatures and in this place and ‘time’ Hitler might even be accepted and forgiven. So if Hitler did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he is primitive, prehistoric or even animal, would we forgive him?

5DB422BF-0B36-4126-B50E-8B28BDB692E8
Take your pick!

Yes!

The Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) are all about money and forgiveness, prehistory and the past, animals and evolution, ‘time’ and relativity. Why is it we humans hate our own evolutionary past? Why would we rather be anything except an ape?

https://evilrelativity.com


Relativity of evil.

Because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, therefore he was ‘relatively evil’ because the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an animal. With these creatures or in this place and ‘time’ he might be at ease, forgiven and accepted. If he accepted this then his sins would be ‘lighter’.

87D32578-80C7-40D8-AB48-EEFF499C01C2
Reconstruction of a female Homo antecessor from Atapuerca practicing cannibalism (Ibeas Museum, Burgos, Spain)

The only way I can understand a serial killer such as Jeffrey Dahmer with any ‘lightness’ is if he were animal such as a raccoon. Raccoons do not know what is good and what is evil. So if Jeffrey Dahmer did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he is primitive, prehistoric or even animal, would we forgive him?

Raccoon.
Raccoon, (Procyon lotor).

Yes!

https://relativityofevil.com


Relatively evil.

The hardest sin to forgive is child molestation, as it is even harder to talk about than murder or cannibalism. Films and ‘lighthearted’ TV shows (such as Murder, She Wrote and Midsomer Murders) can be made about murderers and serial killers but never about child molestation. This is because it involves children and therefore, it is hard to make such things ‘lighthearted’. We cannot laugh at children only with them. However, as a bit of relativity consider this. In 1275, the first age of consent was set in England, at age 12 (Westminster 1 statute). In 1875, the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland, and ten years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 raised it to 16. In 1917, a bill raising the age of consent in Great Britain and Ireland from 16 to 17 was defeated by only one vote. Therefore, relatively child abuse was less of an issue for prehistoric, ancient, medieval and even Victorian people. This means people such as Jimmy Saville might be forgiven (relatively) in the prehistoric, ancient, medieval or even Victorian eras. Also rape rhymes with ape. Obviously it was less of an issue for apes and primitive hominins to force themselves onto females and minors. Therefore, people who do this kind of thing today such as Jimmy Savile could make themselves apes or primitive hominins. Only with these creatures or in these places and ‘times’ might they be accepted and forgiven. If they accept this then their sins would be ‘lighter’. So if Jimmy Savile did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he is primitive, prehistoric or even animal, would we forgive him?

Yes!

https://relativelyevil.com

Christ came into the world to save sinners. Even his enemies admitted: “This man receives sinners.” And Luke 19: 7 tells us he went to be the guest of a sinner.

(Genesis versus Darwinism, Desmond Ford, page 50).


New Testament verses on forgiveness.

“For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

Matthew 6: 14-15.

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace.”

Ephesians 1:7.

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

1 John 1:9.

“Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.'”

Matthew 18: 21-22.

“Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.”

Ephesians 4: 31-32.

“Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.”

Colossians 3:13.

“And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

Mark 11:25.

And therefore what does YHWH say to us all?

”Hard luck mate, you’re on your own!”

What is the point of all these above verses regarding forgiveness if they are only concerned with minor or petty sin, such as Mother Teresa feeling contrite and repentant for taking the largest slice of pie? Or with Theresa May running through a field of wheat as a child? There is no point! It would mean these verses are useless. We have to deal with and not be afraid to talk about forgiving real sin such as crimes against humanity, genocide, cannibalism, homicide, child molestation and rape etc.


Conclusion.

