Nowhere in the bible is marriage a manmade post-JC phenomenon, described or made a sacrament. Which in truth is just around 300 years old as a convention.

Convention which gives the control freaks control over who can mate with who? And eliminates unsuitable religions from their practice! Or until quite recently, unsuitable mixed marriages! In the bible, a man just took a wife without pageantry or ceremony.

Albeit, there may well have been much celebration? And the quaffing of copious quantities of wine or strong drink?

JC remained unmarried right up until the time of his crucifixion? And unusual in Jewish tradition, which could have seen him taking a wife with the onset of puberty? So, was he gay?

Time for we the people to take back control of this convention and got rid of all the pageantry, ceremony and rank BS! Along with all the other freedoms stolen by the church hierarchy! Which alone have made church-related paedophilia, possible?

Who takes who to wife or husband should be nobody's business but the copulating couple! Unless it breaks age-related, barrier law!
Alan B.

Until the ABC is abolished, marriage remains in the same abolished basket!

A well written essay, but it is completely delusional, beginning with the nonsense about Adam and Eve, as if they were are or real human beings. Nonsense, because it is not grounded in how the emotional-sexual drama works, and more often than no,t fails.
http://www.beezone.com/adidajesus/adamnervoussystemeveflesh.html

Some essays on the nature of the all important emotional-sexual dimensions of our existence.

On the nature and purpose of marriage

http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch3b

On why the usual marriage inevitably fails;

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/beyoedip.html

http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/feelvwnd.html

wives submit to your husbands. Husbands lay down your lives for your wives like Christ did for the church. Sells you can't improve on it so why try. Those who have tried have ended up with nasty marxist/feminist types who only emasculated males would want anything to do with. Face it men are called to servant leadership of their homes. By far the healthiest outcome.

I saw a different system used by remote tribes on a documentary one night
and I thought it made more sense than our system.

It is based on a system where the brothers and uncles provide for the children
of their sisters and women in their family and tribe.

The couple fall in love and marry and go to live in one tent together. When they have children,
or when bad arguments start and continue, the tribes come to the tent and insist that the couple are no longer allowed to live together.

The woman is taken back to her family tribe with the children. The father only lived a short way down a track with his family
so the children could go and see him whenever they wanted.

There is no financial need for a warring couple to stay together,
because the brothers and uncles provide for the children of the women in their respective tribes.

.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« There is a wonderful hopefulness in Adam's voice when God presented him with the woman:

This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
for out of Man this one was taken »

This signifies that the method “God” employed to create Eve was different from that which he employed to create Adam. Eve was simply a by-product of Adam, a part of Adam. In other words, something less than Adam.

You also clearly state ;

« God presented him with the “woman” », not with the “wife”. There is no mention at all about marriage.

You then indicate :

« The promise of being one flesh is a promise of a natural intimacy » - That’s it. Again, nothing about marriage !

It is clear that Adam and Eve, the very first human beings, product and by-product, were not married. Yet they obviously had children. How can that be ?

Did “God” condone sexual relationships and the raising of children outside of marriage ?

Also, Peter, I must say that I was a little surprised, having read your article carefully, that you do not indicate what marriage means to you personally and why you consider it is important, given that you advised in your previous article that both you and your present wife were both divorcees before you married.

Is not the “natural intimacy” of Adam and Eve, which you seem to hold in such considerable esteem, not sufficient in the eyes of he whom you refer to as your “God” ?

Or is it something else ? Do each of you judge that it is a purely personal matter between you two, to which “God” is not party, just as he (presumably) was not party to the divorce of either of you ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Hebrew has no distinction between "woman" and "wife", so the meaning of the word depends on context: "his woman" means `his wife`, "he took her for a woman" means `he took her for a wife`, but "one woman" means `a woman`. So I would translate the relevant verses in Genesis 2 as follows:

22) And the Lord God built the rib which He took from the man for a wife and brought it to the man.
23) And the man said: "This time it is a bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh - this shall be called a woman for it was taken from a man".
24) Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife and they will become one flesh.
25) And both were naked, the man and his wife and they were not ashamed.

That said, marriage as we know it is a latecomer. The earliest biblical references of taking a woman are indirect and only have to do with the joining of extended families. The first (though indirect) mention of a marriage ceremony is in Joel 2:16 and the only references to the modern Jewish concept of marriage are in 2 Chronicles 13:21 and 24:3, where the word used is "[he] UPLIFTED [14 and 2, respectively] women", so the women that are married are thus consecrated and elevated from being just any women into being one's wife/wives.

Funny how woman came out of a mans rib, but ever since men have come out of women’s vaginas.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Many thanks for your kind response. I’m afraid there really is nothing to hope for from our inveterate “ghost writer” friend, Peter Sellick. You may recall that he declared, following my repeated expressions of irritation at his lack of response on this forum :

« I will engage with you if you engage with me ! »

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17351#306885

Since then, Peter has written 65 articles which I have systematically analysed and respectfully critiqued to the best of my ability but, alas, to no avail. Not once during the past three years has he condescended to “engage” with me. His good intentions have been lost in the sands of time and long been forgotten :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=8F1irdrNjWg

To revert to your response, I understand that, while, as you say, the same Hebrew word may be interpreted as “woman” or “wife” depending on the context, there are also several other Hebrew words for wife :

http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the/hebrew-word-for-48eda733f81c96587ed209509223237e151e5ce6.html

I agree with your interpretation of “wife” as the appropriate translation for the corresponding Hebrew word in respect of verses 24 and 25 of Genesis 2. However, though verse 25 (“And both were naked, the man and his wife and they were not ashamed”) appears to refer to Adam and Eve specifically, verse 24 does not :

« 24) Therefore a man will leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife and they will become one flesh »

Adam and Eve had neither father nor mother !

