Review of Heretics and Believers by historian Paul Marshall

Incredibly scholarly, detailed history and analysis of the English Reformation! The first couple hundred pages are so academic—meaning dealing in lots of statistics and sociological details of an overview of the period of Henry the 8th, that I found the large volume dry and slow.

But once, I adapted back to scholarly study, (and since more ill in bed, able to listen for hours at a time), I began to live in its pages of that god-awefull period—in the worse sense of that adjective.

That’s one dramatic result of my reading this great history of Christians of all sorts and all levels--is that while modern creedal Christianity is often horrific, so unjust, so immoral, so intolerant, so selfish* at least, modern Christians (except when they call for bombing Iran with an atom bomb) don’t burn many thousands of other Christians at the stake and other horrific slaughters!

Many years ago, I studied the Reformation and knew that the Roman Catholic Church, Bloody Mary, Geneva and Calvin, Luther, Zwingli committed immoral horrors, etc., but I didn't have any idea that the English Reformation was so evil too.

It’s shocking how almost all English Christian leaders and their followers, Protestant and Catholic, the lords and nobility, the shop keepers and the working class--ALL were intolerant and strongly supported the burning of “heretics.”

Heresy then didn’t even need to be huge, like a denial of God or the Creeds, but could be just a smaller point like owning a prohibited book, such as an English translation of the Bible, or holding to the Lutheran view of the Mass, instead of Henry the 8th’s or the Pope’s view.

And, tragically, in all the chaos, at least 30,000 peasants and working-class people rioted and revolted across England demanding the return to traditional Catholicism with holy water, pilgrimages, altar and sacrifice in the Mass, when Edward the 6th tried to introduce a stronger Protestantism than his father had!

It’s amazing, that an English Civil War started to happen 100 years before the infamous one in the 1600’s! Also, it is depressing how the so-called good guys, the Protestant young king and his advisors deceived the sincere leaders of the traditionalist revolt, told them they would compromise and had the rebel leaders come down to London for negotiations, but then executed them.

After that, they then sent the small army of the government (about 8,000 English troops and hired mercenaries from Germany) to defeat various small armies in different shires. It was divide and conquer. And they did.

That was good, that the rioters didn’t gain control, but Edward the 6th burned a lot of innocent Christians, too. I thought only Catholic and Reformed leaders on the Continent burned people.

Then all hell broke loose when Edward suddenly sickened and died and Mary, who allegedly was a kindly individual came to the throne. She immediately reversed all of Edward’s Protestant polices, and had all the churches bring back altars for the Mass sacrifice, holy water, etc. And she burned over 300 individuals in 5 years. Thankfully Mary got sick and died.

It appears—at least based upon this massive historical volume—that all Christians of all sorts, Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran, etc. were bad, very bad, nothing like Jesus. The only exception appears to have been the very few Mennonite-sort of Anabaptists who rejected intolerance, injustice, violence, heresy-executions, etc.

And then came Queen Elizabeth, who immediately started rescinding some of Mary’s regressive actions.

However, one of Elizabeth's advisors told her she ought to "hold her cards close"—in other words, even if she is a convinced Protestant, it will be better for her if she hides that, and adopts a moderate course of change against Mary’s total reversion, rather than do exactly what she believes is right. Making too many changes will lead many English Catholics to react severely and violently against her and her sudden reversal of Mary’s religious norms.

Also, while taking a strong stance against Catholic “superstitions,” Elizabeth didn’t immediately pursue persecutorial actions against all Catholics.

But the government did begin to destroy Roods, statues of Mary, Catholic paintings, etc.

But, thankfully (that I appreciate!), Elizabeth opposed Knox and Calvin and their extreme language and intolerant actions. So she didn’t choose anyone for her advisers who were followers of Knox-Scotland and Calvin-Geneva.

Sad, however, even in moderation, Elizabeth’s rule was intolerant like present day intolerance in the U.S. now. Historic statues of famous American leaders of the past are torn down, but not the worst presidents or leaders, just ones picked by extremists such as BLMers.

Also, Elizabeth, ordered communion tables to be kept with coverings, which upset her Reformed bishops and leaders. And she denied priests the freedom to marry, basically, the Catholic view!

Worst of all, though nothing like nations on the continent nor her father or Edward the 6th or Mary, Elizabeth executed many individuals:-( She wasn’t nearly as civil and moderate as I had thought.

