***  SEX  ****

Saying that people are sinning against God by having sex outside of "marriage" is not the "worst" religious lie (or error) of all, but it is, by far, the "biggest" religious "lie" (or "error") of all.  (Eating animals, war, siding with the rich, etc. are the "worst" religious lies ever).  And in many ways it attributes to, causes, and/or escalates other "real" (including the "worst") sins.  Generally, people that eat meat, are welcome in churches; people that are in the military, are welcome in churches; rich people are definitely welcome in churches; even people that deny Christ (atheists), are welcome in churches; but people that say that non-marital sex is not a sin, are not welcome in churches.  Where in the Bible (mainly the New Testament) is "the most widely known sin of all" (non-marital sex) "spelled out" (conclusively and definitively described), like in inflexible phraseology or decisive sentences?  The specific "word(s)" that is(are) supposed to relate to this subject seem to be different in various modern day (even) Bibles.  And these same words seem to even have different definitions from dictionary to dictionary.  Sounds like to Me, clergies have "sinfully" taken the liberty to define parts of the Bible to suit their own personal likings, because of secular pressures.—[Hey!, If you don't like what I'm saying, then that means that you would rather that I lie].

For obvious reasons, Jesus Christ said: "Love your enemies," as his most important extreme message to mankind; because things would work perfect, if everybody could do it.  However, an "extreme" that Satan knows that nobody can do.  But, technically, if we can have non-committed "sex" with our enemies (people who we hate), we would not hate them anymore.  It would greatly lessen our emotional animality desire to want to harm them, revenge them, or destroy them.  Now, no truthful high intellect can deny that.  And, what is best, if we had prior "non-committed" sex, with the people that would later become our enemies, then there would be a lot less chance of them becoming our enemies.  Plus, everybody would be a lot more naturally happy, less stressed, and feel no more guilt (when they have sex); which would also fight Satan and hatred even more.  Jesus didn't just tell everybody to love your enemy without telling the best way to achieve that goal.  Open "non-committed' sensual love (sex) is "the tool."  And it is a global "resource" that we have always had, but never properly taped into.  Jesus believed that people should love one another more than loving property and power; and sex is the best tool to create love; out of, what would be nothing or hatred, otherwise.  Early Christian adults were the most kindest, most caring, and most considerate people that have ever lived; with a friendly trusting happiness like an uncorrupted little child.  The reason is because they did not have any sexual hang-ups towards each other.  Modern day Christians aren't even close to being this perfect.  Living in this modern day world, I can easily see that most adults emanate a definite selfishness, mistrust, and a dishonest caring for others—or, conversely, many people effortfully ignore others, and/or purposely act unfriendly, and/or impolite, just so to let certain others know that they don't like them sexually (a warped act of kindness, so to not "lead anybody on").—This is not the definition of a perfect world.

When Jesus said to "love your enemies" he meant that everybody should love everybody.—It is impossible for everybody to "love" one another when you are only supposed to "love" the "one" you're married to, and/or your "one" immediate family.  Most people can only see happiness in satanic desires—coveting, revenge, and winning the game of competition.  Guiltless natural sex, where you have God's true grace with you, feels much better than sex with games, pressures and commitments.  It's "committed" (restricted) sex that causes unhappiness, cruelty, lies, hatred, and the problems in marriage relationships, not the act of sex itself.  Open free non-committed sex will make people care for each other much more, that will ultimately eliminate wars, revenge, greed and selfishness.  Timothy McVeigh would (likely) not have blown up the Oklahoma City building, if their was anybody in there that he had ever had sex with; because of the power of the closeness of sex.  [1 Peter 4:8-10]: "And above all things have fervent (heated passionate) love for one another, for love will cover a multitude of sins.  Be hospitable to one another without grumbling.  As each one has received a gift (sex from God), minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God."  Today's religious administration of loving one another is phony without sex.

— THREE WEAPONS ... —    There are three important weapons (desires) that humans possess to fight the Devil and Satan.  They are: music, laughter, and sex; not guns, bombs and the current legal system.  The pleasures of music and laughter alone are not powerful enough to completely beat the Devil and Satan (selfishness, anger, hatred, revenge, etc.).  But the sensuality of universal, diverse and non-committed (open) sex between any and all adults will.  It is the only human tool that is powerful enough to eventually totally fix the selfishness "bug" in our God-made human software.  The extreme pleasures of diverse and non-committed sex is more powerful than anger, hatred, revenge, etc.; therefore, with this sex/love weapon, ultimately, once everybody in the world realizes this, the Devil and Satan will completely lose their destructive power(s) in this world.

So to speak, God and the Spirit World are joyfully tapping their toes to peoples' music, laughing hysterically at humans' jokes, and having an incredible orgasm with everybody's sex.  It is not a sin to laugh; it is not a sin to sing; and it is not a sin to have sex.  Laughter, music and/or sex would only be a sin, if it caused any "innocent" suffering (e.g. laughing at somebody's misfortune, making somebody listen to the same song over and over, forceful rape).  Plus, if you could enjoy all of the different kinds of music, in the world, instead of just one (like just country, just rock, just classical, etc.), then there would be much more to enjoy; and, if you could love (have sex with) every kind of person, in the world (including your enemies), then there would be much more to enjoy.  Now realize that too much of any of the three would not be good, so we should rotate and/or go from one to the other as much as possible (whatever best pleases us), to best fight the Devil and Satan.  The sex should be non-committed, because a sexual commitment makes a person a covetous possession, that will bring greed, jealousy, anger, etc.—all attributes of the Devil.  Any person that tries to prevent people from having non- committed sex is working for Satan, because Satan and the Devil know that non-committed sex will eventually destroy their control in this world.  God placed a strong emotion in us to love our children, so to care for their raising, but what emotion did God place in us so adults would care (not war) for each other?—It's non-committed adult sex.  Open sex is a God placed desire, not a desire of Satan.  In fact, it's God's greatest open "blessing" to all adult animals and humans, within their own species of course—humans should not have sex with animals, or children.  Children enjoy (and should be) playing with interesting toys, books, videos, etc.  And, in vindication of Christ, the most important people to have sex with is the ones that you would otherwise hate.  Plus, if universal diverse sex had been done throughout history, everybody would be a lot more naturally healthier, because everybody would have enough of the same antibodies built up, which would have totally destroyed many current day diseases.  "The Golden Rule" is what needs to be globally accomplished to totally rid sin (hurting innocent people and/or over-correcting guilty people); and open sex is the only conclusive "tool" to accomplish a "Golden Rule" feeling between everybody.  This religious "opposite" of "open sex" (the destruction of marriage) is the main bridge that must be crossed before anything/everything else can come together. 

For a moment, think in your mind how "wonderful" it might really be for you to have non-condemning sex with the person that you sexually desire the most.  I tell you that you (and everybody else) can carry out this sexual triumph everyday/whenever for the rest of your life.

It is interesting for Me to walk around this world and listen to all the grips and complaints, that everybody has, and hearing all of the ignorant and selfish solutions that everybody comes up with.  It's going to take some time to see the results, but I have never heard the only total solution for all the religious and political problems, which is open sex backed up by quality humor and music.  This would streamline technology and productivity for more mutual "wonder" for God, man and the universe; because selfish monopolizing pride would not be so desirous any longer.  Open non-committed sex will cause people to be more content with their lives and care more (bond) "for" each other; therefore, it will "create" a desire to want to help and do more good for others, instead of our current backstabbing selfish lying monopolizing methods we use today.  This will even make the wealthy better off in the long run.

All "open, Jesus Christ, peace, love, brotherhood of man" communities that existed in the past have been taken over by any nearby monopolizing warmongers, because true lovers don't make good fighters.  But, today, with a pride in the U.S. military involvement in "peace keeping missions" for humanitarian reasons only, "open, Jesus Christ, peace, love, brotherhood of man" communities could freely exist today.—The only enemy is the corrupt (and even technically antiquated) religious teachings.  Open non-committed sex would also be more beneficial for the greedy (satanic) woman, because in a total happy, sharing, and caring environment, a woman would receive a lot more from a multitude of people rather than just one (spouse).  She would not have to "trap" a man into marriage, by using sex as a leverage tool against his property.  Plus, she could enjoy sex a lot more when she feels that it is not "payment" for his property.  Many of us can recall the "wonderful" feeling of falling in love—the thrill, the excitement, the security.  This is a wonderful Godly (not Satanic) feeling.  Now imagine if you could continually feel that way almost daily.  All society has to do is accept "open" and "non-jealous" sex and romance, then everybody could feel the exact same thrill and excitement the rest of their lives; because they would feel "secure," because society would allow and encourage it.  They would not feel so "damned to Hell," if they didn't do as the wealthy church teachers command.  Of course, personally thinking, even if society today, all of a sudden changed, this conservative brainwashed generation would have to pass before it could be implemented properly—there would be way too many "closed minded" people of lower intellect that would continue to oppose it.  Therefore, I hardly believe that this will be implemented in My lifetime.

If somehow you were raised (from an early age) on a deserted island, away from all "corrupted" human influence, then sex would be okay and natural (once a partner[s] was available), and you (yes YOU!) would never think that natural sex would be wrong or a sin, until some yahoo told you it was. But lying, cheating and stealing would be easy to comprehend as bias, harmful or destructive (evil) to yourself and/or to others.

— EARLY CHRISTIANS ; ROMAN EMPIRE —    After Jesus Christ, and during the days of the Roman Empire, it is documented that early Christians were favored most by the poor, the slaves, and the "sexually oppressed" (perverts).  Many Roman documents (for three hundred years) claimed that Christians had sex orgies and incest as some kind of weird love for each other, instead of the normal "love" for your spouse only: "They touched each other," They had "love feasts," "The kiss of peace," thought by Romans to just be lust.  "Behold how they love one another." There is a difference between "wild orgies" (the 1970's) and "loving orgies" (early Christians); "loving orgies" are not bias.  "All are family." "All are brothers and sisters."  "'Love feasts'; only practiced by 'early' Christians."

[Ref. Emperor Nero and the Roman Senate, Christian trial proceedings, documented A.D.64]: "Christians regarded the traditional Roman virtue (chastity) with contempt."  Christians were put to death because they would not honor "the traditional Roman virtue of chastity and had pre-marital sex."  "Christians believe that vice is virtue and virtue (sexual abstinence) is vice (immoral and evil)."  "Christians believed that having sex only in marriage was evil."

[Ref. documented A.D.177, in Lyons (France)]: Christians were tortured, beheaded in jail, and thrown to wild beasts in the amphitheater in front of wild crowds, just because they indulged in "orgies and incest."

[1 Peter 5:5]: "Yes, all of you be submissive to one another" [5:14]: "Greet one another with a kiss of love."

[Heb 10:24]: "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works."

[Luke 23:2]: The Jews tried to justify their charges against Jesus, to Pilate, by saying that Jesus was "perverting the nation."  A "pervert" is a person that abnormally deviates from the common sexual morals, like sex only in marriage.

[Luke 23:16,22]: Why would Pilate feel that all that was needed was just to "chastise" Jesus, then "let Him go"?  To "chastise" means to correct (punish) someone into not having pre-marital sex.  And I don't even want to think about what might be the best way to "chastise" a guy.