.

Dear Banjo,

I also was at times disappointed by Peter's lack of engagement, but I understand that his interest and messages are for internal consumption within the church for its internal dialogue, so he must view discussions with non-Christians as a waste of time. I tend to comment, mostly in favour, when he makes general spiritual observations, but when his article (like this one) rests on Christian scripture, I step off for it's not my place to interpret that which I do not believe in to begin with.

I find the "wordhippo" page not that accurate. For example, the second word, 'raayah' is translated as "beloved woman, dame, lady" where in fact it means "a female companion". This word does not appear in the bible (but only later, in the Talmud) and in its biblical masculine form it simply means "friend" or "a fellow with whom one spends time". It was even mistranslated to English as "neighbour", as in "thou shalt love thy fellow whom you spend time with as thyself". Nowadays, 'raayah' is nearly always used to denote the wife of a dignitary (such as the "first lady").

Verse 24 relates to verse 23 while verse 25 starts a new story. The idea of verse 24 is that men (other than Adam) are inspired by verse 23 to leave their parents and stick with their wives. Whether this is their true reason to leave their parents, is in doubt, but this can provide comfort for parents who so believe when their son leaves them.

.

Dear CHERFUL,

.

You wrote :

« Funny how woman came out of a man’s rib, but ever since men have come out of women’s vaginas »

It seems that the Hebrew word "tsalaw" may be translated as “rib” or “side”.

In the context of Genesis 2:22 (“Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man”) the word “side” (perhaps “underside”) would be more appropriate than “rib” because in verse 23 Adam says: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”. A “rib” is just a bone with no flesh.

That said, all this is meant to be purely allegorical : “Adam” is a generic term for “mankind” (including both men and women), etc., etc., as Moses (the presumed author of Genesis 2) makes mountains out of molehills.

Maybe, but I can’t help feeling that allegory – if allegory there is – is heavily tainted with machismo. It inverses the natural process of birth whereby, as you rightfully point out, CHERFUL, the woman gives life to the man by nurturing him in her womb before ejecting him into the world – to the man providing part of his body in order to produce the woman and give her existence.

In the beginning there was reality. Moses (born 1400 BC) replaced it with allegory.

And so the expression “my other half” came into being …

« And now ‘love’ is the name for our pursuit of wholeness » (Plato, 378 BC, Athens) :

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/eros/platos-other-half

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your comments and clarifications. I am totally illiterate in Hebrew and from what you say, the author of "wordhippo", apparently, is not much better at it than me.

You are also probably right as regards your interpretation of verses 23-25 of Genesis 2. Moses seems to have gotten his logic somewhat tangled up in his zeal to impress his message on his followers.

The order of versus 24 and 25 should probably have been inversed to make sense – as there is a lapse of a generation between the two.

Neither Adam nor Eve had a mother or a father, but their children did !

.

Banjo

Yes, I think like you do, that it is interpreted by the male ego.

Interesting thoughts. However think about hunter gatherer society.
The men go out and the women look after the children while gathering.
The women will have a responsibility for the children of their mates.
The avoidance of inbreeding would have been known from the earliest
times. That would have led to marriage of one form or another.

When agriculture developed, the ownership of a plot of land would have
reinforced the need to declare a family and a public declaration of
a marriage.

Dear Banjo,

The Hebrew word for rib, "Tselå" can also mean "side", but not "underside".

Well if you believe that Moses wrote the bible, then you would also believe that he had no say in it - according to tradition, he just sat on the mountain and wrote exactly as God dictated, including about his own death (traditionally he was "writing and crying").

But I do agree that it is all allegorical - and so I believe does Peter Sellick.

If any "machismo" was intended, then it is the fact that man no longer needs to suffer the agonising pains of giving birth, now that the woman, due to her sin, took on that punishment instead. However, I think that man's punishment is even more severe!

The division of the bible into chapters is a late feature (13th century), so let's look at the bright side:

Genesis 1 (including the first 3 verses of Genesis 2) is there to teach us the importance of the Sabbath: without taking time off work, one never has the time to study and reflect on spirituality, thus will never get around to read the rest of the book.

Genesis 2+3 teach about free will and responsibility for one's actions.

Genesis 4 teaches about prayer and surrender to God.

Genesis 6 teaches about refraining from lust and greed.

Genesis 7-8 teach compassion.

Genesis 9 teaches about purity and refraining from intoxication.

Genesis 10 teaches about refraining from pride.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Well if you believe that Moses wrote the bible, then you would also believe that he had no say in it - according to tradition, he just sat on the mountain and wrote exactly as God dictated, including about his own death (traditionally he was "writing and crying") »
.

The only belief I have regarding the bible is that it was written by religious zealots considered authorities on the monotheistic religions. It is an ontology of narratives which express the individual authors’ religious beliefs. Its prime purpose is not to relate historical facts but to show how to relate to the monotheistic God. I see it as a handbook or manual of the monotheistic religions.

From a purely historical point of view, everything it relates must be examined with caution and circumspection and verified by reference to more reliable, independent historical sources.
.

The god hypothesis was imagined by primeval man as an explanation for natural phenomena which he did not understand. That hypothesis has been handed down to us, generation after generation. It has evolved and been transformed along the way to adapt to modern needs and conceptions, including scientific knowledge such as physics, chemistry, biology, sociology etc.

