The Ethics of Golf and Marriage

Anon,

Professor Crossan bases his conclusions on the number of attestations of the passage/event and the time frame of said passage/event.

The Jesus Seminar goes one additional step and takes into account the conclusions of a fairly large number of NT exegetes who have reviewed the same passages/events/documents/timing as Professor Crossan. Generally the conclusions agree with an occasional difference as with the "I am" statements from John's gospel. Crossan gave historical credence to 1 of the 8 passages. The Jesus Seminar gave no historical credence to any of eight passages.

So who did John "borrow" the "I ams" from?? Your analyses is probably on the mark with added ideas coming from the OT, Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Romans et al.

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

2- I am the light of the world (Jn.8:12) an historical saying of Jesus as per Crossan but see below,

The God to whom Moses spoke was "the light of the world" at the time the SUN.

Amenophis IV, all Pharaohs were "sons of Amun Re" the SUN. The Amen, (see book of Revelation) was dumb enough to believe SHE was fathered, literally by the SUN. From that little bit of science we get the break from an infinites set of earth where all the dead went, one after the other, one death after another and modern theories about eternal life, heaven and hell.

1. The SUN was presumed to die every day and come back to life here on earth and not in the next world as ordinary people did.

2. The mother was presumed to have nothing to do with the child beyond incubator and nurse maid. Only the father contributed to the offspring, (continued through Roman history, semen = people seed, woman unnecessary a dog will do to mother man)

3. Add (1.) and (2.) together and we get a child that inherits the characteristics of the SUN, will die like everyone else but come back to life here on earth rather than go on to the next world.

I don't have a bible handy but Jesus says that somewhere in the Gospels to the Apostles - something like, You will go on and I will stay here but I will come and get you. She was working on making everyone a child of the SUN.

The hoax buster has the story correct. The bible is the work of the ignorant who could not read the hieroglyphics. Amenophis IV is the foundation of the bible, both Moses and Jesus and the source of resurrection and the change to eternal life theory "all the dead going on to the next world."

I meant to address my message above. It's directed to Thomas J. Reese.

You talk about separating "public and private morality" with regard to Francois Mitterand. Did you ever think that some people might not consider it immoral to have a mistress after all?

And your idea of "cheating" is very flawed. In some cases, people use "cheating" to mean taking something that isn't yours from someone else (stealing) or gaining something you're not entitled to. Other times, it simply refers to breaking a rule of some kind--and breaking a rule isn't necessarily wrong. Someone who cheats in a golf game is gaining an advantage in a game, or winning a game, that they are not entitled to. Infidelity is doing something you promised not to do. They are hardly the same thing. The first seems fundamentally wrong, the second does not. Just like cheating on income taxes isn't necessarily wrong--it depends on whether the tax requirements are fair or not.

You talk about separating "public and private morality" with regard to Francois Mitterand. Did you ever think that some people might not consider it immoral to have a mistress after all?

And your idea of "cheating" is very flawed. In some cases, people use "cheating" to mean taking something that isn't yours from someone else (stealing) or gaining something you're not entitled to. Other times, it simply refers to breaking a rule of some kind--and breaking a rule isn't necessarily wrong. Someone who cheats in a golf game is gaining an advantage in a game, or winning a game, that they are not entitled to. Infidelity is doing something you promised not to do. They are hardly the same thing. The first seems fundamentally wrong, the second does not. Just like cheating on income taxes isn't necessarily wrong--it depends on whether the tax requirements are fair or not.

Uncle,

I will do so and with a pure heart and concern for The Jihadist's well being. And being an observer of the facts, it is obvious The Jihadist has a lot of time on her hands supporting the conclusion that her husband has four wives.

And her never criticizing the warmongering Islamic terror and torture theocracy of Iran gives significant credence that she either works for their PR department or agrees with their export of terror.

My Dearest Concerned "Christian":

"The Jihadist has simply been asked to address the flaws in Islam. Facts by the way are not forms of hatred."

You misunderstand completely. I find your hate delectable. I encourage you to continue with this technique.