[Ref. The Octavius of Minucius Felix, circa A.D.230—A single remaining documented conversation between a Christian and a Pagan (heathen), Caecilius]: The Pagan told the Christian that he was aware that the Christians were meeting secretly, early in the morning, to have their "orgies and incest of gross immorality." The Christian told him that "their sexual relations and intimacy is of a totally different kind, because of their genuine love for one another," and that "their Lord Jesus Christ commanded them to, as a pledge to love one another."  He also described it as "a holy kiss." Then the Pagan pointed out how it breaks up the traditional family, so the Christian said "All Christians are a member of another kind of family.  They all become each other's brothers and sisters."  And then the Christian "justified it" by pointed out that he (the Pagan) "has sex with all of his female slaves, in addition to his wife."  And the Pagan said: "that is different, it is every man's right to have sex with his slaves." The Christian said that "all of their children are loved and cared for by all of the Christians" and he pointed out that "Christians also show the same equal love and caring for all the abandoned Pagan children that the Christians will find and take in."  The Pagan also described that the Christians would have their banquet orgies and incest in the dark, involving everybody (old and young, male and female), where anybody could end up having sex with anybody in "random unions."  [The old and young touching, loving, kissing makes Me queasy; nevertheless, these are the facts].

A Christian martyr (Justin somebody) sent a letter to emperor Antoninus Pius (c. 150 A.D.) stating that they used to have open sex but not anymore, "but now we practice only chastity."—Obviously the Christians had to cover it up, or be killed.—And also, that's why they did it in secret, and in the dark.

In the waver of My opposition, strangely, Roman emperors would allow the Jews to worship their God; which is supposed to be the same God that the Christians worshipped.  Even Pharaoh let the Hebrews slaves worship Moses' God in peace.  So why wouldn't the Roman emperors let the Christians worship the same God?  Because the Roman emperors claimed that the Christian God (via Jesus Christ) caused Christians to break the Roman laws.  Exactly which laws were those?  And I want to see in the modern day New Testament indicating Jesus' instructions for the same.

God (via the living and the dead) has inspired Me concerning other authentic Biblical documents, that are hidden by current day people, that can even better substantiate (confirm) My writings about "open sex."  Unfortunately, so to not corrupt (destroy) divine laws, I am forbidden to express (tell) the document names, and I am powerless to pinpoint the documents; because, again, they are wrongly hidden so to maintain a false impression (a lie) for the rich, by ignorant secular religious leaders.  God now demands that these documents become publicly known immediately, to vindicate This Paper; otherwise, the people concealing these documents will suffer equally, in their afterlifes, for the "continued" suffering of all victims of "marriage," in the entire world, along with its related "indirect" problems.

In contradiction to the fixed, modern day, inconsistent "chaste" (make war, not love) design of Jesus Christ, it should be known that Jesus commanded that all adults (both married and non-married) do something sexually pleasing to each other at their social gatherings.  This stably built "love" and "affection" for each other—an anti-war, anti-hate, anti-condemn thing.  To have sex is to "make love"—"make" means to "create," "build," "produce," or "shape with necessary ingredients."  Also, to "make out" is a "kiss of love"; which was a provisionary "pushing" strong love into, while/then mutually "pulling" strong love out of the other person.  It was to be socially acceptable (Lord Jesus instructed); an easy and wonderful way to please God; and a great way to suppress any angry feeling one might have for another, in their normal day to day dealings with each other.  Everybody seemed to look forward to these events.  Jesus encouraged married people to permit each other to (both) have sex (and love) outside of their marriage at any time—which before (the Old Testament), the man was the only one allowed to have extramarital sex.  Modern day marriage means that you should only love your spouse.  That means that you are not supposed to "love" anybody else of the opposite sex (that is not a member of your family).—You have to avoid even being just friends, with a member of the opposite sex, or you may be asking for trouble from the suspicion of your jealous spouse, and gossiping friends.—This is not the definition of a perfect Jesus Christ world.  This will never become the solution to the "love your enemy" problem.  To "love your enemy" is an extreme goal to the meaning of "to love everybody" in the world, not only your spouse, only your kids, and/or only your family.  The body that is seeking "love" from only an individual, or just gives "love" to only an individual, forsakes "love" from/for the rest of God's people/world.  Hugs only, can just places a natural desire for more; which is one reason a lot of females avoid "slow dancing."  [Many modern day clergies will somehow say that "Jesus definitely did NOT command/encourage open sex!"  But strangely, they have absolutely no source/evidence that says He didn't; especially source/evidence that would say that He "definitely" didn't.]

Many of the spirits of the early Pagans, Roman Officials, etc. are laughing in the face of a dying Jesus Christ, because they can currently see that the modern day (1997) "Christians" are strongly teaching the same Pagan and Romans morals and marriage virtues that they once put Christians to death for defying—so they won, as a result ... so far.  After Constantine, true Christianity died quickly because true Christianity was mostly followed by the very poor, which had way too inconspicuous of a voice.  Christianity, today, is mostly a rich man's religion, that just uses the name of Jesus Christ, so to "block-out" some of the true teachings of Jesus Christ, so that the true teachings cannot grow without being overridden by the powerful voice of the rich and powerful.

Since slavery (in this country) was abolished over 130 years ago, possibly wealthy people now, will be able to better go along with this "open" sex stuff; because it would benefit them, as well.  Of course wealthy men can still go to Nevada to easily "get it"; but, it would be a good "start" to legalize prostitution across the country (or world).—This would reduce marriage co-dependency.

— PLATO —    Major opposers of Christian beliefs, during the Roman Empire, were the followers of Plato.  Plato believed only in Platonic relationships—no sex at all unless approved by the government.  And, of course, the government is not God.  Plato believed in a world-order controlled breeding process, by which he brainwashed people to practice a non-sexual, non-sensual love for each other.

Plato believed in marriage, for pro-creation purposes only—sound familiar?  However, he did have one variant, that if a "holy" married man (not a married woman) committed adultery (has extramarital affairs) or visited a prostitute, it would be totally okay as long as he "lied" about it and didn't get caught!—Really!  And the way today's society/system works, that may sound familiar also.  And then Plato goes on later and tells about why honesty is so important.  He also refers to "these other" dishonest people as "idiots."  I personally believe that another true definition of "idiots" is a society that just blindly believes in some guy that just has high academic credentials; and for over 2,300 years.

Creating perfection is good and wondrous for God; but, not at the expense of destroying man's definition of what is not perfect.  Just because man is progressing to all new heights, does not mean that God does not see and feel the wonder of the less "perfect" creations; like the birds, the flowers, the mountains, etc. (and that's a big "etc.").  [Matt 6:28,29 & Luke 12:27]: "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."  God still has a much better perspective to fully grasp everything in the universe, than the perspectives from individual human beings; so and therefore, God still awes at the wonder of all of God's creation, not just the new stuff.  Space aliens' "wonders" could be more and/or different then ours; and our "wonders" (both small and large) can be more and/or different then aliens.  Just because a certain space travel technology is more advanced than another's, it does not mean the less advanced doesn't have/produce a different and unique kind of "wonder(s)" for God.  But on this planet, if perhaps something like aliens were known, then most all unique "wonder" on earth would cease to progress/produce.—Because we would stop everything and expect the aliens to just take care of us and do everything.  In ancient times, there must have been a reason why the slaves and the poor worshipped only one God, and the rich and powerful worshipped many Gods.

— ATTRACTIVE/UGLY —    Early Christians did not believe in love discrimination in sex partners—everybody, whether ugly or attractive, was to equally love each other sexually.  The fact that most people desire sex with more attractive people is a possessive greedy covetous evil, which hurts the less attractive.  Everybody is attractive in the eyes of God and Jesus.  God wants, and marvels at, diversity in appearance.  If God wanted everybody to look alike, he would of just made one kind of plant and one kind of animal, etc.  Our current opinion of what is attractive involves what the "average shape" defines as attractive, as we see as we grow up.  Like some noses are bigger than average and some are smaller (or shaped different) then average.  The compromise is what the middle (or median) size and shape is, to be what "we" define as attractive.  If everybody had big noses (or ears), then that would be what Satan (our selfishness) would define as attractive.  Some gender variants can be woman with larger lips to represent a more sizable (or fuller, or absorbing) target for sexual attraction; and the stronger more rugged look of a man, attributes to hard work, which (historically) delivered better "support" for his wife.

People that never (or rarely) have the opportunity to have sex with an "attractive" person will naturally "covet" for attractive people.  This will cause them to not feel as good (or even despise) having sex with an unattractive person.  If a person has "open" sex frequently, which will include attractive people, then they will not covet attractive people.  If a person does not "covet" for attractive people, then sex with unattractive people would feel just as good, as long as all their peer pressure friends did not covet for attractive people as well.  In other words, once the challenge (the game) of "getting" an attractive person is over, then everybody can be much happier, having sex with anybody, attractive or not attractive.  Once a person and/or society starts accepting open non-committed sex and orgies (based on love for one another) people will not "covet" for the opposite sex anymore.  Practicing this Godly "blessing," in the correct "free" manor, would even keep our minds on our work (employment) better, to build better "wonder" for God's world, that is also for God's people, you and Me.  Plus, if you can make yourself love (or have sex with) ugly people, then there is a great deal more people to enjoy love (and sex) with.

Why is it that an attractive man can get sex easier from an ugly woman, opposed to the "hard to get" attractive woman?  Does this mean that the attractive (lucky) women are much more Godly (or sinless) than the ugly (unlucky) women?  Well, this would concur with the way modern-day Christianity looks at sex.  And the same basic principal holds true with criminal tendencies of the poor (unlucky) versus the rich (the lucky).  Personally, concerning other (non-sex) matters, I can testify that unattractive women seem to treat Me a whole lot better (a better Golden Rule), and are generally a lot less selfish, than the attractive women; therefore, which ones do you think will "in reality" make it to heaven first?—[And I'm sure this works the same for attractive women with ugly men].

If you're like Me, when you see a very ugly person, and it makes you sick to think about having sex with them, then you and I are still not seeing what God is seeing.  Technically, it will enhance your sex, with everybody in variety, when you go back and forth, from fat to thin, thin to fat, ugly to attractive, etc.  Sex will feel much better and more exciting (and less boring) (with all types), to go from one to the other, instead of always just being with one kind.  Even modern day females, that have been taught to "pride" themselves otherwise, will realize its optimum pleasures.  And you should especially make sure that you have sex with the people that you hate (or "would" hate).  Like judges should have sex with criminals before determining sentence.—[Hey, if you think that these words are "sicko," then that means that you think God is "sicko"; and that you're really just not smart enough to process your reasoning out of your lifetime "brainwash," with an open mind; which would prove that you (and your peers) are the real "sickos."  And an entire world of agreeing sickos creates a very dangerous and imperfect environment.—I am telling you the only solutions out of a dooming world!]

— COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE —    "Thou shalt not covet ... thy neighbor's wife."  Love is different than coveting.  ("Coveting" is bias; true "love" is not bias).  You would not "covet" (overly desire) your neighbor's wife, if this was a "total Jesus Christ peace, love, brotherhood of man" world, because you could come over, pretty much, anytime you want and have her sexually; with a true honest approval from her husband (no Satanic jealousy).  This would work the same with any of his possessions—except, of course, when he's using it—because you would bring it back in a timely manor.  As long as people continue to get monogamously married, it will be impossible to end jealousy.  And, people today believe that you love someone more if you are more jealous; but on the contrary, jealous people are just more selfish people.—To be jealous is to be covetous.