Political leaders have capitalised on it, down the ages, using it as a powerful tool to control the vast, widely dispersed populations under their rule, which they could not control otherwise.

I, personally, feel no need for it. Many others do. I see it essentially as an aid for those who have difficulty coping with the vicissitudes of their daily life – their existential angst. Like primeval man, they place their trust in a hypothetical god, ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.

No, I do not “believe that Moses wrote the bible” nor that he “sat on the mountain and wrote exactly as God dictated”.

However, I have no objection to you or anybody else believing that – if that is what you, or they, wish to believe.

.

Dear Banjo,

I do not believe that Moses wrote the bible either (nor do I think does Peter Sellick), if he existed at all, however the old testament is a multifarious compilation which was gathered not by religious zealots, but by politicians with the aim of unifying the Jewish nation - some of the sources they picked were spiritual gems while others were historical garbage. Thus the bible's prime purpose is political and god is only incidental, inasmuch that He served the national purpose.

When you speak of "The god hypothesis", God is not an hypothesis - yes people make hypotheses about the qualities of God, which do have a positive religious use, but God Himself has no qualities. Political leaders promoted those "qualities" of God that benefited their purpose and censored those that opposed it.

«I see it essentially as an aid for those who have difficulty coping with the vicissitudes of their daily life – their existential angst.»

Wait, these are two completely different issues: coping with daily life is the simpler problem and has simple practical solutions. Existential angst is the bigger issue and while always there, it is often only uncovered once daily life is no longer a burden.

Trying to use God for solving everyday problems is a mistake, but finding God is the only solution for existential angst. Without God, our existence seems to be temporary, our consciousness limited and our happiness fleeting. Only by realising God, which is our true nature, does existential angst vanish: once we know who we really are, there is no longer a question of temporariness, unconsciousness or unhappiness.

.

Dear Yuyututsu,

.

You wrote :

« God is not an hypothesis … Without God, our existence seems to be temporary, our consciousness limited and our happiness fleeting. Only by realising God, which is our true nature, does existential angst vanish: once we know who we really are »
.

That sounds more like Socratic philosophy than religion, Yuyutsu : “know yourself !” Here is an interesting article on how to go about it :

http://www.theschooloflife.com/thebookoflife/know-yourself/

The ancient Greek philosopher, who lived from 470 – 399 BC, was a man of great wisdom. I am pleased to see that you share his thoughts. I do too.

In many respects, the life, trial, condemnation and death of Jesus of Nazareth was similar to that of Socrates. Neither left any writings. Our knowledge of each is through the writings of others, the major difference being that for Socrates we have access to the writings of his most famous student and “devoted young follower”, Plato. Whereas, there are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus of Nazareth.

I have great esteem for the wisdom of Socrates, but I do not consider his wisdom to be any sort of god - certainly nothing to be venerated or worshiped, obeyed, held sacred, or with which I should yearn to be at one for eternity.

My understanding of the term “God” is that provided by the Oxford English Dictionary which is generally recognised as the authority in the English language :

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

It is this “God” that I consider to be an hypothesis, i.e., “a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth” (OED philosophical definition).

To the best of my knowledge, Yuyutsu, the God hypothesis continues to remain simply that : an hypothesis. Its validity has never been established.

If it had, everybody would know !

.

Dear Banjo,

If Socrates encouraged us to know ourselves, then the referred article fails to understand him, since instead it encourages us to know that human that we identify with, rather than ourselves.

As the article shows, knowing that human which we call "me" is very useful for everyday problems such as gaining love, a good job, living peacefully with others, managing money, etc. Yet this cannot resolve our existential angst: no matter how well we know that human, his/her existence will remain temporary, his/her knowledge limited and his/her happiness partial, fleeting and alternating with misery.

Existential angst can only go away once you know your true self, and once you know your true self you will realise that you are none other than God.

But while the article provides techniques to better know the human which you call "me", how can you know your true self? religion is the path, but not everything that passes for "religion" today is indeed religious. While original founders of religions, such as Jesus, Buddha and others, perhaps also Socrates, knew themselves as God, the transmission of their teachings was necessarily imperfect because the people who transmitted their teachings have not yet known themselves. I wonder whether Plato truly understood the depth of Socrates' teachings.

What your dictionaries call 'God', I call 'god' (with a small 'g'). God (with a capital 'g') will never appear in dictionaries because no positive definition is possible.

gods are a human invention, but a very useful one because they can help on one's religious path. Whether those gods exist or otherwise, is not a relevant religious question: their purpose is to inspire and represent God for their worshippers, rather than to operate in the world.

Hypothesising about the existence of gods is therefore a silly waste of time, while the hypotheses as if God exists fails immediately over countless logical contradictions.

Yet you are, you are what you are and whether you exist or otherwise cannot change that. So once you discover yourself as God, you also discover how silly the question about God's existence is.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … once you discover yourself as God, you also discover how silly the question about God's existence is »

Unfortunately, that voyage of discovery all too often results in the incarceration of one’s psyche in a prison of narcissism and self-centredness.

Some people have been known to become convinced that they are Napoleon, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, a soldier of God, a terrorist, or simply a bird capable of flying, and so on. I hope that neither you nor Peter Sellick have succeeded, so far, in persuading yourselves that you are God. I wouldn’t wish that on either of you.

Please keep your feet on the ground and tread safely – both of you. It’s not that bad being ordinary human beings !