"We can only hope The Jihadist's husband is not cheating on her. One wonders when she gets time for "wife functions" being a banker, PR person for the warmongering, terror and torture theocracy of the Third Axis of Evil, and defender of the hallucinating, womanizing, illiterate and warmongering founder of Islam. Maybe his other wives serve his needs?"

The gratuitous comments like the one above about the personal life of others is a simply wonderful technique to incite hatred and anger. Your Father Below will be positively delighted. You are wise to push the discussion to a place where We, and not the Enemy, will have the advantage. So your pretense to simply "address flaws" is sure to cloud judgment and contribute to the coarseness of the discourse here.

Delightful. Simply delightful. Keep up the good work.

Uncle,

You apparently missed the complete synopsis of the flaws in the founders and foundations of the major contemporary religions. (The Jihadist has simply been asked to address the flaws in Islam. Facts by the way are not forms of hatred.)

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, womanizing, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, and the Filipino koranics.
And who funds these acts of terror?

The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centered and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’."

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations,embellishments, lies and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

My Dear Concerned "Christian" Now "Liberated"

We are very pleased with reports of your recent progress.

Your project to spread distrust and hatred against Islam is impressive. Perhaps you can enrage that woman who goes by the name Jihadist to the point that she will be driven to become one of us. As we know, hatred feeds upon itself, so every spark must be cherished because it has the potential to be fanned into Infernal Flames. So by all means, continue with that project.

And by using the Enemy's name in your handle you teach the uninformed that the Enemy is really the source of hatred in the world. What splendid propaganda work that is.

You continue spread the gambit on our Enemy as if it had some scholarly substance. Indeed some or our apprentices in an earlier generation said that if a lie is repeated often enough, sooner or later, people will believe it. Another of our apprentices observed that the bigger the lie, the more credible it becomes. I commend them to your consideration in your future projects. Calling this "deflawing" is simply too precious for words. Quite lovely, really.

Do keep up the good work.

Moses, "Seer of God",

You asked:

"One thing concerning your name or title of your posting, do you know what you are liberated either from or to?"

As starters, I am liberated from the religion thumpers who believe the OT, NT and koran are the words of God.

And like many contemporary global citizens, I have been liberated from the flaws in the founders and foundations of all the contemporary religions.

And with that in mind, I am writing a book entitled, "Angelic Cons and Their Consequences".
as an escape for those Bred, Born and Brainwashed in their religion.

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

One thing that seems abundantly clear is that the pharisees and scribes are alive and well, they just go by different names.

One thing concerning your name or title of your posting, do you know what you are liberated either from or to?

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Moses, the "God-Seer",

Hmmm, "I am who am". Well, since Moses was mostly if not completely mythical, we can give credit to that phrase/embellishment to the Jewish scribes.

With respect to: (as per contemporary NT exegetes' analyses:

1- I am the bread of life (Jn.6:35) an embellishment,
2- I am the light of the world (Jn.8:12) an historical saying of Jesus as per Crossan but see below,
3- I am the gate (Jn.10:9)- an embellishment,
4- I am the good shepherd (Jn.10:11) an embellishment,
5- I am the resurrection (Jn.11:25)- an embellishment,
6- I am the way and the truth and the life (Jn.14:6)- an embellishment,
7- I am the true vine (Jn.15:1)- see below,
8- Before Abraham was, I am (Jn.8:58)- see below:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/realwords.htm

"In exalted titles. In the Gospel of John, Jesus refers to himself in exalted “I am” statements. He says “I am the bread of life,” “the light of the world,” “the resurrection and the life” (John 6:48; 8:12; 11:25). Throughout John, Jesus stresses his preexistence and preeminence. “Before Abraham was, I AM,” he says (John 8:58). “I and My Father are one” (John 10:30). The Jesus Seminar does not think Jesus viewed himself this way, says Marcus Borg, a critical scholar and seminar member. “In the judgment of the seminar (and of most mainstream scholarship since the last century),” he writes, “Jesus did not speak that way.” Dr. Funk says the seminar scholars almost unanimously feel that Jesus “didn’t think of himself as divine.”

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

By the was Allah is, I believe, an Arabic word that corresponds to our generic word meaning God.

Over in the Middle East both the Christians and the Moslems use that word. As far as I know that is the only word that Moslems use to refer to God.