Once society has "open sex," then the covetous, greedy and suffering lust for sex, with males, will go down.  And the sexual desires of females will go up, from their current apathetic (cold and dull) emotions, pressures, and guilty feeling.  Both will level off (or meet) at the proper (optimum) degree.

— ADULTERY —    "Thou shall not commit adultery."  Not committing adultery is a marriage vow—a law of man (not God) promise.  It is a sin, to your spouse, to break this "law of man" promise, even though "marriage" is a sinful premise—just like how it would be a sin (unethical and illegal) to not pay a legal (Nevada) prostitute, for her "law of man" services; even though the improvised need of prostitution is not Godly (selling a free gift from God).—(It's also like how "money" is not Godly, but is an excellent solution to improvise a sinful covetous world—just because you work at a bank, does not mean that you are sinning).  Therefore, you should not get married if you're going to break your promise.  It is not your sin if the only way that you can easily get sex, is by getting married.  And when you suffer, in a monogamous marriage, because you are restricted from having outside natural free Godly sex; then it is your society, and/or your religious teachers, that have sinned against you; by controlling everybody into marriage, by brainwashing the sexual moods of the female (mostly).  These sinners will suffer equally (in their afterlifes) for the suffering that they are causing you.  It would also be a sin to file for divorce, because the marriage vows (promise) says: "through thick and thin, better or worse, till death do you part." A man that has to be monogamous, has to substitute his loss, of his natural pleasures of sexual freedom, for a more escalated sinful attitude—like a covetous greed for more money; a desire for more gambling; by making financial success into a game; being more ruthless in the business would; enjoys seeing other peoples' suffering—all things that causes more innocent problems, just so to counter balance his lost natural contentment of the God given pleasures of non-committed sex. If everybody would do what I say, and never get married, then it would totally eliminate all adultery, because there would be no "marriage" agreement or promise to break.

Jesus was successful in expressing His special leniency for people that commit certain types of secular adultery: [John 8:3-11]: "This (sin of adultery) they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him"—They knew that Jesus opposed "monogamous marriage"; hence, "adultery" might be hard to explain how it, in certain cases, would not be a sin.  While trying not to totally (to extremes) contradict the old laws, Jesus obviously had a problem communicating the "sin of marriage" to the Jews; like how the worst sinners are the people that "cause" monogamous marriage to exist, not the married participants.  "He said to her, 'woman, where are those accusers of yours?  Has no one condemned you?'"—This means that there was no present "victim" of this "sin."  Therefore: "Neither do I condemn you"—Jesus can now easily forgive, clear, excuse, free, and overlook another incomplete Jewish law; which also is an unfair (over-correcting) punishment; because it neglects to elaborate the various complex degrees of "equal" punishment, for "innocent" victim sufferings, in what can be anywhere from "nothing" to a "major problem (for 'her' spouse)," in breaking "laws (promises) of man"; in this case, the restricting, covetous, "marriage vows."—This is even hard for Me to explain, and I have a word processor.  It's like how everybody should (shalt) share their property equally and fairly (10 Com. #6); but since they don't, it is not right to "steal," which means to take somebody's legal property; which would break (instead) commandment # 7, that forbids the breaking of "laws of man."  Jesus superseded other old laws as well: e.g.  Matt. 5:38-48: An eye for an eye ..., etc.  Again, if nobody would ever get legally married, then nobody would ever "be able to" break this complicated Jewish law.

— BECOME ONE FLESH —    [Gen 2:24] "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." "Flesh" is referring to our physical, tangible, material (substance) bodies—opposed to "spirit" or thought; which refers to non-physical, non-tangible, and non-material things.  When two people marry, they do not automatically cease to operate as single fleshes by physically transforming into the same person and "become one flesh."  The "becoming" of the one flesh is the "becoming" of a baby after they have sex ("be joined"), because that is exactly what a baby is—the two parents that have copied and combined themselves into "becoming one flesh"—a baby.  For people that are still having a hard time understanding what this is actually saying, let Me try to describe it better by saying that: It is basically talking about two people that have sex and, as a result, have a baby.  They are not saying that the only way to have a baby is by marriage.  They are not saying that marriage is a law of God.  I hope that this is clear now.

Or, if you still oppose this (if you are closed-minded), then okay, I'll give you this one.  So I tell you now that it is much better to "become one flesh" (have marriage/sex) with as many different people that you possible can, in this world, during the rest of your life; and especially anyone that "would be" (or "is") your enemy.

— MARRIAGE SNUB —    We are all beautiful and "lovable" children of God.  We all would rather have honest relationships that "work" and that can last the rest our lives.—I'm not talking about marriage or living together.  The premise of marriage is a law (or development) of man, not a law (or development) of God.  Society and corrupt religion has brainwashed everybody into believing that we need to either be married or abstinent—one extreme or the other.  But, true love can only be found with honesty. Most people, that seek romance, either want a one-night-stand or they want to get married so to "control" a person as their exclusive "property." This marriage and/or any monogamy leads to co-dependency, jealousy, abuse, violence, hatred, anger, etc.—all attributes of the Devil.  Conversely, if people are abstinent, many will describe themselves as "successful winners" in their love life—(coping system).—They simply are living without the feeling of God's "blessing" of sex [Gen 1:28].  People could have the perfect relationships by seeing a variety of people—which would exceed their greatest natural feelings.

True honesty in relationships differ from what we have been taught: Most men are dishonest and will try to seduce women by trickery—getting them drunk; turning them on; spending a lot of time and/or money on them (so to make women feel "obligated," when they have sex for them), etc.  All relationships should be of beauty, mutual friendship, and love.  Let's also talk about what is fair: Our bigoted one-sided society (the real world) says that it is okay for a man to do it on the first date, but a woman should not.  They say: "women should get to know somebody first." That's good advice if they're 18, it's 1910, and they're trying to trap a man into marriage.  Other's say: "If it don't come easy, you better let it go."  It is only now, that people can decide if they want to continue to be a slave, to our very selfish brainwashing society, or if they would like to feel true love and become happy—the kind of love and happiness where nobody gets hurt.  In addition to baby making, sex has been proven to be very healthy for the body, the immune system, and the mind; especially in older people [Ref. Reader's Digest, 6-93].  Sex alleviates PMS cramps, to the strengthening of "T" cells to prevent breast cancer.  The orgasm is the healthiest part during sex.  And having an orgasm while in contact with another person's body and soul, is even more healthy.  And having an orgasm while in contact with an all new person's body and soul (and/or multiple people) is the most healthy.  Marriage is simply a (very old) corrupt "law of the land"; which means that you are not allowed to have sex until "somebody" (clergy, rabbi, or judge) says you can.  And the same corrupt "somebody" (not God) says that you may not have sex outside of your prison of marriage; or you will be driven away from your church/synagogue and/or lose in divorce court.  In the eyes of God, "marriage" is like "money": Money is a temporary solution of an "against each other" (selfish) world; therefore, money is not a law of God; because if everybody "did unto others" and freely shared their property, there would be no need for money.  Of course, God considers all "laws of the land"; therefore, it would be a sin to "steal" money.  But, non-marital sex, on the other hand, is not even an enforced "law against the land" anymore.  Marriage is also a temporary solution of an "against each other" (selfish) world; therefore, marriage is not a law of God; because if everybody "did unto others" and freely helped all mothers and their children (by not stealing and monopolizing from nature), there would be no need for marriage.  Of course, God considers all laws of man; therefore, it would be a sin to break any of the marriage vows (promises): 

However, realize: [Matt 19;10]: "... it is better not to marry." [Luke 20:35,36]: "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." [Mark 12:25 & Matt 22:30]: "For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."  [Luke 14:20]: "... I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come."  [1 Cor 7:27-29]: "Are you bound to a wife?  Do not seek to be loosed.  Are you loosed from a wife?  Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.  Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.  But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that 'from now on' even those who have wives should 'be' as though they had none,"  [1 Cor 7:32,33]: "...He who is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord—how he may please the Lord.  But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife."—Realize that if the only Godly way to have sex was through monogamous "marriage," and everybody instead decided to not have sex (not get married) so to best "please the Lord," then human life would end in this generation—because nobody would have children.  ...Hey, I've got an idea, if everybody would just "please the Lord" (by not getting married), and then have pre-marital open sex, and then mankind could live on—right?  And also be more Godly—right?  —With all this, how can anybody say that marriage is endorsed, sanctified, ordained, or required by God, or Jesus???

If Jesus told people to not have sex until marriage, and that it was a law of God, then that would advocate/encourage the natural Satanic covetous emotion of Jealousy.—And since Jesus had female followers, jealousy could have naturally existed against Jesus in the eyes of other men; because Jesus would have been the cause of them to be without the women following Jesus.  Plus, if Jesus told people that sex prior to marriage was a sin to God, then I'm sure the Bible would explain it better to substantiate the current day corrupt clergy opinion, whom are siding with the Devil (the rich).  If/when "marriage" is eliminated, then that will force the rich to "give back" their monopolized wealth to unwed mothers, so they can support their babies.

Incidentally, the word "marriage," in the dictionary, is also defined as "any intimate union."

— FORNICATION —    The word "fornication," in the Bible, has been dishonestly translated, to our modern dictionary, to mean "any sex out of marriage."  But the original Biblical Latin word meant "prostitution"—[see dictionary word histories, e.g. The American Heritage Dictionary].  And, prostitution is any exchange of money, services or requirements (monogamy) for sex.  Therefore, "marriage" is just another form of prostitution and fornication—a sin.  And, "marriage" is a very, very, very "dishonest" type of prostitution and fornication.  Today, the word "fornication" has a totally opposite meaning, then of its original Biblical meaning.  This is why so many people get divorced, because "marriage" is not really endorsed by God and the premise (basis) is actually a sin.  "Prostitution" can also be easily translated to mean "anytime a woman (any woman) restricts God's blessing of natural sex, from any man, until or unless any certain obligation(s) is made"—like marriage.

[Gen 2:21,23]: A "rib" was not literally taken out of a man.  The message here is that something (sex) was taken away from the man (and all non-asexual animals), and the only way that the male can get his contentment/pleasure back was to go to woman (for sex).  She now has what belongs to him.—And when they have sex, "he" gets it (temporarily) back "Because she was taken out of Man."  By-the-way "she" also does/should feel the same pleasures, because "he" is also "she."  "and He (God) brought her to the man."—This means that sex is a natural free "deserved" (and lawful) gift (or blessing) from God, because it was "taken" from man (and woman).  And the only argument against this is from the people that believe that Adam and Eve were the only (and first) living humans at this time; but Gen 1:27 totally contradicts this to affirm "evolution" ("He created him; male and female He created them."; therefore, this makes the later "rib" into a metaphor, as like how The Revelation is written.—[I hope I am "spelling out" (explaining) "the first and the last" clearly, for it is the only complete way that Satan can be beaten.]