IN fact, NONE of the ‘CHRISTIANS’ LIVING BACK THEN WAS ANYTHING LIKE the GOOD NEWS of Jesus.

All of this goes to show, what I’ve become more and more convinced of over many years, that basing one’s life on the Bible isn’t the way to go, because that famous text led to many contrary and contradictory religions, most of them horrific:-(, indeed, evil.

Well, I probably could say far more, but I am anxious to be done with this depressin review. I finally finished the very long tome (over 35 hours long, probably at least 800 pages) very late last night near midnight.

A magisterial study of Christianity in the 16th century.
Evaluation: A+! --- *This is especially the case when far left Christians (including Sojourners, liberal Christians, Quakers, Mennonites, etc.) strongly support untrue propaganda against the police, demand the tearing down of historic statues, and push CRT and BLM as the truth.

And far right Christians, centrally Trump Evangelical Christianity, where 84% of Evangelicals (white) have strongly supported Trump and his immoral and unjust polices including his constant lying, pride, bullying, distorting, demeaning, ad nauseum. Heck, Evangelicals still strongly support him even after his January 6th rioters stormed the Capitol, injuring 100 police officers. And Trump and theyclaim the violent far-right-winger, Ashley Babbitt, was an innocent protester!

In the Light,

Dan Wilcox

Tolstoy on the Question, Should Humans Eat as Vegetarians?

Let us move toward a healthy, kind, nourishing life-enhancing way of eating and living,

Daniel Wilcox

Review of THE STORYTELLER by Jodi Picoult

Note:
It's highly ironic/tragic/weird that in the midst of reading novelist Picoult's modern thematic revisiting of the Holocaust and the nature of human evil that the massacre of Jewish people at the Tree of Life in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania occurred.

As William Faulkner wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

THE STORYTELLER by Jodi Picoult

I don’t like the novel's ending at all; don’t agree with it thematically, morally, or as a fitting climatic plot conclusion. Not at all.

But then I didn’t like the very slow-stalebreadish, unbelievable beginning of the book either!

But the beginning and ending are bad for exactly opposite reasons.

The beginning is bad because Picoult’s character of the atheist Jewish baker who is guilt ridden, scarred from an accident, and selfishly insecure isn’t convincing. Seems artificial and implausible.

Even though Picoult is seeking to root the story of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and deception, guilt and forgiveness in the present by having this weak, surfacey current Jewish narrative begin her long, deep, troubling revisiting of the German-caused Holocaust, I don't think it works, at least not at the start. By the end of the novel, a reader may change his mind, but more on that later.

If I hadn’t been assigned this book for the new club I joined last month, I might have quit by page 100. Too weak of characterization, too many unconvincing plot steps, too many overly detailed long-boring descriptions of Jewish bread-making (all of which seem like Picoult going overboard on trying to show how diligently and thoroughly she studied Jewish baking in order to be accurate).

In contrast, the long horrific retelling of the 20th century horror is all too to vivid, all to real, and the book's shocking ending is too convincing, too disturbing and, too unfinishing!

SPOILER ALERT:

I understand why Sage doesn’t forgive Joseph, and why she rejects Mary’s advice, and maybe even why she decides to kill Joseph:

1. She thinks Joseph’s massacres of Jews can’t be forgiven, and she is extremely angry at him for killing her grandmother’s best friend, and intending to kill grandmother.

2. Sage isn’t a Christian like Mary, not at all. To forgive would be to belittle, excuse, and end the horror of her grandmother’s horrific lived-story. Besides, Sage wants to keep the bitterness within her against Joseph, because it is one vital link to her grandmother that she would lose if she forgave him.

3. She deeply wants revenge and justice. If Joseph is taken by the U.S. Criminal Justice System and deported, he may get away with his life-long deception of his mass murder, since Leo has already stated that often European governments don’t execute those deported.
And she wants to personally feel and see her revenge carried out. She is closing the book, ending the horrific story now.

4. BUT why does Sage—who seems to care for Leo—lie and deceive him in the end?!
Is she reverting to her past immoral self-centered behavior?

--Is seeking to honor her grandmother’s deep wish that no one know her story since it is beyond words to describe? Leo in contrast says he is going to broadcast the whole horrific account far and wide. And Sage doesn’t want that.