You shouldn’t get into any trouble if you just content yourselves with your blind faith. I, for one, am willing to testify that it’s not because you both believe in a God that you say does not exist and for which “no positive definition is possible”, that you are not perfectly sane and harmless.

I can produce the following explanations as proof of your rationality, just in case :

Here is the link in the defence of Peter :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19431#345384

And here is the link in your defence, Yuyutsu :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19534#347230
.

Thank God I kept those references. They should help keep you both out of trouble - and safe from the claws of those crazy headshrinkers.

.

As Banjo has already indicated, God is definitely only an hypothesis who by nature can never be accurately defined.

I would submit that the God which you seem to worship does not actually exist. You God is supposed to be a loving father who amongst other hypotheses "Will not suffer thy foot to be moved". How was it then, that such a being would allow his son to die such an agonising death. Jesus is purported to have cried out in anguish "Why hast thou forsaken me". I would submit that the reason why he received no reply was the obvious fact that the is no God. End of story.

Wake up to yourselves.

David

Dear Banjo,

It is not only me and Peter - you too are God, and David too, and everyone and everything as well: one day you will realise this, until then I wish you a happy Jewish/Biblical New Year (5779).

---

Dear David,

«God is definitely only an hypothesis»

You must be joking or in a festive mood: next you are going to tell me that an hypothesis created this world, an hypothesis which is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent.

A happy new year for you too!

There is a lot of generalizing and philosophizing when people talk about God existing and not existing.

David, for you I suggest to hear out anyone who says they've found God. From any religion if they say they've found God, that goes beyond God being a hypothesis, to God being an observation. If an honest conversation starting with "what happened, how did you find God, how do you know it was God?" If you can approach the topic without an accusational tone to prove God exists, you can hear it from their side and judge privitely what they've said for if they hold merit or not. I can assure you God is more then a hypothesis. But this kind of statement is in kind to others generalizations that are believed solely because they support your position. And any truth in the. Is not sought after to see if they are true or not.

One other thought to hold though is that there is philosophizing and assumptions for who God is as well. Though these kinds of things might be true and the understanding having merit, there is also error in many conversations about who God is. Let your understanding on any philosophy be tempered by the experiences of those you know. That way a generalization that holds merit is not mixed in with a generalization that can be dismissed by what we see in our lives.

NOT now.Soon et al.
You need to with a schizophrenic to understand how it is that people believe that they have found God. The mind does some very strange things and people truly believe what they are seeing or hearing is real.

I go back to my previous post. If there really was a God who cared for mankind in the way that you all believe, would he stand by and just let all the travail that has happened throughout the previous millennia. You are all poor delusional souls.

David

Dear David,

Yes, the mind does some very strange things and people truly believe what they are seeing or hearing is real: you seem to love the world so much that your mind makes you believe that it is real.

Since you love the world as perceived by your senses and mind, you worship it through the language of science.

We, religious people, love God more than the empirical world, thus we often speak of Him/Her/It in the language of love, in endearing words that do not and need not make sense in the language of science. While a lover may call their darling better-half "honey", they do not mean that s/he was made by bees...

A claim in the language of love that God is an observation, for example, is just a loose loving speech to mean that one can come close and experience their beloved God. Taken literally without translation as if spoken in the language of science, such a claim would indeed sound nonsensical and schizophrenic, as if some observation created the world... Obviously, God is neither an hypothesis nor an observation.

«If there really was a God who cared for mankind in the way that you all believe»

It is only humans who care for mankind (to some degree or another). To claim that God cares for mankind would reduce Him/Her/It to the position of a human, so no, I do not share that particular belief.

Yes, there is some sense whereby we are cared for by God (I could go deeper into it if you are interested), but the species called "mankind" and the members of that species are only a tool, a vehicle for our spiritual growth: all we need to care for is that they serve their purpose well before they expire: wishing for the welfare of mere objects is mentally unhealthy.

To David. I'm not saying to just believe them because they believe it. But at least listen to them and consider it. Otherwise what are you doing differently except putting forth your own hypothesis and doing nothing to test it's merits.

The claim that all religous people suffer a delusion like schizophrenia Is an irrational claim. Look at the person and see if they fit the discription of being delusional. Do they show any symptoms outside of believing something you don't or say they've experienced something you haven't. If the answer is no, they show no other signs of mental instability then there's a good chance the hypothesis that they are delusional like a schizophrenic is very wrong. Judge what they say they observed as you would judge any other observation given to you by rational people.

Hope that makes more sense. The difference between my understanding and Yuyutsu's understanding are very different concerning God. The difference between my understanding and another Christian's is also likely to show differences. But each of us can teach and refine eachother by letting our lives be a test to any philosophy. I can confirm one person's experiences by having simular ones of my own. I can confirm their beliefs in the same way by lining them up with what I've see in my life. I can also correct them by the same standard that life tests our theories and philosophies.

if you take into consideration what others say they've lived through you might be able to learn from it. that's really all I'm proposing to do. take into consideratiin what peoole say for how they found God, and how they know it was from God.

.

To all and sundry,

.

In addressing 75 newly ordained bishops at the Vatican from 34 countries around the world, Pope Francis ordered them to “just say no to abuse – of power, conscience or any type” while he, himself, faces allegations that he covered up child sexual abuse.

Former Vatican diplomat to the US, Carlo Maria Viganò revealed in a public letter that he told the pontiff in June 2013 that there were numerous concerns and complaints about the former archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, but that the pope did not respond and allowed McCarrick to continue in his prominent role as a public emissary for the church.