Natural sex is a free "blessing" from God [Gen 1:28], not to be paid for, earned, or used as a tool of control.  Natural sex between non-married people is not a sin according to the original Christian Scriptures, SIMPLY BECAUSE NOBODY GETS HURT!—except the covetous (sinfully greedy) monopolizing rich and powerful; which, not only are NOT "innocent" (because of that), but they are "the actual cause" of the problem (the "guilty").—You see, medieval corruption changed the meaning of the word "fornication" simply because wealthy taxpayers didn't (and still don't) like paying "welfare" to unwed mothers—it ALL has to do with "money."  [If you are saying/thinking that you just don't believe that everybody could all be that stupid and dishonest, and especially for that long of time; then that just shows that YOU are stupid and dishonest.]  Specifically, people will have sex out of wedlock, then woman will become pregnant, then (in olden days—prior to blood tests) the male could easily "skate-out" on the financial help needed for supporting the (more) helpless female and her baby (because all "goods" are monopolized by the rich and powerful), then sentimentally (strong emotion put in us all, for the care of the young) either the pregnant female's parents or the state's welfare has to pay (back) for financial needs of the female—hence, "a sin" in the eyes of the selfish "well to do (rich)." Marriage is just a financial commitment and obligation of the "well to do" man to pay for the support of the female and her baby(s), if he wants to have any kind of consistent sex partner.  This is another reason why woman play "hard to get," when they are not married—if all woman were "easy" then no man would every need to get married.  This is why "easy" women (sluts) are so "damned" by society, the churches, and especially by other woman; because "easy" women are lessening selfish women's chances of "trapping" a man into marriage (and keeping him in it).  You see, historically, woman have developed to not be as large and strong as men, and therefore cannot compete in a monopolized world as easy as men can—especially when they are pregnant and/or having to allocate more time in caring for the needs of a baby/child.  [If you are still not understanding this, please just write Me so I can try to elaborate on which part of "reality" that you are having trouble understanding]  "The Golden Rule" (in a nutshell) is the only true message in the original Scriptures, because it is the only thing that the world needs to improve on: [Rom 13:9]: "... ALL (commandments) SUMMED UP in this saying, ...."  [Gal 5:14]: "For ALL THE LAW is FULFILLED in ONE word, ...."  [James 2:8]: "If you really FULFILL the royal law according to the Scripture, ...." And "open sex" would NOT break "The Golden Rule"; in fact, it would actually be doing (or practicing) "The Golden Rule": "Do (sexually) unto others as you would have them do (sexually) unto you."

Call girls, street-walkers, etc. are closer to God then married women, because they are at least "honest" to their customers about what they are.  "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven" is not going to "come" when all people quit having pre-marital sex; it's going to "come" when all people start practicing "The Golden Rule"!!!  The only perfect solution is the one that I (only) am telling you.  Men should not have to be "johns" and be in any ungodly sinful relationship, where they have to "earn" or "buy" their friends (sex) by having to "wine and dine," become monogamous, spend a lot of time together first, spend a lot of money, or any type of control, payments, commitments, constraints, or obligations for "dishonest prostitutes"—women seeking marriage or monogamy.—And the men have to maintain much of this throughout the marriage, and sometimes even more.  No person (wife or husband) is a true friend to their partner if they require monogamy.  Monogamous jealousy just shows the selfishness of the coveting monogamist, NOT for the "love," concern, benefit, and/or happiness of their partner (or spouse).

All sex is "given" by God; and therefore, should be "free" and non-committed.  Women that hold back having sex with anybody and everybody are sinfully restricting God's "blessing" [Gen 1:28].  Marriage and monogamy is like a sexually controlled prison, especially for the male.  A very important truth is that no male would ever get married, if he could have the righteous pleasure of a variety of women, that would better satisfy/content him.  [Hey now, if you're angry with Me for translating the truth, then don't blame Me, blame Jesus Christ and the Christians for instructing Me to seek the truth, because I will/can "give" the truth].  Men are being called sinners for lusting after women, but I tell you that men would not "lust" (or covet) for woman anymore in an open sex world.—And, conversely, most all women would crave (and enjoy!) sex more than they do now—another disguised truth.  People that have sex out of wedlock are not hurting anybody; however clergy (or anybody) that say that those are sinners, ARE hurting "innocent" people; which therefore, constitutes REAL sin; and they will suffer equally, in their afterlifes, for all of the "hurt" (directly and indirectly) that they caused; that "includes" sins done by the victims that would have otherwise not been done, if they were welcome at church (and/or indirectly) without being condemned or put down in this way.  Clergies have all been brainwashed to believe in "no sex until marriage" throughout their entire life.  I can categorize three levels of the calamity (devastation, oppression, cruelty) for this sin, when a clergy preaches "no sex until marriage."  (1) They've been taught that it is a sin, but they constantly evade preaching it, because they can honestly question its truth, integrity, and value.  (2) They purposely endeavor to preach it, thinking that they are gaining "points" with God, because it may be "easy" (physically or mentally) for them personally to practice "no sex until (or outside of) marriage."  (3) They have read This Paper's "spelled out" truth in logic, and they continue to preach it (or have it preached).—Woe to them!

Marriage (and monogamy) is a Satanic sin that limits Godly natural sexual pleasures in this world; which therefore, hurts innocent people.  Anybody that criticizes, puts down, or insults any girl, that offers free and/or loose sex, sins against God and hurts an "innocent" person.  Churches that advocate (and perform) marriage are, in actuality, advocating "dishonest prostitution" and "fornication."  Marriage and monogamy is, by far, the most destructive form of prostitution that there is.  It is so "dangerously" destructive simple because nobody realizes that it is "dishonest prostitution"; because everybody is so dumb, dishonest (with themselves), and brainwashed, making it the most "mysterious" religious (Golden Rule) problem ever.  Satan works best when you don't know he's there!  But, don't misunderstand, people should still enjoy doing all of the "married" types of things; like going out to dinner, museums, travel, etc.; but in a much more non-committed, non-controllable, and non-sinful way.  [I'm getting pretty tough with My words—ain't I?—now that I've decided to put this thing out anonymously; hence giving all the credit to God and Jesus; but mainly so I won't become "crucified"].

When you read in the Bible, note that (in many instances) when you see the words "marriage," "wife," "husband," etc. it sometimes had meant (in those days) just "having sex." And when you see the words: "sexually immoral," "whoredom," "prostitution," etc. it sometimes meant "marriage"—(as in our modern day use of the word).  The word "virgin" sometimes meant "a woman that is not married," or (in other words) "a woman that does not limit her sex to just one man for his possessions."  The word "widow" sometimes meant "a divorced woman."  And sometimes the word "love" meant "sex" (but only the "caring" kind of sex, not the prostitution/marriage kind).

And referring to the "modern day" definition, some dictionaries (Ref. Webster's Third New International Dictionary) define the word "fornication" as "immorality to cover all sexual intercourse except between husband and wife or concubine."  And a "concubine" is "a woman who 'lives with' a man without being his wife" or "a mistress."  And a "mistress" doesn't even have to be living with the guy.  Therefore, modern day churches are even lying on top of a lie, with reference to the "modern day" definition, of the word "fornication," when they say that people are "living in sin," when people are (non-Platonically) "just living together" (with "concubine").  Plus, with Paul saying that "marriage" is only "a concession, not a commandment" [1 Cor 7:6], then that would make "sex outside of marriage" definitely not a sin, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE; therefore, knowledgeable clergies have "sold their souls to the Devil" if they have ever said, expressed, or conveyed that "sex outside of marriage" is a sin.

By-the-way, "pornography" historically (from the Greek word) was "a marriage license/certificate"—("a writing of harlots"; "a description of prostitution").  "Pornocracy" is "a government of harlots."

[Ref. Book of Revelation] It just doesn't make any sense how a woman can destroy all of Babylon, by having fornication, if "fornication" is any pre-marital sex.  But I can see how it could possibly destroy a city/area/world, if she caused (and advised other women, in the city/area/world) to not allow men to have sex with them, unless the man "earns" it—which is prostitution and marriage.  It makes sense, though, that women were tired of having and supporting their babies with no financial support [Rev 18:3 "wrath"].

— CORINTH —    Financial support and greedy wealth/luxury (like diamonds, firs, wine, spices, perfume, incense, lotion, etc.) is also why thousands of Corinthian prostitutes roamed the streets of Corinth (Greece), in worship of the Goddess Aphrodite (Cytherea), (the temple idol on the city's hill top), during the time of Paul.  Hence, [1 Cor 5:9]: "I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people (covetous idolatrous prostitutes)."—[1 Cor 5:11]: "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother (a man), who is a fornicator (a pimp), or covetous, or an idolater (the idol Aphrodite), ...."—However, Jesus purposely associated with prostitutes/pimps (sinners); but, unfortunately, most people aren't that strong.  Again, prostitution is the selling (or the earning) of a "free" gift from God to man (and woman).  Paul was just fighting the expansion of prostitution, by telling the Christian men to not have sex with the prostitutes, because they will be expected to "pay for it."  And the fact that prostitutes try to (and will) entice men to have sex with them (especially if they are attractive), and with males' "natural" human weakness (for sex), Paul would recommend to not associate with the prostitutes and pimps (whoremasters) at all; because doing so would escalate/contribute to the selling of sex; which would steer away from "free" Godly sexual "love."—[2 Cor 6:14]: "Do not be unequally yoked (have sex/marriage) together with unbelievers.  For what (sexual) fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness?  And what (sexual) communion has light with darkness?"  Of course, Paul didn't realize that Jesus, very much, encouraged any and all outsiders (Gentiles) to come to His church (school), and "love feasts"; simply because sinners are the ones that need the help the most [Matt 9:10-13; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32]: "Those who are well have no need of a physician; but those who are sick.  I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."  Also note: [1 Cor 7:1,2]: "... It is good for a man not to touch a woman (not 'all' women, just Corinth prostitutes).  Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality (no sex unless the man pays for/earns it), let each man have his own wife (a less expensive way of sex), and let each woman have her own husband (a "full time" john).—[Well, that's what was/is really going on].

By-the-way, [1 Cor 5:1]: "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality (the abundance of Corinth prostitution) among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles (prostitution at Corinth was very high) that a man has his father's wife (indicating an outside non-blood association, even)!"—This would be "immoral" if a financially depraved (which is a "real" Christian) father had to solicit his own wife as a prostitute (which was common in Corinth), and even would charge his own son.  Paul was hoping that temporarily allowing "live in" marriage would discourage/decrease the "street" prostitution, and starvation; but, as a result, it has just made marriage into "dishonest prostitution"; which can actually cause a lot more problems than "honest (streetwalker) prostitution"; which makes it harder for Me to unravel all the years of "dishonest" instillment.  Because of the strong influence from the idle Aphrodite (the goddess of "sexual" love and physical beauty), men were just not going to get sex at all, in Corinth, unless they directly paid for it, or got married.  But Paul should have never given in [but people were starving]: [1 Cor 7:6]—"But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment."—But, there are more people dying today, in "one" day, that is caused by the "indirect" results of the sin of "dishonest" marriage; than the total number that died in the entire history of the city of Corinth, that was directly, or indirectly, caused by "honest" prostitution (street walkers, etc.).  You see, "honesty" and "not breaking promises," must rule the future.—Therefore, in a non-perfect world, people that have gotten married should have still respected each other's (secular) commitments, and not divorce; because the man would be out of a cheaper (lower priced) sex partner, and the woman (mainly the unattractive ones) would be out a place to live and/or food.—Even in monogamous marriage, it is better to stay married, than to lie, cheat, and/or break your promise(s)/vow(s); because, somebody (your spouse) is depending on you.  And if you have an extramarital "affair" in a monogamous thinking world, then it is likely that you might leave (divorce) your spouse.