The more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. The deal is that if you have knowledge of sin (or good and evil) then you will be more technologically advanced, however, the catch of the deal is that you will get into much more trouble for sins than primitive animals. Crime is relative in that what we call sins today, such as child molestation, murder and cannibalism were relatively no issue for prehistoric man, therefore, similar modern crimes are simply anachronistic, in that they are relatively in the wrong place and ‘time’. Therefore, modern criminals are ‘relatively evil’. Let us pray crime relativity or relativity of evil will shed ‘light’ on these darkest places of human existence. There is also the connection between descent with modification through unnatural or supernatural selection and the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In the beginning’ nobody told cavemen not to be harsh, nobody told cavemen not to be greedy, nobody told caveman not to steal, nobody told cavemen not to rape, nobody told cavemen not to murder and nobody told cavemen not to cannibalise. Therefore, he obviously did all these things. It also means that greed, theft, rape, murder and cannibalism are relatively no issue with prehistoric men. How did we learn knowledge of good and evil? We just made loads and loads of mistakes! We living creatures of life receive no help or warning from YHWH or anyone whatsoever, we are on our own, we are 100% independent and we learn on our own through unnatural or supernatural selection and evolution. Like the Golden Parables, unnatural or supernatural selection always chooses those who go against nature, the non-animal or the good, moral and kind, as evidenced by the fact that Homo sapiens have come to dominate life on earth through being moral and good. Sin and guilt are good because animals are not aware of sin and do not feel guilt. Knowledge of sin is non-animal. Clearly descent with modification through unnatural or supernatural selection chooses those creatures who are most conscious of sin and who have the most knowledge of sin (or good and evil). Compared to the animal kingdom we are awesome. YHWH loves and is amazed by humans because we are not animals and we feel guilt. Guilt is human. Guilt is good. If you have sinned do not be too advanced, special or a supreme being, be primitive, prehistoric or even animal and then your sin is much ‘lighter’ or even forgiven. Think differently to animals. Finally, for example, if you have hit your father, or slapped your wife, or if you are serving ‘time’ for minor crimes such as ABH or burglary etc, then know that if we can forgive Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Dahmer and Jimmy Saville, then relatively, who cares?


But deliver us from Evil.

This simply means concerning knowledge of good and evil, lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.


Fulfilment

Jesus came to fulfill the predictions of the prophets, who had long foretold that a Savior would one day appear. He came to fulfill the ceremonial law, by becoming the great sacrifice for sin, to which all the Old Testament offerings had ever pointed. He came to fulfill the moral law, by yielding to it a perfect obedience, which we could never have yielded – and by paying the penalty for our breaking of it with His atoning blood, which we could never have paid.

J.C. Ryle

https://www.christianity.com/jesus/is-jesus-god/old-testament-prophecies/how-did-jesus-fulfill-the-old-testament.html

It is written: “And he was numbered with the transgressors”; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfilment.

Luke 22:37.

“Don’t think that I came to destroy the law, or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

Mathew 5:17.

And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Matthew 2:15.

Flight into Egypt.

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.

Matthew 3:13-15.

Donkey.

As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, say that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

“Say to Daughter Zion,

‘See, your king comes to you,

gentle and riding on a donkey,

and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’”

Matthew 21:1-5.

Jesus enters Jerusalem.
Jesus Christ enters Jerusalem.

Notice the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity). Why did Jesus Christ not come riding in a golden chariot with a mighty throng of soldiers? Like a Roman victory parade? It is because it would have been vain.

Thy kingdom come.

It is about doing it, if it were prophesied that a king would come riding on a donkey, then it is about jumping on a donkey and fulfilling that prophecy. There are other examples of Jesus Christ fulfilling the Old Testament.

What if like the donkey above it were possible to bring the kingdom of YHWH, on earth as in heaven, which could last forever? It could be possible by fulfilling the Lord’s Prayer, by giving the kingdom, the political power and the national glory back to Britain, back to Spain, back to France, back to Rome, back to Greece, back to Israel and back to Egypt. Back! As in Jesus Christ could come back and save Europe.

“Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”

“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

Mark 11:10.

Notice the innocence of primitivism in the above verse (Mark 11:10), who today would say “Hosanna in the highest heaven!”, except sarcastically?

Jesus enters Jerusalem.
Jesus Christ enters Jerusalem.

We spend our lives looking forward, we look forward to the future, the weekend, our birthdays, holidays and Christmas. However, because the Golden Parables or the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity) points or thinks in the opposite or inverse direction of capitalism or instincts it determines that it is about looking back, first of all to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past and then for example the Americans should look back to the British, and the British should look back the Germans, and the Germans should look back to the Italians, and the Italians should look back to Greeks and the Greeks should look back to the Israelis and the Israelis should look back to the Egyptians and the Egyptians should look back to no one.


