Subject: I think we should discourage promiscuous sex
That’s right: People should look for that special “one,” and avoid sex outside of marriage. Staying a virgin until marriage for both would be best. Otherwise, one could end up with an STD or an unwanted pregnancy. And, with promiscuity, when a child loses a father, it places an unworthy financial burden on the mother. But, when we have cures for all STDs, we all can get happy and safely practice promiscuous sex, right after we implement a Nationally Paid Child Support Program. (You were thinking I had lost it for a second, didn’t ya’?)
7-19-08
And that’s correct: I really don’t recommend open-sex until there are cures for all STDs, like I’ve stated before, but may need to say more often. But someone has to correctly prepare society for the eventual.
Sex in America by John Stossel aired on 20/20 program 7-18-08:
Rape and teen pregnancies might be down because of all the sex education and enticements in today’s media and television, but atheism and violations of the Goldenrule seem to be up. Only the truth about Jesus’ teachings about sexual love is the only solution to get people back into a righteous religion. More importantly would also be to get rid of all the artificial salvation cop-outs, as the world is on the brink of nuclear devastation caused by it. Most big-wigs who are the cause, are also church-going cop-out lovers, but the vast majority of others don’t cause near that much of a problem, and a more simple, daily Goldenrule respect for others, and a fear of God, would be good especially for the most needy. You see, there are two kinds of mindsets that walk out of a church: (1) The kind who love the cop-outs and use them to justify all their wrongs, and (2) those who don’t wrong others much and don’t fully understand the cop-outs, and instead are able to do the Goldenrule teaching more. But, when all the lesser vast majority incomes are atheists and don’t go to church at all, then there’s no Goldenrule anywhere, except for all the O’Reilly like liars who try to convey they’re righteous.
Old coots surely still don’t like sex education even with the promising statistics, because they’re minds have been embedded that lies is the proper way. They’re all too old to change with the better: the human mind really has a lot to be desired. Again, thank God there isn’t a pill available today that keeps people (conservatives) from dying. Or, each of us would end up becoming like another Zurp from Blurp.
Now, as most of you know, there are lots of people still in society that think the existence of STDs are great, and that cures should not be found, even though they won’t verbally admit it; and, there are lots of people on the other side who thing cures for STDs would be a “good” thing. The ones who oppose STD cures do think they’ve got a one-way ticket to Heaven. But, I think it’s more the other way around. I’m just trying to help you all “identify” those who are really evil from those who aren’t. One kind wishes deceit in keeping people uneducated about what sex is really all about, where the other kind are open to risking “truth” as a guide for our future. Now, which one do you think “really” more follows Jesus? But, still, I’m one of the very, very few who equate Jesus with free-sex. Free love (same as free-sex) even “matches” Jesus’ instruction in John 13:34 as unconditional love for one another; yet, if someone religiously “trustworthy” tells you it doesn’t, you do “just” believe them. It really is that pathetic.
It’s like how one can tell now-a-days that O’Reilly is looking for a way to get out of his prior strong stance against illegal aliens, telling that the government should just change the laws against immigration, because someone smart has finally proved him wrong, as he squirms for a way to get out of it and save face. So “try” to realize that the church after my 6-9-99 mailer, is also looking for a way to squirm out of their major lifetime “ignorance” of the word “fornication” and what Jesus really said about marriage, without looking like a bunch of evil and dumb morons. “Realize” there’re “reasons” why things are still the way they are. Don’t underestimate the power of the need for the feeble human mind to save face. – It’s its number one priority. The catch-22 in 1999 was, I knew churches could check to see if I was right, but would not disseminate that apocalyptic information with others; the rest who would disseminate it, don’t have the time or resources to validate my 6-9-99 claims and therefore just assumed I was lying, because placing Jesus with open-sex is very unbelievable, again, because we all “just trust” way too much. Truth, facts and logic (not just blind trust) has to come into play sometime or this world is doomed; or needs “a” knowledgeable and honest leader.
Back in Jesus’ day “love” was personified in the deities of Aphrodite (Venus) and Eros (Cupid). Aphrodite had many flings, and Eros was called the god of sexual / romantic love. So when Jesus “commanded” us to “love one another” (John 13:34) it had to do with sex. You know “Hot and Nasty” –Black Oak Arkansas, 1971.
Further no-no’s / tidbits:
The New Marian Missal for Daily Mass, Juergens, 1962, frontispiece:
So “sin” is all sex according to the Catholic Church?
The Other Bible, Edited by Willis Barnstone, 1984, “The Gospel of Bartholomew (Christian Apocrypha),” p. 353 “II” (2:14):
There are “reasons” why certain Gospels weren’t canonized. “She” is the Virgin Mary (Jesus’ mother), with the Disciples (after Jesus’ crucifixion). It would cause quite a stir today if a faithful follower held the breast of his church leader’s mother, especially per her request. So, I don’t think it’d be a good idea to try to follow the original customs of the Virgin Mary and the Disciple John, in this day and age, especially during church service.
I can hear O’Reilly’s right now saying that he doesn’t want to hear about any more of my sick, perverted findings, especially from my sick, perverted friends and their Religious Leader’s mother.