Most people can/will not reason outside of their "instilled" information (information that they have heard the most/hardest).  Therefore, they actually think that their "instillment" is totally righteous (because they have heard it the most/hardest), and they might feel that anybody that has another "instillment" (or reasoning) must be evil (because they have not heard it the most/hardest).  But (or behold) I tell you that there are a lot of things going on in this world with obscure (but valid and/or real) reasons why things happen the way they do, than what people have been instilled to know.  People are about 99% what they have been taught, and 1% what they correctly reason out (progress) further (and that's an average)—which is still a lot better than the smartest animal.  Therefore, Godly progression will come, but very slowly, from our point of view.

You should realize that both letters to the Corinthians (and any "epistle/letter") is "incomplete," because a lot of it was just answers to questions, elaborations of previous conversations/ letters, and comments of known acts/situations of the Corinthian Christians.  It's like Me giving you the answer: "No, you should not do that"; but not letting you hear the question.  Like Paul didn't start out his epistles with "Your city is swarming with prostitutes that worship the Greek Goddess Aphrodite ..." because everybody pretty much already knew that; but "today" they may not know that.

— WOMEN SNUB —    Initially, "unrighteous" women are going to despise these facts more than any other kind of person; because, unrighteous women (especially the more attractive ones) subconsciously use sex as an unrighteous "tool" against men, to gain selfish control, and to get men to give them covetous possessions.  All marriages vary in the amount of sexual control women take from their husbands.—If a husband loses his money in the wrong investments and/or loses his high paying job (and ends up flipping burgers somewhere), she might "divorce" him.  That marriage would be based on an extreme non-spoken (dishonest) exchange of "sex for money," not even close to "love."  Subconsciously, all women seem to have control of all men's "privates" regardless whether they know them or not. And, some women can get rather frustrated/depressed/angry if "their man" doesn't make them (the woman) "the priority" of his life, (over his job, his kids, his health, etc.).—This is because people are "possessions," in this world.

[Matt 25:1-13]—The Ten Virgins parable: This is talking about women searching for a husband ("went out to meet the [their] bridegroom"), but some were not willing to correctly please him with her sex: Half of them were the teasers ("foolish") who wanted a husband but did not/would not provide him with good sex ("no oil" [sex] for "their lamps" [attractiveness]).—These usually ended up "single" for a long time (or the rest of their live), or divorced a lot, and/or some just stayed married in misery (using their sex "only" as a tool for possessions).  But the "wise" women pleased their man/husband (and themselves) by providing good sex (they brought "their lamps" [attractiveness] with "oil" [pleasing sex]).  As a result, the "teasers" (that forbidded sex, or "good" sex), the Son of Man did not know them.

— EVIL FORCES AGAINST WOMEN —    Women are the ones that must burden any possible pregnancy; therefore, women are taught in society, much more than men, to avoid sex until marriage (financial security).  But, even when they become married, their subconscious won't let them enjoy it (most of the time); because their subconscious has been taught (brainwashed), in their earlier years, and instilled in them, to not desire sex.  The human mind is too primitive, and cannot just go from "not desiring sex" to "loving it," one extreme to the other.  They can't just control the most powerful Godly blessing of natural desire, via "it's not okay, it's okay, it's not okay, it's okay, etc." Women have to either "just like it" or shut it out completely.  Society won't allow them to "love" it.—If they do (love sex), then they will be put down, by sinners, and be called a slut, a dog, or be made to feel dirty; or they will have to "lie" about it, to be welcome into society/church.  Women would like sex a lot better if they knew that they didn't have to "sell it" anymore (in marriage).

Modern day females are even more between a rock and a hard place, when it comes to receiving their deserved Godly blessing of sex.  It's now a catch-22 situation for most "up-to-date" women, because they have always been taught to not have sex outside of marriage, and now society (their false idol) is also teaching them to prove to everybody that they can be "independent," by not having a man to support them; therefore being pressured into not being married (and/or not having anything to do with men at all).  Some prideful women will actually come home, start unnecessary problems (so to justify it), then break up with their husbands (even the "blameless" husbands), just to show their female friends that they don't "need" a man around anymore.  Therefore, if they are entirely and unconditionally "society/church controlled" (which the vast majority [indirectly] are), they will never have sex again the rest of their lives (because they will not have non-marital sex, and they will not become married); hence, totally missing a very special "rewarding" and "wildly generous" benefit of being alive.—Which I estimate sex (orgasm, touching, coequal "one flesh" bonding) to be about one-third of self happiness; with good health (food, medicine, utility), and financial security/occupation/socialization (money, job, education, kids, friends, and/or other entertainment) being the other two-thirds.  All three are important; so much that all three must be sufficient before things/people can optimally "get it (work) together." Some women tell Me that they are too smart for sex or marriage.  But I say that logically, once society and religions (intelligently) accepts "open sex," then all women will be much happier (and more fulfilled), because they will be able to fully experience (and "see") their most blessed gift from God.

With women now desiring "independence," things are reaching an apex one way or the other—total destruction, or total fairness.  [People in this world are so unfairly stupid that they actually believe that they are fair.]

— MONOGAMY/JEALOUSY —    Women prefer sex in marriage or (if single) in monogamy only because they use "committed" sex as a tool to control their man better for covetous possessions.  Men will tolerate the same monogamy principal, because they are sexually controlled by their wife's/girlfriend's threat of divorce/break-up if they see another woman.  Many times men will be pressured into a lie to accomplish their "Godly placed" natural desire—to have sex with a variety of women.  Monogamy is like having pizza every night for dinner.—I like pizza, but not at every dinner.  Men, that are controlled into marriage and/or a monogamous relationship by a selfish covetous woman, is simply a full time "dishonest john" going to a full time "dishonest prostitute."—And the man better not ever verbalize this truth because he will risk the possibility of a divorce/break-up.—The truth "burns" most in dishonest minds.  It's not so much that two people being together in marriage is evil, it's the restrictions from being with others that is evil.—A type of prison.

In this covetous greedy world, two guys that are dating (or trying to date) the same girl, will most likely become enemies, because they both are trying to possess the same girl as for their exclusive property.  But, if everybody thought the way that I am saying (a total "open, Jesus Christ, peace, love, brotherhood of man" world), then the two guys would be friends; or would not have anything, like this, from stopping them from becoming [or staying] friends.  I remember, years ago, some of My male friends "punching each other out" over the same girl—I blame corrupt religion.  With "monogamous marriage" being the current definition of "moral," it is im-pos-si-ble! for Jesus' "love one another" to properly and fully develop, evolve, form, grow, or mature.  If you're I.Q. is high enough, you should be able to see that.  With the advent of birth control, the way the sexually liberal 1970's was heading, monogamous marriage, naturally, would have eventually became history, if it wasn't for Antichrist diseases.  If/when Antichrist diseases are no more, then people will "naturally" destroy monogamous marriage; however, without This Paper a lot of damage (jealousy, pride, attractive selfishness, economic problems, etc.) would happen in its development.

People have been brainwashed to believe that if you are not jealous (and require monogamy) of your wife/partner (being with another person), then you must not "love" her/him.  But I tell you that this is not the "love" defined by the true Christ; this is the "love" from the Antichrist; because, if I feel jealousy, then I am not truly caring for the interests of My wife/partner, I am just caring about the interests of Myself; therefore, I would NOT truthfully "love" (or care for the interests of) My wife/partner, I would just "love" (or care for the interests of) Myself.  [Hey guys, I'm personally like you, I can better enjoy My life when I'm doing something, or feeling something that impresses My peers (you).  It still feels great when I feel that special feeling of individual love.  Simply because I am alive in this time era, not 200 years in the future.  The "love" of the future is nowhere to be found in My current world; therefore, I must "when in Rome, 'do' as the Romans," for My personal optimal pleasure.]

— THE FAMILY —    Since this is not a total "Jesus Christ peace, love, brotherhood of man" world; if we can at least get people in a family, to get along and support each other, then Jesus would say that "something is better than nothing."  But if we can get everybody in the world to get along and support each other (as like "one" true family), then that would even be better—a lot better—actually it would be about "a billion" times better; when you take all the people in the world (about 5 billion) and divide it by the average size family.  So, now, can you conservative thinkers see how much better things could/can/will be?  And, can you imagine how many times more (or better) this "family" would be if we could/can/will include all the animals (not sexually, of course)?

— ABUSE —    Sex is not the cause of abuse—"commitment" is.  During courtship, Satan advises unrighteous women to "test the man out," to see if he can be sexually controlled or not.  And, in many cases, if a man can be fully controlled, the unrighteous woman will either (1) become bored with his weakness and divorce/break-up with him, or (2) she will mentally abuse him for selfish Satanic pleasures, and/or (3) threaten him to get her way all of the time, and/or (4) revenge him to entertain herself as an ignorant prejudice against all men, and/or (5) she may have just "had a bad day" and want to take it out on somebody.  In some cases, this will cause the man to "blow" and abuse her back, and/or become violent.  Conversely, men can also treat women pretty bad, because of (brought on by) the same commitment "rules."  However, it has been natural for men to be in charge; therefore, normal men will usually not abuse a woman that serves his needs; except for the "bad day" sin; and of course, if she starts it.  It has rather been males' nature to "care" for (not destructively abuse) a woman.  Since sinful marriage exists, there has to be only one boss, for it to be able to work at all.  So God had to improvise by commanding that males be in charge.  But in a "total Jesus Christ peace, love, brotherhood of man" world, no controlled marriage would need to exist; so therefore, nobody would have to be in charge.  [If My observations seem bias, then have a woman write her observations, and My point should remain that it is "commitment" and "the (selfish) rules" that causes the problems.]

— ILLEGAL PROSTITUTION —    Most women are strongly against legalizing prostitution—because they would not be able to use their sexuality, as a leverage tool against men, near as well.  Women would not have as large of a (selfish) sexual "grip" (or "control") on their husbands/boyfriends, if prostitution was more readily available and competitively priced.  Any (pussy-whipped) male legislator, that's married, "had better not" vote for legalizing prostitution, if he doesn't want any problems from his selfish wife.  Per contra, since women would not have near as much unfair "abusive control" of their man; the legalization of prostitution would surely make domestic violence, rape, mental abuse, and dishonesty go down-a lot.  And, eventually, universal non-committed sex will virtually eliminate all domestic violence, rape, dishonesty and covetous greed.  Anger, in domestic violence, is not caused by the sexual part of the relationship.  It is caused by the restrictive (holding of a person as property—monogamy) covetous (greedy) parts of a relationship.  If anything, the sexual part of a sexual relationship is the main thing that lessens the chance of domestic violence.  However, all people (male and female) become bored (to various levels) with having sex with the same "soul" all the time—that is, the people that are able to open themselves up enough to have sex along with somebody's "soul"—not just their property.  Otherwise, you're "bored" with somebody's soul, to begin with.  Women becoming more and more in control of men is opening up an all new (Satanic) can of worms.  However, with this recent advent of women having a "pride" in being independently able to obtain their own financial security, by having a job; this would be an excellent time in history to implement liberal sexual practices; because, women would now actually benefit from it; because, independent women are mostly doing completely without sex, but they still do have that natural Godly inner desire for sex.  You would just have to break a little bit of their prejudice, hatred and jealousy.—In this very conservative, sexually ignorant society, if there is "no way" the churches are going to condemn marriage and support "open sex," then the next best way to begin sexual liberation (or sexual freedom), is to get to "first base" first; by having the Churches not oppose (and actually advocate) the legalization of "honest" prostitution (call girls, brothels, etc.) and not condemn people that just live together, out of wedlock.  Although both of these things are not perfect and total solutions, they would be a start; that would lead to a "total pure white, Jesus Christ, peace, love, and brotherhood of man" world.  Just let the Antichrist keep his sinful property and possessions a little bit longer, while we sneak this one by.  Also, legalizing prostitution would, very much, "clean up" the current problems associated with "illegal" prostitution—crimes, drug abuse, suicide, etc.; because any "illegal" activity—whether rightfully or wrongfully legislated—will usually acquaint with, and increase all, other (real) crime.