Fashion of relativity.

There are two ways in which we can look at the past, firstly, concerning say the 1960’s, we can say that the 1960’s were much better in a way or relatively for white people, in that white people were relatively more powerful and secure in the 1960’s. Secondly, we can all say “Daaaaang! It is so dated and old fashioned! I’m glad I’m in 2019!” The two ways of looking at the past should give precedence to power first, fashion second. For example, London in 1969 was 99% white, but non-whites will always denigrate the past by saying “Oh my God! The 60’s!? How old fashioned is that!? Look at the haircuts!” This is because some non-whites have little past or history. Tragically, “the past” to blacks was slavery. Also the further you go back in time the more white it was and the less fashionable non-whites were. White people are the unfashionable. Fashion always moves on and non-whites are currently fashionable and will become more fashionable in the future. They call it progress. The Victorians are no longer fashionable. Empire was lost because it became unfashionable. Think of this, in the afterlife, would The Beatles choose 1969 London or 2019 London (which is over 50% non-white)? Considering their fame and fortune depends on it, I expect they will choose to exist in 1969 London in the afterlife. In fact, despite every white person’s outspoken anti-racist convictions and claims down here on earth, I bet you the vast majority of white people in the afterlife (when fashion does not matter) vehemently choose to live and exist in their own time periods, (especially the older they are). This is because the further you go back in time, relatively the more primitive it was and the more powerful and secure white people were. For example, I bet you that a white person who was born in the 1920’s, despite being vehemently and outspokenly anti-racist today, will choose to exist in the 1920’s, 1930’s or 1940’s time periods in the afterlife. This is because white people were relatively much more powerful and secure in 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s etc. To reiterate, white people were RELATIVELY better off in the 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s. It is hypocrisy and they should not be allowed. Think of this also, Jesus Christ and the Buddha, despite being ancient, primitive and old fashioned men are still eternally more fashionable than anyone alive today and always will be. If there is such a thing as a “resurrection” for over-the-hill artists (such as The Beatles), it will require the inverse of divine ascription of primitivism and the innocence of primitivism (crime relativity). This is because it makes us look back to the poor, primitive, prehistoric, unfashionable and past, instead of the rich, advanced, modern, fashionable and future. So what do you choose power or fashion? Fashion is ephemeral and insignificant. Fashion can be controlled. To attain the power and the glory you have to look back instead of forward. I choose the power. To reiterate, the two ways of looking at the past should give precedence to power first, fashion second. In the afterlife we will be both powerful and fashionable. Booyackasha! Wicked! Innit!

Parable of the Marathon.

There was an international marathon race held in a certain country, and one athlete who was the home favourite was so far ahead and finished the race head and shoulders above the rest, this athlete broke the world record and won and came first fair and square. This home athlete was celebrated with great cheers by the home crowd and was named victor ludorum and crowned with the olive wreath kotinos. However, there was one foreign athlete who had to be the loser and straggler and who was very slow and came in delayed and a long time after the rest of the field. Suddenly the foreign straggler felt very upset at the sight of the home victor ludorum being cheered and crowned with the kotinos, however, for ‘some reason’ the home crowd looked at the last place foreign athlete and began to feel pity for him being upset. The home crowd then screamed at the rightful victor ludorum and told him to get down off the podium and ripped the kotinos off his head. The crowd then said there there to the foreign loser, see there are no winners, we are all equal in this race.

B9477FBE-0A46-4CCC-B5ED-995E321C4989
My Ancestry DNA.

In the above parable the home victor ludorum refers to the Europeans, the last place foreign athlete refers to the non-Europeans and ‘some reason’ refers to the Holocaust. Hitler was a very bad winner, please forgive him and try to forget it.

1D12418A-6C08-4E57-ADB1-EA917CE4F5F4
Kotinos (Greek: κότινος).

http://κότινοσ.com

Our Father, which art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy Name;

Thy kingdom come;

Thy will be done

in earth, as it is in heaven:

Give us this day our daily bread;

And forgive us our trespasses,

as we forgive them that trespass against us;

And lead us not into temptation,

But deliver us from evil:

For thine is the kingdom,

the power, and the glory,

For ever and ever.

Amen.