--Does she have doubts about how she really feels about Leo. She says Leo said he loved her, but I don’t recall her ever saying she loves him. He loves her deeply, but maybe she, like with Adam, is only lusting with Leo?

There seem to be hints of that when she balks at his idea of her moving to D.C. to be with him instead of jumping into his arms with joy.

Also, by the downturn in the last paragraph, Picoult continues the plot and theme of unfinished story, continues the personality of Sage as a sometimes self-defeating person, avoids the happily-ever-after plot (that Picoult has been dismissive of as when she had her narrator put down Disney-ish fairy tales instead of the far more ‘grimm’ tales of the past).

And there are probably other unexplored points I’ve not yet considered.

This novel is a feast to chew the cud on, a great one not only of story-telling, but for literary reflection and analysis.

Reflective Questions:

#1 Why does Picoult have Sage get the poison from Mary’s Roman Catholic shrine garden?!!

#2 Why does Picoult bring in the whole “Jesus-loaf” spoof other than as a satire against Christianity and a way to lighten a dark novel? (When the plot step happened I was really turned off by it because it was such a parody of such real news stories, such a stark contrast with the very real Holocaust news.

#3 Why is the odd assistant baker in the store even there with such his weird talking style, in clipped haikus?

#4 Why is the store called the Our Daily Bread?
#5 Why does Sage murder Joseph with poisoned bread?

#6 Why do the blue-black petals of the monkshood “in the pale palm of Mary’s glove” after Sage cuts them look like “stigmata”?!
And all the other blood images in the narrative such as when she cuts herself to become blood sisters with Diarga?

#7 Why is Sage called Sage, especially since she is one?
And Pepper and Saffron?

#8 Why does Picoult make Sage’s fornication a situation of adultery?

#9 Why is Sage made to be so isolated, even from her sisters who don’t seem to be bad individuals?

#10 Is Joseph’s actual German name “Hartmann” a characteronym of theme and meaning?

#11 Why does the novel end with a large number of contradictory possible endings that Joseph (actually Franz) has written for her grandmother Minka’s unfinished story?

So many questions, so little time;-)

Also, I didn’t like Minka's vampire story interweaving through out the book, but then I don't like vampire stories, or any fantasy for that matter. At first I found it to be, while intriguing, often too distracting.

But now looking back I realize that besides being a strong plot step (having Sage's grandmother write a dark horror novel in the real horror of actual evil of German Concentration Camps) it does emphasize many questions as to the nature of humanity and many other themes—
1.good versus evil

2.innocence versus guilt
3.immoral versus moral

4.compassion versus cruelty
5.beauty versus ugliness

6.community versus isolation
7.truth versus deception and lies

8.private versus public
etc.

And, let us not forget, Picoult's powerful prose which included a few aphoristic gems.

Evaluation: A+/C

--
A few of the Zingers:
Sage: “If you end your story, it’s a static work of art, a finite circle. But if you don’t, it belongs to anyone’s imagination. It stays alive forever.” (page 459)
“That’s why we read fiction, isn’t it? To remind us that whatever we suffer, we’re not the only ones?” (page 220)

Leo: ”To be forgiven, the person has to be sorry. In Judaism, that’s called tesbuvah. It means ‘turning away from evil.’ It’s not a one-time deal, either. It’s a course of action. A single act of repentance is something that makes the person who committed the evil feel better, but not the person against whom evil was committed…That’s why Jews don’t just go to Confession, and say the rosary.” (page 188)

Sage: “It’s the question mark that comes with death that we can’t face, not the period.” (page 131)
--

Picoult's book is a deep abyss of story, horrific narrative, and philosophical reflection.

Don't miss The Storyteller.

In the Light of History, Truth, and Fiction,

Daniel Wilcox

Please Move Away from Killing Sentient Animals

Please consider moving away from meat consumption for getting your necessary daily protein.

Take a look at this informative video on the cruelty of humankind's current high level of animal killing for food:

Part 2: Scenic Photos

In the Light of Beauty,

Daniel Wilcox

Do Animals have Rights? Inherent Value?

Introduction: (Skip this if you want to get, quickly, to the article: To the QUESTION)

The whole issue of "animal rights" has been muddied and muddled by two events:
1. Controversial behavior and antics by some animal rights activists such as going naked in public to draw attention to the rights of animals, even committing theft and violent acts of sabotage!

An example of this is PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). But rather oddly while they oppose zoos and circuses,
they contrarily assert that pet owners ought to NOT let their cats out-of-doors to roam and explore!