The Christians and Jews refer to God as Yahweh, with the english equivalent, I AM WHO AM, of course some Jews, at least some of the Jews that actually believe in God will not say God's Name because they have their reasons.

God, YAHWEH, I AM WHO AM, is the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God of the entire human race and of the entire universe.

Jesus is God-Incarnate, not some second-rate prophet like the god of islam says, but before some people get on their high, pompous, prideful horses, so to speak, God the Trinity is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Jesus asked of people, "Come follow Me".

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Remember, up until about 100 years ago, a woman had no choice in whom she would marry, nor could she divorce him under any circumstances. Spousal abuse was encouraged by the Church to "keep women in their place." But yet a man could have as many sexual partners as he wished to, and suffer no consequences.

Thomas, Thomas, Thomas, or is it Moses, Moses, Moses?

We are still waiting for the video of your daily meetings with Allah.

TO THE MODERATE:

Hi, how you doing?

Awhile back you asked if I could space out what I wrote. At the time I didn't know how to do it but now I do, I just kind of bumped into it one day.

It is something that people get so upset when you speak the truth, of course when THE TRUTH HIMSELF was here we got so upset that we killed Him.

You wrote, "Rather, all knowledge begins with faith.", in answer to the same question I wrote, " with faith sometimes you receive knowledge.".

I thank God that God is so much nicer than some people think He is and also than some people even want Him to be.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

THE MODERATE:
I hate to do this bud didn't you put the kerbash on "The kindergarten question is: Why does all this $h1t we take on faith actually work???" before you said it?

Can't seem to get away from reality even after making a good case for, "there is no reality, only perceived reality." Of course FAITH is where all begins, and, FAITH is where all ends too.

Faith is not accepted in the court room to get Mugsy off. Faith is not accepted by you when the stranger says, "give me all your money and I will give it back 10 fold tomorrow." Faith has limits. Does that apply to faith in God?

YES!! http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul mathematically proves sale, (religions are faith in what God demands to avoid hell sellers) of Faith in God requires definition of God. God is undefined and may not be defined for God is like division by zero, the standard trick for proving, 1 = 2. Anything can be proved using the undefined as proof, faith in the undefined required.

Knowledge gives definition to the unknown. God is the un-know-able and thereby may not be defined, by definition.

Maybe if we lowered our God standard a bit, from the infinite to the finite? When did God become infinite anyhow? Not early on in the Bible. The being in the burning bush identified self as "the God of your[Moses] father.." telling us there were other Gods, (definitely not the God of the Egyptians, huh). There can be but one infinite God while there can be unlimited finite Gods - ask PAGANPLACE if you don't believe me.

"Knowledge trumps faith for all but those dishonest with themselves."

Rather, all knowledge begins with faith.

As an applied mathematician I been lucky enough to have had a career in writing little abstractions in computers that model the world around us to detect things hidden in noise, measure rates of disease given various treatments, recognize patterns in DNA sequences, predict the path of satellites, and many other things. These models seem to be ridiculously over simplified.

Think about Euclidean Geometry. There are a set of axioms that make it all work. The axioms are exactly articles of faith that no one has been able to prove. If one can be proved from another then the it has been demoted to a theorem that can be proved from the axioms. Euclid's geometry is that of the plane.

This kind of geometry and trigonometry was in use for millennia before Euclid. The major civilizations that built things like the pyramids or other large buildings used forms of this geometry though without understanding exactly what they were taking on faith.

All math rests on axioms, and all technology rests on math. When you get in your car to drive to work, you are using an engine management computer that is based on math models of combustion. Its suspension was designed using differential equations that come from Newtonian axioms that give us physics. Yes, models must be verified against physical observations, but they rest upon faith in the basic axioms.

The kindergarten question is: Why does all this $h1t we take on faith actually work???

"You say, "Knowledge trumps faith", well knowledge is knowing something and faith is believing something, is it not?"

The way I always say it, Thomas, is, "Belief is thinking you know something. Faith is not *needing* to."

People bring us to much grief when they start insisting that "Faith is insisting that belief is knowledge."

Speaking of static... :)

"The bible was authored by Constantine."