He wrote: “In this extremely dramatic moment for the universal church, he must acknowledge his mistakes and, in keeping with the proclaimed principle of zero tolerance, Pope Francis must be the first to set a good example to cardinals and bishops who covered up McCarrick’s abuses and resign along with all of them.”

The only response from the Pope so far has been :

« I will say sincerely that I must say this, to you, » he said, when asked by a journalist about the letter, « and all of you who are interested: Read the document carefully and judge it for yourselves. I will not say one word on this. I think the statement speaks for itself. »

Silence is golden, so they say – and nobody knows that better than Pope Francis !

.

Not_Now.Soon,

I have tested my hypothesis by observing the lack of response of your God to all the evil in the world in my lifetime and As he has been found wanting, my conclusion is that He doesn't exist.

David

.

To all and sundry,

.

Pope Francis is as smug as a bug in a rug in refusing to respond to the allegations of the former Vatican diplomat to the US, Carlo Maria Viganò, that he covered-up the former archbishop of Washington’s (Theodore McCarrick) sexual abuses.

No doubt he considers that no legal proceedings can be made against him as long as he remains Pope – not because he is head of the Catholic Church, but because he (theoretically) benefits from legal immunity as head of state of the Vatican (the Holy See), a tiny enclave in Italy of 0.17 of a square mile – and, also, because of his immense, world-wide popularity.

Victor Emmanuel II became the first king of a united Italy when he invaded Rome in 1870 when the French withdrew due to the Franco-Prussian war. Before transferring the capital back from Florence to Rome, the Italian parliament passed a law — known as the “Law of Guarantees” — by which the Pope was insured the enjoyment of all his prerogatives and honours as a sovereign, was awarded the palaces of the Vatican and the Lateran, as well as the villa of Castel Gandolfo — all exempt from any tax or duty — and was assigned an annual income of three million two hundred and twenty-five thousand Italian lire.

The Pontiff refused to recognize this law or to accept the allowance, and still persisted in maintaining his un availing protest against the Italian Government.

As a result, what was known as the “papal states” remained extinguished until 1929 when Mussolini endowed the Vatican with "sovereignty in the international field ... in conformity with its traditions and the exigencies of its mission in the world"

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

The UN, at its inception, refused membership to the Vatican but has allowed it a unique "observer status", permitting it to become signatory to treaties such as (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at UN conferences where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, contraception and homosexuality. This has involved the UN in blatant discrimination on grounds of religion. Other faiths are unofficially represented, if at all, by NGOs. But it has encouraged the Vatican to claim statehood – and immunity from liability.

This claim could be challenged successfully in the European Court of Human Rights. But in any event, head of state immunity provides no protection for the pope in the international criminal court (see its current indictment of Sudan’s President Bashir). The ICC Statute definition of a crime against humanity includes rape and sexual slavery etc., committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority. It has been held to cover the recruitment of children as soldiers or sex slaves. If acts of sexual abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC – if that practice continued after July 2002, when the court was established.

But, given the world-wide popularity of Pope Francs, it is difficult to imagine the ICC indicting him on criminal charges of covering-up sexual abuse within the Catholic Church as long as he remains Pope.

For that reason, he has every interest in not following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Benoît XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) by resigning prematurely. He had better cling to the post for the rest of his life.

His predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger, is condemned to remain for the rest of his life inside the walls of the tiny enclave of the Vatican as he no longer has the benefit of any of his former protections as Pope at all :

http://www.ibtimes.com/pope-benedict-preserve-immunity-security-remaining-vatican-after-resignation-1089612

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Both Pope Francis and his predecessor, Benoît XVI, are potentially exposed to indictment for the cover-up of sexual abuse by the clergy and other representatives of the Catholic Church throughout the world. But the sexual abuse commenced well before the tenures of Pope Francis and Benoît XVI. It is so vast and deep-rooted, its origins can be traced back to the tenure of Jean-Paul II and beyond.

Here are a couple of articles relating to the paedophilia that occurred around the world within the Catholic Church during Jean-Paul II’s tenure, and how he reacted to it :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10787986/Pope-John-Paul-II-was-no-saint-but-a-man-who-covered-up-sin.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20140904232428/http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/Pedophilia-Pope-Law/Pedophilia-PopeorderedLaw.htm

Jean-Paul’s only concern was to protect the Church – not the innocent little victims. He obviously didn’t care about them. He seemed to consider that they were the problem.

Apparently, the Church was delighted because it canonised him and made him a saint four years ago, on April 27, 2014 – just nine years after his death (his beatification and canonisation having been “fast-tracked”).

The Requiem Mass for Jean-Paul II, held on 8 April 2005, was said to have set world records both for attendance and number of heads of state present at a funeral. It was the single largest gathering of heads of state in history, surpassing the funerals of Winston Churchill (1965) and Josip Broz Tito (1980). Four kings, five queens, at least 70 presidents and prime ministers, and more than 14 leaders of other religions attended alongside “the faithful”. It is likely to have been the largest single pilgrimage of Christianity ever with numbers estimated in excess of four million mourners gathering in and around Vatican City. Between 250,000 and 300,000 watched the event from within the Vatican's walls.

On the death of John Paul II, a number of clergy at the Vatican and laymen throughout the world began referring to the late pontiff as "John Paul the Great"— only the fourth pope to be so acclaimed, and the first since the first millennium.

Oh! Justice! What crimes are committed in thy name !

.

.

(Continued …)

.