Doesn't that sound like the imprisonment of animals?

2. Looking at the last 30 years of this ethical and philosophical question, some thinkers first bring up a very strange disconcert. They seek to defend animals’ worth and rights by demeaning the human species!

In their effort to defend animal rights, they actually deny human rights!

Semantics. What they mean is that there are no real human rights. Thy claim that human rights are a "myth." Humans made them up, and therefore, animal rights can be constructed, too, because there is no qualitative difference between human primates and other animals in nature.

A few advocates even go so far as to say that an adult ape or other sentient animal is worth more than a human infant.
(See ethics professor Peter Singer's claims)

But what is the basis for such a strange assertion, so contrary to the Enlightenment?

Stating that some animals are allegedly “better” than some humans seems a weird way to establish the worth and rights of other animals.

Besides it’s disconcerting and contradictory since the animal rights thinkers themselves are human. Unless they have some sort of masochistic tendency, it appears that their attacks on the species of homo sapiens itself is rather a rhetorical way of gutting the “transcendent” and the "essential" in human thought.

So why do they, then, think that all animals ought to be assigned value? Unclear.

Even more bizarre—taking us far from what most humans mean by “rights,”—many religious and some secular leaders actually seem to have a real self-hatred of their own species, humankind! The Christian leaders claim that ALL humans are “totally depraved” and “worthless.” While secularists claim that the amoral natural world would actually be better without humans!

But one wonders why?!

In sharp contrast, other human philosophers and scientists think that the general movement in human thought and ethics toward viewing of all animals—at least all sentient animals—
as having inherent worth
has come about through the “widening of the circle of concern” by many human rights activists.

Maybe it’s the old historical oddity that some human leaders try to equalize humankind by reducing and lowering/restricting all humans to the same basic level,
while other leaders,
seek the advancement of humankind by advocating and helping humans to rise as high as they can achieve, and even bringing up sentient species who don't seem to have rational capability.

Part 1:

TO THE QUESTION

Aside from millions of humans’ emotional love of their pets, what is the basis for animal rights and value?

In scientist Steven Pinker’s powerful tome on violence, Better Angels of Our Nature, while he explains the new move toward animal rights, he writes that most humans will never become “vegetarian,” will never adopt animal rights.

“But the impediments run deeper than meat hunger. Many interactions between humans and animals will always be zero-sum.



Animals eat our houses, our crops, and occasionally our children...
They kill each other, including endangered species that we would like to keep around."

"Without their participation in experiments, medicine would be frozen in its current state and billions of living and unborn people would suffer and die for the sake of mice.”


“...Something in me objects to the image of a hunter shooting a moose, but why am I not upset by the image of a grizzly bear that renders it just as dead?” (p.474)
--Steven Pinker
-

In nature, did the moose have any “animal rights”?

Isn’t nature amoral, non-rightful, indeed, centered in natural selection, “tooth and claw”?

Where are there animal rights in the case of cats and mice, sharks and fish?

Lions, crocodiles and wildebeests?

"A fact about the wildebeest migration is that every year, about 1.5 million wildebeest, zebra and several species of antelope uniformly make a circular tour between the Serengeti in Tanzania and Maasai Mara in Kenya, in search of greener pastures.

You can witness the drama unfold as predators lurk in the bushes and prey scamper for safety in what has since been dubbed 'survival for the fittest'...The most notorious among the predators is the lion and the Nile crocodile.

The lion perfectly chooses its arena...shrouded in thick grass cover and gets a strategic hiding spot to attack unsuspecting wildebeest and zebras. During the peak of the migration, vultures circle the air and hyenas laugh in the shadows; an indication of the innumerable wildebeest and zebra that have fallen under the claw of the mighty African lion.

The Nile crocodile however takes the medal as the deadliest predator. It comes in at the climax of the Mara migration - the crossing of the Mara River! This avid killer shapes the events that take place during the crossing of the Mara River."
http://www.kenya-information-guide.com/wildebeest-migration.html

Or elephant male seal versus elephant male seal, bloodying their snouts, seeking dominance and multiple female seals?

It doesn't appear that cats or mice or crocodiles or elephant seals have a conscience,
a sense of ought,
a rational ability to think in moral categories.