If women would not play so hard to get, then men would not "covet" or "lust" for them.  If men did not "covet" or "lust" for them, then men would not marry them.  In other words, if men could have sex with most anybody, and at most anytime, then they would never painfully "lust" for women, to the extent of controlled marriage and monogamy, which is also a financial burden (or devastation) for the man.  I'm sure no man would ever get married if somebody sent him over a different Playboy bunny every other night, if he would have to give them all up if he got married.

— TAX —    Part of an immediate (and/or temporary) solution would be: If the government would tax working men more, and then pay for the care of all women supporting their (and any other's) babies, then women would not "have to" sinfully and dishonestly trap men into marriage for their financial support.  This would simply be a rearranged different method (instead of marriage) of financially supporting the exact same women anyway, from the exact same men; so why not do it with honesty?  Taxes pay the school teachers, so a lot of this is already being done.

— IMMORAL —    The word "immoral" is an arbitrary (judged by one's individual conscience or opinion) word meaning any unethical, wrong or bad behavior, including dishonesty.  Therefore, with all truth, uncommitted sex is not immoral; but marriage, monogamy and/or any restricted sex is immoral.  Everybody that thinks otherwise has just simply been brainwashed, and/or is unable to mentally reason it out.  With quality birth control, women becoming more independent, and better technology; controlled marriage (a law of man, not God) is becoming even more antiquated these days then ever before.  We are all going to be taken from our bodies someday, so everybody should try to please God by pleasing each other's bodies (God's creation) as much as possible, while we are still alive.  Any sexual relationship based on sex is honest.—Any sexual relationship based on money is dishonest.

Most women, that I know, are either gold-diggers (sinning prostitutes) and/or game players (liars).  I can only be satisfied with people that would be anybody's (or everybody's) "true" friend.  I'm no good at playing dishonest "cat & mouse," selfish "control," or any mentally abusive games.  Instead, I seek love and sex in a way that most people have never experienced before.

True human Godly love is a "non-committed" universal power.  It is impossible to "Godly love" just one (or any limited number of) individual person(s)—e.g. just a wife, just a child(s), and/or just a parent(s)—because God loves all people, evil and not evil—and harshly disciplines their souls in the afterlife, so that they can continue to exist with the non-corrupted "Light-of-Truth" (heaven).  To be "like" God you would have to be able to love all "living" creatures fairly and equally; just because they are "somebody too."  However, the human brain is not yet complex enough to be able to store all the data necessary to be able to comprehend "non-committed" universal love.  In this way, humans are not totally (yet) made in the "image" of God.

— THE BEGINNING —    The greatest reward and blessing from God to the animals and humans is sex—an earlier separation (male and female) for a very pleasurable reuniting for better and quicker evolutionary reproduction diversity and improvement [Gen 1:22,28].  Diversity mating is the key to diversity improvement, so God (and man) has more to "awe in wonder."  If brother and sister reproduced or if man self reproduced by himself, then that would slow that diversity and improvement of the species.  Sex also gives us a reason to care (love) more for each other so as to lessen destructive war like behavior (mostly in humans), discovered by God from man's independent self centered nature—a bug in the software.  Sex, via the separation of female from male, causes us to care for at least half of the population.  Sex and war are opposite extremes of different purposes—sex is very constructive and war is very destructive for God and man's world.—Angels versus demons.—Antichrists, controlled by rich people, turn this around.  Many nations attribute falling to invaders because of their practices of pre-marital sex.—It makes sense, because a "happy lover" wouldn't make as good of a "hatred killer," as people that have been raised/trained with hatred and anger all their life.

— OVER-POPULATION —    Some people believe that the world is overpopulated.  If you drive between Denver and Kansas City, you would easily see that there is still a lot more room for a lot more people.  It just seems overpopulated because it is not organized fairly and equally.  God feels that if over 5 billion people can produce this much wonder, then just imagine what over 10 billion could do.  When this planet fills up, start filling up outer space.  Especially now, with agriculture taking (requiring) a lot less land, than before, to grow enough food.

— TRAGIC LOSS —    Another reason to avoid long committed marriages (and long family relationships) is because of the Satanic painful devastation, that we all feel, when a person close to us dies (or divorces us).  The more variety of people, that we know during our lives, the less we will get too (Satanically) emotionally attached, to any one of them; which will, in turn, makes the devastating "grieving" process (which only pleases Satan—not God) a lot less, when the person can no longer be with us.—Because "death" is a natural Godly thing.  Sorry to disappoint so many psychologists/counselors, but "natural grieving" over somebody's death is NOT what God wants anybody to do—but Satan does.—But yes, always "remind" patients that they are NOT SINNING when they happen to naturally grieve.—You might want to tell them that the true sinners that caused/causes the prerequisite conditions (or foundations) for their "co-dependency" will suffer equally in the afterlife.  Unless grieving can help fix a "repairable" problem, it is unnecessary and can be self-destructive to do.  The fact is that some "natural" things and "instincts" (and/or parts thereof) need modification (improvement, correction, discipline, etc.) and/or completely eliminated; and some don't.  We simply need to be with others and care for others long enough just so to not feel like sinning against them, that's all.

In the wild, in many cases, because of sex, animals will hibernate, live or hunt together "male and female" (basically monogamously—like marriage), but customarily (by habit) just because this will avoid the dangers, evils, monopolizations, and jealousies presented to them in their world/environment.—In this kind of environment, this monogamy will better "guarantees" them at least one sexual mate.  These would also feel more regret and sorrow if (or "when") anything tragic happened to the other; which is one of the evils of a monogamous bond.

— CHILD SUPPORT —    If this was a true Jesus Christ "peace, love, brotherhood of man" world, then all women could have more babies and have babies out of wedlock, because the entire world would be taking care of each other so much, that there would not be a need to establish a "marriage" for brainwashing financial reasons only.  Marriage is just a financial requirement, for the man, from the selfish rich—"Who's gonna pay for the food and expenses for that mother and baby?"—Not the selfish rich that control all commodities.  They create an "image" that everybody should be totally "responsible" for their own; and suffer daily, just to make ends meet; because the rich desire to monopolize all the food, care and property for themselves, as much as possible.  Imagine, for one example, how many little old ladies, there are in the world, that would love to care for and watch the little children, that are instead, bored and unhappy by themselves.  It would light up their lives, as well as take a load off the working class.  But current day organization does not see that.  Instead, they think "marriage" is the solution for the rich to be able to best keep their wealth.

— NEED —    They also say that "children need their fathers."  This is just a social brainwash to get divorced (or unmarried) fathers to visit their kid(s) more, so that they will feel more obligated to give more child support to an unsupported mother; so that welfare won't have to pay the mothers so much/instead.  Again, it all has to do with selfish "money."  No one cares (especially a divorced mother) if fathers visit their kids, they just want their money.  If, however, the child hears this brainwash (that they need their fathers), and for some reason cannot be with their fathers, their subconscious will believe that they have been wronged or have it bad; when in reality, they don't really need any more than one person, male or female, related or not related, to raise them properly.  As a result, they will feel that society and/or God (churches wrongfully teach that God has control of everything) has wronged or cheated them; so therefore, they will feel that they should equally wrong or cheat society and/or God back.  This will lead them to drugs, crime and/or suicide.  Rich people's lies and brainwashing causes a lot more indirect problems then they're supposed to solve.  Most people aren't smart enough to be able to see that, because it does take a thinking process.

And, there are a lot more other reasons that people think they have it bad when they really don't; that which leads them to crime, drugs, or suicide; or just a cruel personality and/or an unhappy life.  Such as: Not being able to financially obtain all the desirable items that motivational/incentive advertisement brings; not financially being able to "keep up with the Joneses"; coming from any broken marriage; having a death in the family; etc.  And the number one reason: They believe that their natural desire for sex is evil.

If a poor person from Mexico was, all of a sudden, able to live in a poor American's shoes, then he would not feel that he had it so bad anymore.—He would be happy just being able to have a hard working job and/or a source of welfare; he would not be prompted to have to steal for food.  If a poor starving person from Somalia was, all of a sudden, able to live in a poor Mexican's shoes, then he would not feel that he has it so bad anymore.—He would be happy just to be able to have a place to at least steal food, or be fed in prison.

— HOMOSEXUALITY —    First of all, I want to make it clear that I am not a homosexual (nor do I have any interest in incest); and the thought of it appalls Me; however, this is the translation: The basic act of homosexuality does not hurt anybody (innocent or guilty); THEREFORE, homosexuality is DEFINITELY NOT a sin.  And, on the contrary, it is another very excellent tool in Jesus Christ's battle to "love your enemy," for the exact same reasons as stated earlier.  And, its diversity does produce more "wonder" for God.  It takes an "intelligent" human to figure that out.—Animals basically don't have (or desire) homosexual relations; this is an added development of the most intelligent animal, the human.  One of the reasons God separated females from males, was for a very pleasant sensual reuniting, so adults would also care more for each other sensually; so as to oppose the natural independent selfishness that we are naturally limited to; so to get along better, and to not war with each other; or any other destructive things, that independent selfishness brings.  So, in addition to open "non-committed" heterosexuality, bisexuality will make the sex "tool," against Satan, universally complete.  Also, God knows that we can produce a lot more, quicker and better "wonder" if we can all work better together, instead of our current independent selfish limited desires.  God is trying to make us into more of a powerful working unit, or a working "together" society; instead of our current working "against each other" society.  If the entire world was totally bisexual, had no discrimination against "ugly" people, and was non-committed (as described earlier), then mankind could (and would "desire" to) function a lot more together; and, in turn, would make us work more progressively, happily, and non-destructively.  A universal bisexual world (very constructive) would bring the opposite results of a warlike world (very destructive).  This is why gays-in-the-military doesn't work very well.  There are two opposite forces: Jesus versus Satan.—And homosexuality and war are two opposites.—You tell Me which one attributes to which?  Therefore, anybody (especially clergies) that criticizes, or puts down a homosexual/bisexual, commits a sin; because they (clergies) "are" hurting an "innocent" person.  Homosexuality is one tool we humans have that the animals don't have, because animals are not smart enough, and can't naturally (or emotionally) understand its diverse benefits.  Also, sex between races mixes more "wonder" for God and fights ignorant prejudices.