John Paul II had the good fortune to die peacefully, in office, at the ripe old age of 82 without having to defend himself before the International Criminal Court on charges of cover-up of rape and other sexual crimes committed during the 27 years of his tenure (the second longest in modern history), from 1978 to 2005.

Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) never leaves the tiny enclave of the Vatican since his retirement because he no longer has the benefit of any of his former protections as Pope – legal immunity as Head of State, in particular – and risks indictment by the ICC on criminal charges of cover-up of rape and other sexual crimes committed during his 8 years tenure as Pope, from 2005 to 2013.

Pope Francis, has no intention of providing a detailed response to the accusations of Carlo Maria Viganò (a retired archbishop and Vatican diplomat to the US) that he covered-up rape and other sexual crimes committed within the Catholic Church – in particular, that of the former archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick – since his election as Pope, in 2013. He has legal immunity as Head of State and protection by being immensely popular.

Under the reigns of these three Popes, paedophilia, rape and other sexual crimes have been committed (and continue to be committed) by members of the clergy at all levels on a massive scale throughout the world.

For the past 40 years, not one of them has offered to assume any responsibility for these crimes. Yet there is every reason to believe that all three actively sought to cover them up to preserve the hypocritic moral respectability of the Church – without the slightest concern for the innocent victims.

John Paul II is no longer of this world and has been made a saint. The other two are doing everything in their power to avoid prosecution.

Unlike Jesus in a similar situation, they obviously don’t want to be left holding the bag. I guess they don’t have the same faith in their “saviour” as he did.

.

To David.

Sorry for how long I've taken to reply.

I wish I had an answer to the evils of the world. Both the horribleness that is caused by men, and the horrors that devastate the world by natural disasters, by disease, by famine, and by so much more. I don't have an answer because the scale of evil in the world is so much bigger then any answer I can offer. And also even if there is an answer I can offer, giving it an answer is often taken as if it is an excuse, either for harms in the world, or for justifying to not care for the harms experienced.

The harms of the world is a reason to reach out to help it. Even if we don't understand why they are there.

That said there is one thing I can say. Your observations that God hasn't responded to you might be true. But they don't counter the observations of people who say that God has acted in their life. Though your conclusions are based on your observations and perspectives, they don't account for the diverse accounts and experiences throughout the world about God.

I wish you luck and hope you can find God. He's worth finding. And even though we live in a broken and evil world, God does love us. I don't have an explanation for the evil but I know the love. Good luck.

2 marriage things for an enlightened society.

1. All fathers should be required to take their sons to a sex worker on their 16th birthday so sex is NOT the reason for marrying. This will also create jobs for women who will be protected by law, the same as any medical practicioner, for their service to the community.
Don't be too quick to reject this idea for it will make the millions of ordinary men and women very happy and the 'few' billionaires and politicians inconsolable.

2. Marriage created by religion and taxed by the Government is a stitch up for men and a sentence of lonliness for women. Like all fiscal unions marriage should be by a government mandated legal contract so both parties will know precisely what to expect from each other and what will happen at divorce. Lawyers should be used. In particular hot button issues like who puts out the trash etc should be agreed upon. Like all contracts, lawyer advised renegotiations should be allowed.

This option doesn't take away romance or love it merely protects the parties in the bustle of life that can destroy the ability of the mind to remember the reasons for the union.

Its a safety net against changes in society brought on by an increasingly hostile cadre of billionaires and megalomaniac politicians who see married couples a expendable pieces an a Monopoly board.

Just remember next time you fight and have no contract to say who is right or wrong, a billionaire somewhere is thanking his 'god' for the profits.

Dear Fred,

«All fathers should be required to take their sons to a sex worker on their 16th birthday»

Sounds pretty authoritarian to me: so will all boys on their 16th birthday be forced only to enter the room, or also to perform? because the latter is named RAPE!

So we can expect boys to be scared of their 16th birthday, perhaps run away from home the day before, especially if they observe the vow of celibacy, if they are homosexual, or if they want to remain faithful to their girlfriend, perhaps also if they are still shy or haven't developed those urges yet (if ever).

Fortunately it is not that easy to drag a kicking-and-screaming 16 y.o. boy against their will.

And what would they learn?
That sex is a pure physical act, performed as quickly as you can with someone for whom your only emotions could be fear and disgust - how enlightening...

Not_Now.Soon.
People believe things for all sorts of reasons, often because of what they have been taught as children. Most of us believed the stories about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy and we often saw real physical manifestations of same. However in the realm of the belief in God, most of us have not seen any physical evidence, we relied on the teaching of others who we respected. In recent years, many of us have lost our respect of those who purport to be representatives of God and as a consequence some also have lost their belief in what they have taught us. Others believe because they have had a dream in which God has spoken to them. We nearly all have dreams, for whatever reason. They appear real to us at the time, but that is all they are, dreams. Disbelief, in my case didn't just happen. It occurred over a period of many years of observing the human condition. That is why I no longer can accept that your "God of love" exists. As I have said before, if he did exist, why did he desert Jesus in his hour of need. No one seems to satisfactorily answer that question.

David

Yuyutsu,
I agree. The word mandate is wrong. "encouraged to" is better.

A good father would know if his son was gay or neutral or confused. The overwhelming majority of boys would be overjoyed, let me tell you.

A good father would then deal with the situation accordingly. Times have changed as you well know.

In those rare cases where you have a bad father nothing will save that boy. Thats life.

Its a rapidly changing world and more integrative ways of managing social issues are required so more people can be fulifilled in life and not downtrodden and discriminated against.