The bible was never actually written. Not a single word in it is from antiquity. The Gospel According to the FSM rather was actually created in 1971 because of FSM's apparent displeasure with Disco Inferno. The seemingly ancient manuscripts He distributed around the libraries, and ruins for us to find. He did this at the same time He distributed the fossils to fool Darwin into believing in evolution.

Thomas!

What does faith in God have to do with it? Are you confusing fait in God with faith in God's so-called representatives, the pope for catholics, America's pastor Billy G for non catholic Christians, ayatollahs for Muslims? Are you confusing faith in God with faith in writings - the bible, Qur'an, Book of Mormon?

We're talking about sexual morality. How much of what ministers and books say God wants is actually what God wants? Don't forget that there are a lot of minus numbers below the line.

TO ANONYMOUS:

You wrote, " How about you Thomas? And the "On Faith" folks? Knowledge trumps faith for all but those dishonest with themselves."

I can't speak for the "On Faith" folks but I agree with you but you know what, with faith sometimes you receive knowledge.

You say, "Knowledge trumps faith", well knowledge is knowing something and faith is believing something, is it not?

You call it knowledge, saying that God is not real whereas it is your belief that there is not a God.

I used to believe in God until I met God now I know that God is real. So, yes, you are right knowledge trumps faith.

God knew that I needed to know and not just to believe to even attempt the job that He chose me for.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom, by the way the name that I sign is my full name and it is my real name.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

The bible was authored by Constantine. You've notice that he's a rather compilation individual but still cling to the notion others actually wrote the bible. Constantine did a lot of "copy" and "paste" like today's renowned scholars. Is there anything new under the sun?

Already "The Greatest Story Ever Told" has become absolute fact in the minds of the faithful.

I have yet to see any comments on Jesus' passage about divorce and adultery. So what do we find??

Mark 10:1-12,
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

However with respect to Mark 10: 1-12, it appears to be unique to Jesus. Whether John the Baptizer influenced Jesus' thinking on this matter, we will never know although The Baptizer did lose his head criticizing the adultery of Herod. (see Wikipedia for a JB bio).

See also http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/015_Against_Divorce

An excerpt:

"Luedemann [Jesus, 67] notes that the form of the tradition in Mark 10 reflects Roman divorce law, not local Jewish practice. He also observes that "the radical repudiation of divroce by Jesus is attested in both the Q tradition (Matt. 5.32/Luke 16.18) and by Paul in 1 Cor. 7.10-11. It follows that according to all the earliest material Jesus emphasizes the indissolubility of marriage." On Matt 19:12, Luedemann [Jesus, 209] suggests that the saying about eunuchs is probably an authentic Jesus tradition growing out of his own practice as a single male."

correction

Let's try this again, "Before Jesus no one could get into heaven, gates locked. Therefore everyone went to the "other place" better known as hell for the sole purpose of getting the "good" people who had died before out. Jesus has the keys to heaven's gate."

Before Jesus no one could get into heaven, gates locked. Therefore everyone went to the "other place" better known as hell. Jesus is said to have gone there for the sole purpose of getting the "good" people out who had died before He came to save everybody. The "bad" folks, those not "chosen" were fed to the demon monster, EATER or just thrown over the side and on down into the abyss - updated from time to time over it's 3,000 year history - before Constantine standardized and make it real simple so everyone can understand.

The UNDERWORLD qualifies as LIMBO, a place of waiting as taught by Fr Reese. Hell is a bit lower down, the abyss, sewage disposal. Some dumb Greek set it, hell on fire, made it "sacred."

Sex problems comes from Pharaoh getting all he could handle while his many women went "hungry." His wives and especially queen found in adultery were "condemned to hell" and sent there with the "forever wound" an everlasting pole through the gut that was presumed to be duplicated along with their bodies on the nebol bridge leading to an eternity of "pole through gut" misery.

I'll bet Fr Reese knows all about that. Now when is he going to get honest with himself. How about you Thomas? And the "On Faith" folks? Knowledge trumps faith for all but those dishonest with themselves. The three great faiths are three great frauds.

Thomas B and Fr Reese, let me help you a little with what you believe.