[1Cor 6:9]  The Biblical word from which the NKJ word "homosexual" arrived, came from a set of words that refers only to a male that does not do (or tries to get out of doing) (or is derelict in his) "hard (or strong) labor"; that a male is bigger, stronger, and more suited for; and instead seeking "weak" labor.—Like "soft" (women's work) type of labor.—Which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sex!  However, in contrast, Jesus said that "the meek shall inherit the earth."  Plus, hard labor positions (for men) is somewhat more antiquated in this modern world of machines, computers, etc.  The original King James parallel word of "effeminate" means: "Having qualities or characteristics more often associated with women than men."  Or, more accurately, if you're in Junior High School, one guy might insult another guy by calling him "a pussy"; which is supposed to start a fist fight; which therefore, is (indirectly) caused by modern day Christians (the Antichrist).  Sexually relating the word "effeminate" (or "malacia") to mean homosexuality would be "very bias" (Antichrist) against males, because it is definitely NOT referring to lesbians.  Plus, the main reason the word "effeminate" (also the word "fornication") is definitely not conclusive, is because I've lived in America all My life (and attended a lot of churches), and I did not know the meaning of these words until I (recently) looked them up in the dictionaries.  Therefore, these words are way to "secret" to justify religious validity to their so called "the worst sins of all."  In other words, if homosexuality and non-marital sex is truly Jesus supported as "by far ('even worse then death') the most horrible sins of all," then why are these (most important of all) words so obscure???  And/or why was it not communicated until the 1970's (the NKJ)?

You will never hear, over the CB radio, one male trucker telling another male trucker that he "loves" him; because it will certainly mean something queer.  Even "good buddy" now means the same thing.  Nope, we're not allowed to use those kind of (Jesus) words, in a heterosexual (only) society; because this is (currently) a truly Antichrist world; and thanks to the church.  This type of "homosexual avoidance" will even be the cause of (and justification for) a lot of the very common "mean" (or cruel) behavior; that can be customary, in this (Satanic) world, as "cool," or "your right."  Boys with "inferiority complexes" need this to make them feel like a man; and girls will follow these same cruel actions, if they wish to "feel" competitively superior, like a boy/man.

[Rom 1:26,27] "... women exchanged the natural use (open sex) for what is against nature (restricting sex until paid).  Likewise also the men (male prostitutes), leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust (via restrictions) for one another, men with men committing what is shameful (money for sex [male prostitution]), and receiving in themselves the penalty (recompense, payment) of their error (selling their body) which was due (in exchange for sex)."—All this is referring to "selling" (or restricting) what is free from God—open "natural" sex.  You see, in those days, people could make money if they were sexually attractive.  [Male prostitutes usually are men (or boys) that sell themselves to other men].

In Athens, Greece, documented c.515 B.C., Greek soldiers (all males) were commanded to have homosexual relations with each other, before battle; so they would desire to defend each other better, against the enemy.  You see, the problem when fighting with swords is that: you are taking a risk, of being killed yourself, when you help out your comrade, by helping him "take on" his direct opponent; because, "homosexuality creates a 'love' between them."  Homosexuality may seem grotesque (or make us sick), but so would having to eat a spider, instead of a hamburger—both probably have the same nutrition values; so, it's just the way that we perceive it; as we "trust" in our peers, leaders, and teachers; that make us think/be the way that we are.

— COP-OUTS —    According to Jesus, the most destructive and worst sinners of all, in the world, are the "hypocrites" that do "the balancing act."—They believe (and make other people believe) that if their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds, they will go straight to heaven (after their death).  And they use the fabricated (made up) sins as a scapegoat.—Like if they don't have pre-marital sex and/or are not a homosexual; they will hype up those fabricated sins, so that it will better "appear" to outweigh their real sins, that they like to do daily; like lying, cheating, and stealing—like for profit, in the business world.  And/or they will assign people to die in wars, so they can keep their selfish property and/or gain profits.  They have made the word "immoral" synonymous with pre-marital sex and homosexuality; and they have made the word "honor" synonymous with killing and/or dying in a war for possessions.  It's not "rich man's money" versus sexual love; it's "rich man's profit margin" versus sexual love.  The tendency is to justify and cover up the real sins, that does hurt innocent people; and to hype up the fabricated (false) sins that hurts nobody.  And it is just getting worse, because they will actually end up fully believing their own lies.

The latest cop-out is the abortion issue.  Abortion is a tendency of the poor and the victims of a dishonest society.—Raising a child can be a tremendously painful financial burden for a parent(s); especially to someone who is not married.  Poor people do not enjoy getting an abortion!  Abortion is not a tendency of the rich, because of the fact that babies are naturally desirous (their cute and fun) to have; if you have a lot of money, you can support them with few problems.—Wealthy people can easily afford baby sitters, nannies, housekeepers, etc.; and wealthy mothers don't work, so they have plenty of time all day to enjoy their baby(s).  It is even very common for wealthy women that cannot conceive, to adopt.  This makes it very easy and desirous for rich hypocrites to "hype up" the abortion issue so to make it just another thing to help "balance out" their real sins, by kicking the poor when they are down.  Rich people really don't give a hoot about those aborted babies—it's just a religious cop-out that just "sounds" good to most (less than genius) intellects.  But just because they can fool a lot of people, does not mean that they can fool God.—God possesses all of the intelligence and knowledge of every person that lives today, and that has ever lived in the past—God will have no problem in figuring out all truths.

The main reason people get abortions is because of lack of money.—(Rameses II, great pharaoh of ancient Egypt, never wanted any of his [hundreds of] wifes to have abortions; he had plenty of Hebrew slaves to take care of them all).  The poor will do what God has naturally ordered them to do (have sex); but, in a rich man's monopolized world (all land, possessions, and money); a new baby will place a poor person into even more of a financial "living hell."  So therefore, the rich peoples' not giving and sharing as much of their wealth, with the poor, is the true and primary reason for abortions.  The selfishness of the wealthy is, by far, the true sinful killers and murderers of those aborted babies; not the suffering "victim of the rich" mother.  Plus, poor people (and all victims of society) are naturally going to enjoy sex much more than wealthy people, because sex is a "very healthy" temporary way out of their living hell; unlike drugs, which is a "very unhealthy" temporary way out of their living hell.  Rich people's lives are not even near "living hell"; therefore, they would/will have a hard time understanding this.  Many rich women "hate" sex because they know that it is their dishonest payment for their wealth; and therefore, it bothers their subconscious because they feel that sex is an "against each other" duty.

Another reason people get abortions, is because the churches have sinned by saying that pre-marital sex is a sin to God.  Therefore, if any woman—including a financially secure woman—does God's work and gets pregnant out of wedlock, then the church manipulates society to "look down on" (or condemn) her so that she would rather kill her unborn child, rather than face the embarrassment and cruelty of a brainwashed society, especially if she likes to attend church.  This is how churches are also killing those babies.  The churches' sin of stressing no sex until marriage, and its advocation of marriage, is a "true cause" of abortions.  The false teachings in our churches are killing and murdering those babies; not the mother that has been pressured to lie, and kill her baby, so to please everybody else.  Also, if churches would stress more of the true and important Christ-like teachings, like telling rich people to give more to the poor; then they would help prevent abortions caused by the financial reason, as well.  Technically, the abortion clinic protesters would achieve better results by protesting the rich neighborhoods and the churches, instead of the clinics; [small chance of that happening].  The churches have more control of this issue than any one else.  God still commands people to desire (free) sex, so to diversely populate the world, for more "wonder" for God and the Spirit World, regardless of all the rich people and churches working against Him.  From this point on, church teachers should make it known that pre-marital sex (and homosexuality) is not a sin, nor immoral at all; or church teachers will be accountable to God and all sinned victims.—They will equally suffer for this sin, in their afterlifes.  And, conversely, religious teachers that begin to advocate and suggest pre-marital sex will receive exuberating grace and pleasures (in their afterlifes) from God, equal to the pleasures and saved suffering of people that non-committed sex will cause.

And, of course, the third reason why people get abortions is because of health risks.  This normally would be the only reason that does not involve somebody's sin.

Another way that the churches are causing more of society's problems, is because: with no "stable" definition of true "right and wrong," people with "pea brains" cannot distinguish from "any sex out of marriage" (which is not a sin) to rape (which is a sin).  Many people cannot tell the difference between pornography (which is not a sin) and snuff films (which is a sin) [films where real kidnapped people get killed or hurt in real life].  When God places a strong desire in people for open sex, and the churches oppose it by saying that all sex out of marriage is a sin, then peoples minds have a much harder time drawing the correct line between true right and wrong.  Therefore, the church teachings is the foremost cause for the rapes and snuff films—and church leaders that advocate "no sex until marriage" will pay and suffer for these sins, but only in their afterlife.  When religions say that any sex out of wedlock is a sin, they are also hurting the people that waited until they got married, for sex; then their spouse divorces them (like for another person), then that divorced "victim" (of adultery) is not allowed to feel the Godly blessing of sex again until they somehow find another compatible spouse—which gets a lot harder as we get older (all the good compatible ones get taken at younger ages).  I've known some church-going divorced people that have sex out of wedlock, because they say that they are not having "pre-marital sex" because they were married once—so they can say that they didn't have sex until they (first) got married.  And I've known some church-going hypocrites that tell Me that I'm wrong, when I tell them that pre-marital sex is not a sin; but they themselves will have pre-marital sex, likely because their subconscious knows that they're hurting nobody; and they just "think" (hope) that they are siding with God against Me.  What about people that are not compatible (too independent; not co-dependent) for marriage at all?—are they just supposed to completely do without God's blessing of sex, all of their life???  The truth burns a little now but not near as bad their "hell" will burn in some religious teachers' afterlife.  Many church leaders believe that if they can make Me, personally, (the person who is typing this) look bad, then they could "block out" easier what I am saying; but, I tell you that God is not stupid and He will make them "pay" and suffer, for their hypocrisy and brainwashing, equal to the indirect damage that is caused by their false teachings (and image), regardless of who or what I am or do.  Churches, that advocate marriage, are the cause of most of the related domestic violence between spouses, parents, and kids; and cause an overall discontent elsewhere.

Gosh, if you're of a clergy, and you're still reading this, then you must be somewhat righteous, in search of just truth.

— ATHEISTS —    Everybody that goes to an orgy or has pre-marital sex, in our current day, wrongly believes that they are doing Antichrist evil.  Therefore, they cannot feel the extra extra "wonderful" love of Jesus and God during their embracement of ecstasy.  Instead, they feel Satan's pleasures of trickery to avoid Jesus.  That "trick" will cause some people to associate it with true Antichrist acts like lying, cheating and stealing.  This is another reason why lying, cheating, and stealing is so popular (or "cool" to do) within the poor communities.  Open non-committed sex is one of the key elements, or the missing links, to solve the current day problem of why a lot of people totally turn away from God, Jesus Christ, and the church; and become atheists/agnostics.  Churches wouldn't lose so many teenagers (and more) if churches wouldn't teach "no sex before marriage."  "Open sex" would greatly lessen the teenage problems that many of us can remember.—These most vital years are the years where girls learn that their all new natural Godly desires will make them into a slut, dog or dirty.—This causes them to live a life full of acting, dishonesty, and cover-ups, so they can feel accepted.  And boys find out that their all new natural Godly desires are unaccomplishable major challenges/deflations.  Don't even try to fool Me into thinking that the power of God (sex) versus the power of Satan (secular society) is not going to cause teenage problems.  And teenage desires for evil "trickles down" into the minds of the younger children; because they will be impressed, by their older siblings/friends, that being bad is cool.  And you should already know what kind of justifiable evil/dishonest adults it makes us all.  Can you even imagine a gathering of teenagers that all practice the Golden Rule?—Junior high/middle school teachers will love it.  Nobody in the entire world is smart enough to know this, but Me.  And, even early Americans used to get married at the age of 12 and 13; so you can't honestly say that "natural" sex will hurt them; ONLY the voice of society is what can hurt them, and is everybody's true enemy.  It will be a much safer world when people become smart enough to realize what can hurt them and what can not.—Like, car accidents, and put-downs from society, can hurt you; but honest sex (or protective sex) can NOT hurt you.