To FredM

The idea of having an agreement on many aspects of life is a good approach to a marriage. But leave the lawyers out of it. Instead have marriage consolers on a regular thing. Before marriage and possibly several times throughout a marriage, if you trust them to help keep the relationship healthy. A second approach is to go to a class together on managing money. Partly for their education on aspects of money that aren't taught and what to do for certain goals, like getting approved for a loan if they want a home or some other expense. But also so that they are on the same boat on those matters. Aside from those options there might be many other things a couple can do to strengthen their commitment.

But bringing a contract and lawyers into the mix will make it harder on the commitment to each other and instead make it about a commitment to an agreement that often could be hard to keep. Imagine a first argument that they get into and the husband or the wife brings up the contract and how they aren't living up to it. If that doesn't cause a rift in the relationship and harm their resolve to love each other, then I don't know what will.

As for the sex for a 16 year old, that's a bad idea. Most kids probably will be excited for the idea. Instead of having the issue of kids thinking they have a responsibility if they get a girl pregnant, you have kids learning about women purely as a thing for sex and not to commit to a relationship. That and a epidemic of STDs at a young age for men. No responsible parent who respects women or wants their sons to be healthy should consider it. Sorry for being harsh, but it should not be considered.

To David.

I don't know of anyone (outside of a movie or a tv show) who thinks they've seen Santa clause or the tooth fairy. If this happens that is news to me. Could you provide an example of a physical manifestation of a person's belief, that wasn't really there. Be sure that this isn't coming from someone who is known for hallucinating due to a medical condition or drug use, because it's being applied to everyday people you see in the world (yourself included) as if reality is determined by our beliefs.

What I'm suggesting is not to just believe someone because they say so. But if they have a life of experience, take that into account. Either to consider it and reject it because you don't think it happened that way, or you think they are a bad witness for a specific reason, or consider it a possibility if they don't hold any reason to doubt that person. To quote logic from the bible. As iron sharpens iron, one man sharpens another.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Correct me if I'm wrong, (please tell me I have this wrong) but my impression of your logic is that if I can't prove to you my beliefs then not only should you reject them, but I should reject them too. Is that basically your stance? But here is my issue with this logic. I know from experience, not just through study that God exists. I'm sorry if you haven't found Him and have found reasons to doubt Him. No matter how long that process took it's a tragedy. But for me it's along the lines that I can't un-see what I've seen. Or un-hear what I've heard. Your not being convinced does not counter observations of those that are Christian.

Moving on to theology, here is one simple explanation. Jesus came to this world knowing why He was here. I assume this was known for His entire life, from childhood to hanging on the cross. He came to save us. Both by miracle and teaching, as well as by the great sacrifice He made. He died and He rose again. God didn't abandon Jesus. He let Jesus take our consequence for being broken in a broken world. Then Jesus came back to life in just a few days and even went up to Heaven to be with God once more. That's a lot of love, even to us who aren't like Jesus in His love for God.

To Not_Now.Soon,

Jesus' primary aim was to ease suffering in a barbaric Roman world. And that has spread beyond his time.

Any attempt to use his 'words' to bind people to situations of suffering like one person entering marriage without due knowledge of sexual encounters and the other without knowledge of money matters is a misinterpretation of his purpose.

You should attend a divorce court sometime and see what the suffering and hate that basic ignorance of money matters and sex in entering marriage produces.

Knowledge is power over suffering. And that was Jesus forte. Astute fathers and Lawyers using 'enlightened' legal contracts can reduce worry and thus suffering in marriages.

I also do not see any reason why enlightened mothers could not take their over 16 daughters to a male professional if they were worried that thoughts of sex were interrupting their daughter's school performance and discipline --- if the child consented. I have actually known some women who have expressed that very wish to help their daughters only to be left suffering without any options. And I will bet there are a lot of mothers out there suffering with that very problem right now.

End suffering . don't promote it!

To FredM.

I've watched a friend go through a divorce. It wasn't for the reasons you've referenced. Doing a google search for the top reasons for divorce brought up several web sites, but for a reference of reasons here's the site I'll reference for the top 10 common reasons of divorce.

https://www.marriage.com/advice/divorce/10-most-common-reasons-for-divorce/

The reasons it describes (in the order that the site says) follows.
1). Infidelity
2) money issues.
3 & 4) lack of communication and constant arguing.
5) weight gain.
6) unrealistic expectations.
7) lack of intimacy.
8) lack of equality regarding who's trying to make it work and shouldering the responsibility.
9) not being prepared for marriage.
10) abuse.

The web site recommends marriage consoling even when the relationship is fine to keep it healthy. I agree with that approach, even to have a marriage consoling session before getting married, to help the couple be prepared for the marriage they enter. The two exceptions to this is regarding money issues, (that is solved by shared education, not by lawyers); and abuse. With abuse consoling can be tried also, but if it is real abuse the one being abused should leave (either to a friend or a family member) temporary while deciding what to do next.

I'm not trying to argue with you for the sake of arguing, but I think your approach of a lawyer's contract will just aggravate the situation and not provide any help. It definitely won't help with sex or money issues.

As for the 16 year old's education. Parents can just talk to their kids. Bringing a prostitute into the situation will only spread sexual diseases. It would be worse then kids just shaking up together on their own because at least when kids do it they are relatively clean and not exposed to STDs. A prostitute will infect the younger generation making an epidemic of disease when they eventually follow the parent's lesson on sex and go shack up with one another. Regardless of our differences on morals and respecting the other sex, disease is a reason to not prostitute your kids.