Yes, Jesus went to hell and then He went to heaven. Why did Jesus go to hell and how long did Jesus stay there is the real question.

Before Jesus no one could get into heaven, gates locked. Therefore everyone went to the "other place" better known as hell for the sole purpose of getting the "good" people who had died before out. Jesus has the keys to heaven's gate.

So Jesus went to the UNDERWORLD where all the dead were lined up "last first and first last" decided who was worthy, "many called but few chosen" and then...

Aw heck, it's all at http://www.hoax-buster.org All Pharaohs had the keys to the kingdom of heaven and all those who died during their reigns were held in the UNDERWORLD until Pharaoh died, descended into hell, passed judgment on the dead and led the faithful in Christ, Pharaoh on into the Kingdom of God.

TO BGONE:

Yes, Jesus did go to hell. Jesus also experienced spiritual death. He also went thru physical death. I think that it is really something that God did that for us, one day you will understand.

What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that if ultimately the Kingdom was only for the repentant ones, well God could have just yelled out of heaven, 'Hey, all of you that repent will come to a nice place and if you don't repent, tough'.

God has a Plan tho, and His Plan is not for a bunch of people that think they are better than others because they know His Name to be condemning others even tho some people seem to think that.

Knowing God's Name means just that, you know His Name, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are doing His Will for your life.

Some people that call themselves "christian" seem to be judgemental, unforgiving, unmerciful and sometimes just plain not very nice if you don't live your life the way they try to tell you to live it, so calling yourself a "christian" doesn't mean you are one in the true sense of the word.

Whether anyone believes it or not, it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know. God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It may sound like a paradox but sometimes it seems that as soon as some people declare themselves "christian" that is when they stop being one in their hearts and in their actions toward others.

Sometimes, also, we seem to be so caught up in the details that we don't even look at the big picture.

I would like to say flat out, I have met God but I sure don't know everything and I am not a know-it-all, just a messenger.

Take care, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Isn't there a pill that relieves "substandard" sex called Viagra? I hear it's been tried in hopes of achieving "superstandard" sex. Everything has a trinity even sex, substandard, standard and superstandard.

"Cheating on one's spouse", is simply a derogatory discription of a happening that the speaker disapproves of.

That happening may or may not be problematic for the spouse, but it's hard to see that the word "cheating" is either accurate or informative.

Depending upon the people and circumstances involved, the extramarital sex may well be either insignificant or beneficial for all concerned.

" Then we can do something that actually works to control sexual desire, without all the static."

My people call it "Standards." :)

Thomas Baum:

I quote Shakespear too. His works are just like the Bible, fiction based upon facts. And it's not advertised to be the word of God.

Which kingdom you got in mind? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul tells us all about the kingdom of the father of Jesus.

Explain this please: While hanging on the cross Jesus turned to the 'good' thief and said, "this day you will be with me in paradise." According to the Roman Catholic church, Apostles creed, officially what catholics believe, Jesus "was crucified died... and descended into hell." Hell must be paradise? Hell's the kingdom of the one that would be God, Lucifer. Maybe you should be more careful about your supernatural beings and their sacred, (means burned) scriptures, choose your kingdoms with caution.

Fr Reese, you have any words of wisdom about that little oops?

TO BGONE:

You wrote, " Preaching and teaching from literary hoaxes is an unlawful act in China" and you also wrote, "How does that song go - "a time for every purpose under heaven." ", if it is such a literary hoax, I am wondering why you are quoting a song that is taken straight from the bible.

Do you think that there might be some very truthful wisdom in the bible?

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Oh, Bgone, but it is true that sperm have competetive mechanisms designed to actually try and block sperm from other males in them which strongly indicate that polyandry was common enough, if not normative, in our evolutionary ancestry.

As for 'chemical castration,' I've heard that's proved to have limited effectiveness (and certainly involves more than a regular birth control pill: the dosage in those is tiny fraction of what makes a human endocrine system go, it's just a trigger.)

Bgone,

I posted this on Jacoby's thread, but there is a pill that eliminates libido. Some sex offenders are required by court order to take female birth control pills. It's called chemical castration. Great idea, eh? Just give 'em all pills.

No matter what else can be said about sex it's a very popular subject. Notice how people just love to talk about themselves?