For many thinkers, the central issue isn’t really about any actual “rights” of animals but about reducing the public suffering and cruelty to animals:
“In sixteenth-century Paris, a popular form of entertainment was cat-burning, in which a cat was hoisted in a sling on a stage and slowly lowered into a fire."

"According to historian Norman Davies, ‘the spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized.’ Today, such sadism would be unthinkable in most of the world.”

“This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga: Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species’ time on earth.”
--Steven Pinker (p. 145)

But, of course, the central philosophical question then nags:
Why ought humans to reduce the public suffering and cruelty to animals,
especially,
if far more suffering and cruelty continues in the millions of slaughterhouses around the world that supply billions of slabs of meat for all carnivorous humans?

Are not these billions of meat-eaters, basically, assigning worth to their pet dogs and cats, but denying worth to all the pigs, chickens, cows, and sheep?

Where then are there any “animal rights”?

The evidence of history, nature, and science seems to deny the reality of animal rights.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

After mulling on this difficult topic for years,
I'm currently at this place: Animals have inherent worth, BUT not Rights.

To be continued--


In the Light of difficult ethical questions,

Daniel Wilcox

Our Lack of Sensitivity and Empathy for Others

Looking back, especially, on the last 30 years of public discussion, debate, and argumentation, it seems that the chief failing of most of us humans is our lack of sensitivity and empathy for others.

Of course, this is probably the chief failing of homo sapiens generally throughout history. The harsh unfair rhetoric of the bitter 1800 Presidential contest between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson comes immediately to mind. It, like many others, was filled with ad hominem, distortion, etc.

Or consider the failure of Israelis and Palestinians to empathize with each other.

But rather than dwell on the past, or even the current rash, demeaning political and social debacles in the United States and other countries around this swirling globe,
I will give one brief personal encounter from my own life.

My career consisted of trying to get thousands of 14-to-17-year-old teenagers interested in the significance of their high schools' required literature courses.

Not an easy task by any stretch of the imagination.

So, not only did I employ all the motivations, skills, and whistles that I had learned from my university classes and the methods used by the amazing teachers who had taught me, I--being of a hilarious sort by nature--also used many funny jokes, puns, and stories to help make those heavy textbook tomes as user-friendly as possible.

But a few times, I spoke before I considered all the real-world ramifications of the humorous comments I was making.

For instance, I used to tell a joke about a guy named Al Alzheimer not understanding the thematic point of a short story we were studying.

One day, a somber 9th grader on left side of the class raised her hand.

I wondered why she hadn't laughed. Most teens did.

"Mr. Wilcox, I don't think your joke about a person being named Al Alzheimer is funny. Because my dear grampa suffers from Als Alzheimers. It's very sad, not funny at all."

I felt regretful and apologized and still feel sad about my callous remark that day.

I realized when I had made that joke I wasn't being fully aware, nor sensitive. At the time I knew little about dementia and Als Alzheimers, and didn't know anyone suffering from such mental illness.

My harm wasn't intentional. But that was no excuse.

Tragically, much of the modern invective, obscene cursing, demeaning references, and false statements that pollute the media and discourse are very intentional and cruelly meant.

I don't know how to help stop such intentional harm.

In contrast, our 9th graders were taught the dangers of connotative attacks, informal fallacies, and other forms of propaganda. In debate, courtesy and respect were watchwords.

So why do Christians, Muslims, and atheists, lawyers, business leaders, political spokespersons (many of them with PhD's), and so many others fixate and obsesses on exactly those harsh forms of miscommunication? I don't know.

But my limited focus here is on those of us who inadvertently fail to empathize with others who we meet, and how we often forget to intentionally be sensitive to them.

Being sensitive and empathetic to the tired grocery clerk, the bad driver in the right lane, the harsh critic, all of the political and ideological leaders is very difficult.

It gets even harder to be empathetic and benevolent toward enemies and criminals as Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out.

Yet King spoke of how empathy for racists is very important! He emphasized that even after he was attacked by a racist during one of his speeches.

Yes, that is our calling as ethical beings-- to be aware, to be sensitive, to be emphatic,

To live in communion with others in the Light.

Daniel Wilcox

Part 2: Who Owns the Land in Palestine-Israel?

As I explained in Part 1, there is no easy solution to this many-thousanded year old dilemma. Surely the folly and tragedy of inhumane history, especially, the last two hundred years of failed diplomacy, war, and genocidal hatred must caution us against quick or even slow solutions to very complex situations.