♪♫ Oh, you’re breakin’ my achy, breaky heart ♪♫
O’Reilly actually thinks he’s smarter than those who don’t eat animals:
“Many years ago, I was fishing, and as I was reeling in the poor fish, I realized, ‘I am killing him—all for
the passing pleasure it brings me.’ And something inside me clicked. I realized as I watched him fight for breath, that his life was as important to him as mine is to me.” –Paul McCartney.
Of course Mr. Critical has never really fished, therefore I’ve figured all this out by just thinking.
The definition of “conservative”:
According to Mr. Google, “conservative” means: “Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.” In other words: “Just leave things the way they are – will ya’?” Where “liberal” means: “Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.” In other words: “Come on, let’s get it right!” So when Republicans shout for “change,” they’re just trying to show the American people that they’re not really “favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change,” because “not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry” seems to be the popular / majority trend. Example, for the few of you who have ever visited Kansas City, you may be wondering why they still have dirt streets, wooden sidewalks and false store fronts. It is a beautiful view from Signal Hill at night, seeing all the tiny bits of light from lanterns near windows. Maybe once a week you’ll see a big fire taking out an entire block, as one wall between each establishment saves on wood and land. It’s all because the well known conservative Zurps from Blurp landed their rocket ship there in 1880. You can still see it at a place called Liberty Memorial; which means “The death of liberty.” Women particularly enjoy gazing at the solidified phallusitic space ship, which means today: “God will guide those to the Shaft of Righteousness who now need the vote from the post-1960s hippies.” If Barak Obama becomes President, “conservatives” will still verbally honor the democratic process, but will begin the think that maybe a dictator would be better, believing that the majority of people have listened to too much Twisted Sister; or, because of the Iraq war; which means we are learning the hard way; instead of just taking my February 1998 Goldenrule advice.
U.S. finally sits down at table with Iran:
Be sure to ask again for them to give up their nuclear developments. Then ask again, then make some more threats, then ask again, then make some more threats, then ask again… but after they’ve made it clear they’re not going to “just” do that, let’s “just” get along in some other way, like start talking trading “opportunities,” and hope we can work out some things. Realize that Iran has never really been a serious threat against the United States, but we have definitely been a serious threat against them, with our continuous realistic threats of bombing them. So realize that many of their officials may be rather bitter and seem angry against the United States. Don’t be like a dog and just get angry and bitter back, which would be the first impulse emotion. Just let emotions ride and when some good lucrative trade gets established, sentiments will change. I’m guessing that’s what went wrong back in Spring of 1998, when Clinton first officially agreed to stop economic sanctions (per my fax); then, just because of Saddam Hussein’s loathsome attitude it was irritatingly rescinded. I’m guessing it was our continuous never-ending loathsome attitude about the 1979 hostage thing, as the reason why Iran today feeling the need to get some realistic protection against the always threatening U.S. Things like supplying Saddam Hussein in the 1980s with military supplies to use against Iran, might still be in their memories.
Barak Obama to visit Iraq to educate himself on what’s really going on:
You mean he’s not getting it from fair and balanced news? Well, I hope he doesn’t find that things are really worse than what gets reported to the U.S. public. I’m sure they’ll show him how we’re building schools (that we probably blew up), and other charitable / constructive deeds. But, realize that everything we build over there, even though it’s of good intent, is looked at by the Iraqi people as just more methods of U.S. control and ideology being forced upon the Iraqi people. It’s like say if the Soviet Union won a war against the U.S. in 1983, where they nuked Atlanta, Chicago and New York, not for military gain but just because their intelligent thought that Ronald Reagan “might” be in those towns at the time, killing many American civilians, now occupying the U.S. they start building schools and other things, we’re going to oppose whatever they build assuming it has entirely to do with Communist control of our society and minds. I know we have the Iraqis “vote,” but I know how our leaders think, and after certain conditions that meets with “our” satisfaction is met, then the Iraqi people can decide the rest. Our troops in Iraq today will impress Barak with their sincere bootlick assurance that they will be serving only him when / if he becomes President. And, of course, they’ll show all their crafty ways how they’ve caught and killed the “enemy” / insurgents, which again, is just people like Toby and Willie who are “patriotic” and just defending their country from not just intruders, but violent intruders who bombed a lot of Iraqi citizens, that the (unfair) basis was even found to be in “error” (the WMD reason).
I don’t know if I necessarily recommend Barak to visit Iraq. It isn’t a sin for an American to visit Iraq, but because of what we’ve done to them, if Barak gets killing in some kind of attack, God forbid, then he can’t ask God to implement Fair Afterlife Punishment against his killer(s); because, any America in Iraq represents the invaders who killed their (totally) innocent sisters and mothers and sons and brothers, even if they were Iraq military under Saddam Hussein. Flying in at an unexpected time is very good for security reasons, but gives the people of Iraq the sense that Barak is just another American not on their side. So, I suggest to not even go there.
Mr. Critical – A true Christian, so I won’t be getting your money.
TO SEE PRIOR TIMELESS WRITINGS (and more):
http://www.the-Goldenrule.name/
Realize newcomers that you need to read the past one or two mailings to get some of the satire.