How does that song go - "a time for every purpose under heaven." There's a pill for every purpose under heaven except for eliminating sexual desire. Looks like we came up one pill short of a full set so don't expect sex to come under the control of the authorities real soon.

Maybe a pill that eliminates the authorities? Just the authorities on sex of course. Then we can do something that actually works to control sexual desire, without all the static.

"Bottom line: Eliminate the desire and drive, Eliminate the problems!!!"

Actually, Concerned, they've been trying to do that for centuries, (so they can use people's sex drives to enforce obedience and lead people around by the nose) ...which is how things *got* this way, actually.

The more you repress sex, the more it comes out sideways. The more people are educated, empowered, and responsible, the fewer 'problems' that come from ignorance or desperation or frustration or all the other negativities that can come of this.

Your libido-killing pill is an interesting idea, I suppose, but the people who are against sex (and educated, responsible sex in particular) in the first place are generally all invested in there being 'temptations' to battle for their religious titillation, and few others would see the need for sexuality itself to be 'killed off'

Some medications for other things may have the side effect of killing the libido, but that doesn't *rewrite the brain and body of we sexual creatures to actually work that way* ...just results in a form of depression, even if some might think 'Hey, it's not-sex! That's good!'

It's not actually very good, by all reports. Our sexuality is *part* of us, not some foreign invader to be repelled. It needs to be honored and respected and informed and cared for. And *that,* not repression, is what helps with the problems.

I believe 1.6 million Plan B prescriptions were given last year in the USA alone. To say the least, sexual drive/activity/libido is out of control.

There are pills to increase libido, prevent
pregnancies and to kill babies. Since this is all about biology, there should be no reason that an anti-libido pill could not be developed. What should the pill be called: "Save Us from Bill "Out of Control" Clintons" ????

And "Save Us from Bill Clinton" pills should be quite useful for Muslim women/men in eliminating the need for those other three wives.

Since the pharmaceutical companies are not about to do this, the major religions should join forces and do it. I apologize for being blunt, but considering the number of over-sexed, "celibate" clergy we have, these pills would also solve another problem.

Not interested in taking a pill? Then follow the many masterbation techniques readily available via Google- Safe, inexpensive and definitely efficient in eliminating "partner required" libido- Published statistics show "55 vs 38 percent of men vs women (aged 18-59) masturbated on a regular basis" , http://www.123helpme.com/preview.asp?id=26798.

The Catholic/Christian churches simply need to upgrade wet dreams to approved sexual drive control. And again another method to assist hard to control "celibate" clergy.

Bottom line: Eliminate the desire and drive, Eliminate the problems!!!

"We are all sinners" said our president. Not Clinton but rather "born again" Bush. The pope says the same thing doesn't he?

Maybe it's a matter of getting caught? Sinning in public that is. Surely not his holiness. But then we have his word on it. If I can't believe the president and the pope as a team of powerful sinners then who shall I believe?

The real question is when did sex become sinful? Did early man view sex as sinful? How about Polynesians and other cultures where sex is, well, like many other things in life, a fact but not a real problem.

To understand when sex became sinful, in western and mid eastern cultures we need to look no further than the harem. A reasonable assumption is that nature provides a somewhat equal mix of males and females. What do males do when the big chief and all his somewhat big supporters all garner "stables" of women, harems, wives and concubines, breeding stock one might say? If Abraham had 70 wives, the picks of the litters too then how about Jacob for example.

Sexual morals of modern times can be traced back to when Jack got shut out of the reproductive chain because John "captured" all the women of child bearing age. Who's John? But of course, the oldest big shot of them all, Pharaoh.

http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 "proof" - the Bible is a hoax has, from the written historical record the basis in fact for Jesus Christ. And Moses too. And it was all about a queen who was put under guard just like all wives of Pharaoh but somehow she managed to get pregnant anyhow. How did she do that? Miraculous!

Miraculous is the easy solution that leads to sex being what commonly comes to mind when the word moral is spoken. That would be limited to western civilization only of course. Preaching and teaching from literary hoaxes is an unlawful act in China where sex is a much different kind of problem, cause people.