All people, that I've ever met, whether they are religious or not, wrongfully believe that pre-marital sex is an evil sin to God, because religious teaching have a lot more control of how everybody thinks, then it seems.  Therefore, since God, not Satan, STILL causes them to desire others sexually, they will wrongly believe that they are condemned Ungodly evil people.  That CAUSES them to give up ALL religious teachings; and therefore, because they wrongfully feel that since God has condemned them for desiring the opposite sex, they see no need to practice the other (true) church teachings; which includes the ALL IMPORTANT "Golden Rule."  A lot more people would probably attend church if churches would not condemn pre-marital sex; and, most importantly, there would be a lot less crime, drug abuse, and suicide; if churches only taught the total truth that would better emphasize the "Golden Rule" more than condemning people that commit fabricated sins, that are intended to only help the rich get richer.  All human newborn (non-corrupted) human minds should have no problem accepting the total truth, and nothing but the truth, which again, is just the "Golden Rule" issues only.  Otherwise, there will always be people turning away from religion, and never knowing why.  Pushing people away from the Godly natural (open sex), pushes people away from all religious teachings; because, most people can only think in extremes.

Supposed "miracles" also causes a lot of people to become atheists.  People will simply pray to God (and/or Jesus) for a miracle to happen for them (even when they have been very good and desperately need help), then the miracle won't happen, because God really can't do that; then they will think that since God did not give them their miracle, then either God has forsaken them, or God (and/or afterlife) doesn't exist; so therefore, they will see no reason to stop sinning; because doing good deeds and not sinning, usually lessens selfish material profits.  God cannot do everything.—If God can do everything, then why are we all so stupid—especially at birth?  It's like God creates the system (the circle and sphere sizes; the number of atom and energy particles [and their relationships]; the DNA system; and the human brain capability) but doesn't have any total control on the results of it all (other than slowly adding to its complexity)—if God did, and therefore knew exactly what was going to happen next, then there would be absolutely no purpose for existence.—Things are more the way that they naturally seem—deviating from that, will only cause more problems.  The Spirit World, however, can be accomplished, on a much smaller scale (smaller point codes on existing elements), which allows God to have more control of it.  But God and the Spirit World can see and feel everything in the universe; and therefore, reap in its benefits and wonder.  Just because you pray for something doesn't mean that it is going to happen.  It all has to do with "luck."—Rich people have the hardest time admitting this for obvious reasons.  But that doesn't mean that there is no God or afterlife.  It just means that a lot of people (lucky wealthy people) like to claim that (attribute) their wealth was given to them by God/Jesus—but more likely they obtained their wealth because they served Satan (their own selfishness) [Matt 4:8,9; Luke 4:6].  Many just say God is responsible for their wealth and good fortune as a lying cop-out so to not feel guilty about not sharing their wealth (luck and good fortune) with the poor and unlucky; so to try to "trick" their way into heaven.  Wealthy people that vote "liberal" (in most cases) are closer to God than other wealthy; because they back legislation leaning towards more money for the poor, the unlucky, and the unmotivated "victims of the rich."  The universe has a "desire" that made it, which is God; and that "desire" (God) is what is motivating (causing) Me to type This Paper.

— PLEASANT BONDING —    You don't have a physical bonding (or sexual bonding) with a person until you have a physical bonding (or sexual bonding) with that person.  It is easier to end up hating (or waring with) people that you have not physically bonded with.  If you can only have a "mentally" pleasing bonding with an individual, then that is something good, and fights the Devil; but, if you have a "mentally" pleasing bonding and a "physically" pleasing (sex) bonding, with an individual, then that is something even better and fights the Devil even more.  You end up emotionally "feeling" more for a person (any person) that you have sex with.  It is really too bad that everybody in the world, right now, hasn't had sex with each and every other person, in the world.—But, if they had, the world would be a much, much, much more caring, sharing and non-selfish place to be in, right now.  Hugs, cuddles, caressing, holding hands, etc. are helpful and good; but are not near as "pleasing," and therefore "bonding," as sex—(unless you've been taught that sex is evil; which is most everybody today).  Of course, not everybody can have sex with everybody else in the world; but if people have sex with every "available" person, then that would cause the same unequaled optimum result in everybody's mind.  Now, a lot of people are going to not agree with this because they have been brainwashed all their life otherwise, so they know nothing else (close-minded).  Or if their IQ can reason this out as logical truth, then they will still lie to themselves and selfishly block it out, if this does not satisfy their selfish needs.  But I tell you, there is no better solution to fight the Devil.  Block-out the Devil in you (your selfish desires), just for a moment, and you will find the truth.  All your other "hocus-pocus" attempts to try to get people to "love their enemies" are not working, and will never work universally.—So just give them up and face the truth.  Realize that you are not so dumb that you believe everything that your current day religious leaders say.

— SEX ISSUE COVER-UPS —    Lying, stealing, killing (wars), etc. are subjects that can openly be discussed in society.  But, today, and especially in the earlier years of My life, "sex" is the subject that is usually not discussed among so called "proper" people.  The reason is because traditional sexual morals is a big lie; therefore, it irritates liars' subconsciouses when they have to talk about sex.  So they'd rather not discuss it, or have to explain it at all, for fear that others will be able to reason out that their views are corrupt and selfish.  They will say that "it is just a sin to God."  If pre-marital sex is wrong or ungodly, then why doesn't anybody explain (in logic) "why" it is so wrong or ungodly, and how anybody (or anything) is getting hurt, other than "just because somebody or something says so"?  Even the wealthy will benefit from open sex.—Business owners are praying to God for more productive and motivated workers.—Open sex will fulfill the natural contentment and happiness, that everybody needs, to allow workers the natural enthusiastic motivation to search for happiness elsewhere—in their occupation; and as a result, become even more productive, without "the whip."  Opposed to narcotics and stimuli, open sex is the non-harmful (and actually very healthy) "drug" that everybody is looking for.  Once open sex becomes natural and unchallenged, humans will become an all new and better type of motivational species that possess the thinking abilities to soar production and technology for the betterment of all people, animals, and most of all—God.  All the good ideas, that everybody keeps coming up with, are very good and do sometimes work well for some people all of the time, or for all people some of the time; but, open sex (with no challenges) will be the only thing that will work best for all of the people all of the time. However, open (non-challenged) sex will not prevent you from injury, if you fall down the stairs.  However, with less self-destructive stress, the chances of falling down the stairs will be less; because your mind will be more open to what it is currently doing, rather than on all of society's "must," "has to be, or else," self destruction that society (rich people) put on all others, so to selfishly motivate the poor to serve for the rich.  Also, open (non-challenged) sex will not prevent you from becoming a victim in an earthquake; but, humans have already determined the most vulnerable earthquake zones (and flood areas) so that informed people can slowly move into safer areas.  Another reason why God created the intellectual human brain, is so to protect himself and other animals from "natural" disaster areas and circumstances, that are beyond God's control.

— THREE REASONS TO NOT HAVE SEX — (1) Broken Heart: Sex builds a strong "bonding" which, conversely, can create a "broken heart" if two people separate, after a monogamous relationship.  But, if everybody had open sex, then nobody would feel individual losses any more, because there would always be more people to easily have sex with.

(2) Unwanted Pregnancies: God wants every woman to become pregnant, so to fill more "wonder" and more "wonder makers" into the world; however, because of selfishness and financial reasons, people want to limit their pregnancies.  State of the Art birth control (with awareness) is an easy solution to this "earthly" problem.  Some churches say that technological "birth control" is a sin, but I tell you that "abstinence" is "birth control," and in a much more evil way.

(3) Disease: The Antichrist(s), with the aid of his human followers, have "planted" these sexual transmitted diseases.  Some Satanically fooled followers even have, and are purposely withholding, knowledge of cures.—God commands and warns that they expose these cures immediately!  Similar to a "Wanted" poster, God, and the Spirit World, will "reward" (in the afterlife), with exuberant grace—well over "one million fold" (to equal the saved suffering of would-be victims)—anybody(s) with knowledge that can expose the cure(s), or that can expose the individual(s) that hold the cure(s).  And, absolutely no amount (large number) of people that advocate, in agreement with, the person(s) hiding the cure(s) (on your side), can keep you the slightest bit away from your "equal" afterlife suffering, if you intend to maintain the hidings of these cures.  All destructive diseases (both sexual and non-sexual) are Satanic; NONE are advocated by God or Jesus Christ.—That better not be hard for you to understand, or you will be having a "hell" of a time getting through your afterlife judgment.  [By-the-way, it is okay to kill your destructive germs.  Pests?—sometimes yes and sometimes no—too in-depth to get into now.]

Now, because of the current (incurable) sexually transmitted diseases, I am not recommending that churches advise their followers to have open and free sex with no protection; but I do expect the churches to advise a totally open, free, non-committed, and universal sex, once these cures are known.  Churches should immediately have their members advocate cures for these diseases, and to condemn any further "plantings," by advising potential "planters" that they will (most definitely) suffer equally, in their afterlife, for all of the human suffering that they will cause, advocate, and/or condone!  Clergies must immediately stop condemning non-marital sex (and babies born therefrom), and publicly rescind any/all previous statements/writings/recordings made concerning same; and research and advise birth control and disease prevention options.  Adultery, divorce, etc., however, can still be a sin, until it is allowed by the spouse, or your society (in majority) recognizes it as an error and advocates the premise of "open sex" for everybody.  Therefore, the sinful basis and vows of marriage, will have to take a little longer to correct/eradicate:

If all clergy, all of a sudden, described to everyone how the premise of "marriage" is a sin, it would cause chaos/havoc/shock in the world; because the human brain is not sophisticated enough for that kind of abrupt change.  Clergy should slowly bring it into acceptance.  For example: A truly righteous clergyman should seek out (put an ad in the paper for) a couple (non-Platonic man and woman), that are not married and "just living together," and invite them to your Sunday service.  Then, at the beginning of the service, have the couple come up and stand next to you, and then introduce them as two people that are "just living together." Then say that you believe that they are not hurting anybody; and that you're glad that they are here today, and invite them to come back again, etc.  Then have them sit down in the front row, then say: "Brothers and sisters, we are all here today to talk about Jesus.—And what Jesus taught in the Bible about the rich and the poor; about war and peace; and about honesty and dishonesty.—Because that is what Jesus wants us to talk about"—not a bunch of warped salvation cop-outs.  Then next week have two homosexuals or lesbians, and do the same thing, then let God (nature) handle the rest. Also, encourage (the secret pleasures of) no discrimination of "attractive/ugly" partners.  Churches, schools, and all pertinent media, should immediately recommend and endorse the various kinds of birth control/disease protection methods.—If this is done properly, it will eliminate AIDS.  Like how Geraldo Rivera built his popularity, you could have so many people start showing up at your church, to watch these honest-based extraordinary events, that you will have to start building a larger church.  You will now have to decide whether you will serve God, or the rich and powerful of this world.

If/when the evil basis of marriage, all of a sudden, becomes known, then it would be appropriate that it also be known, that people (marriage participants) wishing to "stay" that way, are not committing sin.  Personally, I would recommend that people stay together, but (maybe) open up their sexuality with others more.  Then the "natural" of not being married would eventually (slowly) take over, as soon as the proper financial (welfare) remedies are in place.

-- Index --