How does one even begin to deal with Israeli settlers or Palestinian HAMAS—both who claim the Ultimate Reality of the Universe is exclusively on their own side, that their opposing Gods call them to kill their enemies?

How does one get two diametrically opposed killing nationalities to reconcile?

What would we do if our enemies played soccer with the decapitated head of our son, as did Palestinians with an Israeli soldier’s head in 2004 in Gaza?”!

What would we do if we were caring doctors, but while we helped the women of our enemies, they dropped large shells on our house and killed four of our daughters as did an Israeli tank in 2008 (I Shall Not Hate: A Gaza’s Doctor on the Road to Peace and Human Dignity by Izzeldin Abuelaish)?

To be utterly honest, even given my faith, I don’t think I could handle such horrible actions. Only in a Godly love as displayed by some individuals like Jesus, when he forgave the very Roman soldiers who tortured and crucified him, can we hope.

At present, I find it difficult to deal with several people lying about me. I’ve prayed to forgive them, but these individuals’ actions have deeply harmed me and my family, and will have very bad results for years to come. I admit, though I am writing this article in hope it will be one tiny blossom for peace in the Middle East, I, myself, wouldn’t know how to handle what Israelis and Palestinians go through daily—the oppression, the lying, the stealing, the cruel actions, the killing…

Also, keep in mind, very ironically, that many Palestinians and Israelis are actually closer to each other than they are to their own ethnic/national groupings. Did anyone see the video of Palestinian Fatah members who had their kneecaps/legs shot off by their “brothers” of HAMAS when the latter attacked them in Gaza? They are being helped, strangely enough, in an Israeli hospital. And don’t forget the tragic story of the Palestinian gynecologist who helped treat Israeli women for infertility but lost his three of his daughters, killed by Israeli soldiers!

Or what about the Israelis who agree to meet in equality with Palestinians in reconciliation groups such as the grieving parents organization, Parents Circle—Families Forum, and Musalaha, who share more in common with their “enemies” than with the Israeli government of Netanyahu?

What about the Palestinian Elias Chacour (the author of Blood Brothers and We Belong to the Land) who has founded a school for hundreds of children? The school includes Muslims,Druze, Christians, and Jews all working together!

The solution of the unending crisis has been tried by at least eight methods. What about #6 Diplomacy? We have seen over the last 50 years, political diplomacy, even at its best, is usually little more than a smoke screen for furthering one’s own national agenda. While the Israelis claim to be seeking reconciliation with Palestinians, they continue to confiscate land from Palestinians, siphon off far more than their share of water, water needed much more by the Palestinian Arabs, abuse and demean the latter, etc.

And while Palestinians claim they want peace with Israel, they actually continue to stock arms, and tell their own people, teach in their schools, that they plan for the eventual extinction of Israel. Their diplomacy is for most Palestinians only a mask for their real intentions.

As for #7 Legal Claim, surely anyone who has dealt at all with the convoluted legal system in the United States, knows this method is by far the worst of the eight for the tragedy of the Middle East. Legality seldom if ever has to do with what is ethically good, loving, and kind.

If you think #3 Present Possession is the key, are you prepared to give up your car to the thief who stole it last week because he is now driving it? Present possession for the most part is only the frosting on the cake of #4 Military Might. The latter is, of course, the most popular and the most successful of land decisions. If in doubt ask the Indians why they don’t control California, or the Mexican Government. Or why the Saudis, one of the most oppressive governments in the world, is still in power after nearly a hundred years. It’s called survival of the fittest, meanest, cruelest…

But I presume if you have come to this site, which has the longwinded name, Infinite Ocean of Light and Love, you are not among the millions of humans who espouse stomping out your enemies and so do not want to hear a defense of that method. There are endless websites and books for those who do.

Does anyone think #5 Best Use is ethically sound? Strangely enough, many Israelis claim they get all of the land because they are better builders, farmers, scientists, etc. than Palestinians. But no doubt you know what infamous political group in the twentieth century actually espoused this doctrine before the Israelis. It’s very strange that Jewish people would dare touch this view let alone strongly support it.

Now we come to the three best methods, but they, too, are fraught with severe problems…

To be continued in Part #3

In the Light of God (The God who loves every single human who has ever been created and who loves the whole cosmos, and who is wooing all toward Goodness, Truth, Beauty, and Love in the final consummation.)

Daniel Wilcox