TO REV THOMAS J. REESE:

The title of your answer, "The Ethics of Golf and Marriage", actually reveals a lot about what it seems that a lot of people think that Christianity, denominational or non-denominational, is about.

Did the Second Person of the Trinity, chose to and become a human being to teach us ethics? Or did He come to be the Saviour of the entire Human Race?

I would like to ask you a question: Do you think God's Plan is as putrid as so many so-called christians, seem to think that it is? In this question, I include all that call themselves "christian" including those that do not seem to have a drop of compassion, forgiveness or mercy running in their veins.

Have you or anyone else ever noticed that we, maybe not all of us but at least some of us as human beings, tend to look at other people's behaviour rather than our own?

Have you ever noticed that some non-christians, so to speak, are more christian than some "christians"?

Knowing God's Name does not mean someone is a christian! God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Believing that Jesus is Who He Is, does not mean that it isn't important what you do and why you do it.

I, personally have done things that I know were wrong for me to do and I have also done things that I did not and still do not consider wrong that some would consider wrong, well the way I see it, if someone thinks something is wrong than don't do it.

If people force themselves on others, then that is ungodly, considering that God invites us, He does not force us since we have free will and He does not violate that whereas some, calling themselves "christian", try to force themselves, and/or their conception of God on others when they seem to know nothing about God except for His Name.

Considering that I am not a pessimist or an optimist but a realist, I do realize that this is not a perfect world and we are not going to make it a perfect world but that does not mean that we shouldn't try to make it better.

I also realize that laws are necessary for some things or utter chaos would set it.

God chose me to be the New Testament Moses and I have said Yes.

I am here to Proclaim the Gospel. Gospel means "Good News" and as the angels announced at Jesus's birth, "This is Good News for ALL PEOPLE".

God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable, we will all be judged not only on what we do but why we do it and also on what we know and by this I do not mean some kind of quiz on human knowledge but what we know about God.

God is not the egotistical, mean, judgemental, condemning, venomous piece of garbage that some seem to think that He is.

God is a Being of Love, Pure Love. God has a Plan and in His Plan, we are active participants not robots or puppets on a string but flesh and blood human beings with free will whether we like it or not.

Thank You, God the Trinity; thank You Dad for Your Plan, thank You Brother for Your Obedience to the Plan and thank You Knitting Buddy that You will bring the Plan to Fruition.

Take care, see you all in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"Is this a case of French practicality trumping American romanticism? Should a woman be condemned for staying in a loveless marriage because she prizes career and/or family over love? Or perhaps she hopes against the odds for conversion? That is a decision only the woman can make."

Now, I'm not up on the gossip about this lady's marriage, but just because a marriage isn't someone's monogamous ideal doesn't mean it's necessarily 'loveless.'

I think it *is* a prejudice we may have in America: narrative goes like this: Man cheats or otherwise has other lovers. If woman divorces him, she's evil for abandoning her family. If she stays, she obviously has some sinister ambitious ulterior motives and doesn't 'respect the institution enough.'

I mean, no one can seem to articulate why Bill Clinton's straying seems to be a campaign issue against Hillary, ...an unarticulated stigma, hinted at but never brought to light, but that's part of it, ennit?

Really, there are all kinds of marriages, and all kinds of reasons to be in one. In my beliefs, an oath's an oath, but I think *convention* also enters into it.

Like I said, I don't know much about this particular case, but it *is* possible for people of differing libidoes to love and not abandon each other. :)

I, for one, don't expect clergy to be perfect, any more than I do anyone else.
But I do expect them to own their misdeeds, not pawn them off on being "tested by God" or "under attack from Satan."
I do expect at the very least, that they should honor their marriage vows. If you have someone you truly love at home, how hard is it REALLY to keep your clothes on with other people? If you have someone you truly love at home, why would you go out and pay a stranger for sex? And if you don't truly love the person you're married to, do yourself AND your spouse a favor and end the marriage. Being divorced is better than living a lie.
I have no issue with unmarried clergy dating, being sexually active, or cohabitating, but the same caveats apply. If you've promised monogamy to a partner, keep your promise. If you decide you want more variety in your bed, fine , but be man or woman enough to tell the other person.