//As for the sex for a 16 year old, that's a bad idea. Most kids probably will be excited for the idea. Instead of having the issue of kids thinking they have a responsibility if they get a girl pregnant//

Jesus, what sort of sex workers are you shagging that let you go bareback? Do they charge extra?

//That and a epidemic of STDs at a young age for men.//

No, actually, ladies of negotiable virtue have a very responsible approach to safe sex because they have to. You're probably less likely to catch something from a seamstress than you are from the general public.

//Bringing a prostitute into the situation will only spread sexual diseases.//

Nope:

http://www.sti.guidelines.org.au/populations-and-situations/sex-workers
http://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/monthly-sex-worker-tests-are-ridiculous-health-experts-say-20110530-1fctn.html
http://sti.bmj.com/content/81/5/434

But why let the evidence stand in the way of a bit of good old fashioned stigma?

//It would be worse then kids just shaking up together on their own because at least when kids do it they are relatively clean and not exposed to STDs.//

Oy vey.

This sort of thinking is exactly what leads to the spread of STIs. Remember, NNS... she may look clean, but looks can be deceiving.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/06/10/article-2339094-1A3EC689000005DC-391_306x474.jpg

Unless you've personally seen the results of an STI check, if it's not on it's not on.

Toni Lavis.

Think it through to the end. A 16 year old experiences sex for the first time (or not for the first time). Sex being something that feels great, would encourage the 16 year old to continue to have sex. The kid just learned from his dad that sex and love aren't the same thing. Move that to real life and the kid won't just have sex with sex workers and prostitutes, but will shack up on a much more regular basis as a general rule. This will spread disease. For the kid that just learned that sex has no meaning to a relationship they can just skip out when they get someone pregnant (who will likely not be a sex worker).

As for the logistics of safe sax among sex workers. If safe sex was 100% safe from contracting an STD, then disease would not be an issue. Since this isn't the case, then a higher rate of sex for the sex workers (all 16 year olds brought in by their dads, (and probably the dad too to have some fun) ) would translate to a higher rate of disease spread even with protection measures for the sex worker). On a side note, what do you think happens to the sex workers who get a disease? Their line of work is in jeopardy at that point. They would either find other work keeping the pool of sex workers disease free. Or they would find a way to lie about it or forge a test result to being clean. Thus making the whole process of testing become a fake means to assure the public and their coworkers that it's all good down there.

Think it through next time man. In the real world, more sex at an earlier age means more disease and more pregnancies. Moving on though there are other reasons to not do this besides the disease ratio. However regardless of respect for women, or differences of morals, the disease reason should stop everyone in their tracks when it comes to rationalizing their bad ideals.

Keep it in your pants. Unless your in a commited relationship, keep it in your pants.

Respect women and teach your kids to respect women. Taking your kid to a sex worker at 16 undermines their respect for the opposite sex, and instead feeds their desire for sex instead of their respect for another.

Sex is often emotional. You can try to teach that it isn't but it is. People are going to learn that sex and love are connected because that's how they feel. They'll also find out that sex isn't love because of breakups and the emotions of betrayal and anger. "Didn't it mean anything?" And even with these lessons learned once or twice, the lessons are learned over and over again. "This time's different." Or they will lose any respect for the other sex and not care for them. Sex is just a feel good drug.

So if started from the beginning to not have sex till there's commitment in the relationship, you can avoid the emotional roller coaster of finding out the hard way about sex and relationships. You can also avoid seeing sex as a prize, or a bought service, and lowering your respect for women as a whole.

//As for the logistics of safe sax among sex workers. If safe sex was 100% safe from contracting an STD, then disease would not be an issue. Since this isn't the case, then a higher rate of sex for the sex workers (all 16 year olds brought in by their dads, (and probably the dad too to have some fun) ) would translate to a higher rate of disease spread even with protection measures for the sex worker).//

Then how do you explain all these quotes away?

"Currently, there is no evidence that sex workers in Australia have higher rates of STIs than the general population."

"Health and human rights experts said it was ridiculous to force sex workers to have monthly tests when they were at extremely low risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections."

"Professor of Sexual Health at Melbourne University, Christopher Fairley, said research showed monthly testing was unnecessary and a waste of public health resources because sex workers have much lower rates of STIs than other people."

""You are at lower risk of catching an STI if you have sex with a sex worker than if you have sex with a member of the public," Professor Fairley said.

Professor Fairley said the monthly testing of legal sex workers also meant doctors were turning away thousands of patients seeking STI tests each year because they were tied up with low risk sex workers.

He said about 1200 people could not be tested at the centre in the first quarter of this year because it was tied up with monthly sex worker tests.

If the government approved three-monthly tests, he said the centre could see another 3000 patients a year who are likely to be at much higher risk of STIs."

"The incidence of STIs was low among decriminalised and regulated sex work and most infections were related to partners outside of work."

"Sex workers in legalised brothels generally have a low prevalence of sexually transmitted infections (STI) and high levels of condom use."

Evidence trumps conjecture, dude.

//As for the logistics of safe sax//

Sorry, missed your little typo before.

There are two simple steps to practising safe sax:

* Don't share reeds, it's unyhgienic.
* Don't be Kenny G.

Yep, I think that pretty much covers it.

.......

Just to be clear Toni, you're ok to legally bring 16 year olds into the sex market? Or are you just defending sex workers and not actually commenting on the context of the issues.

Honestly as for sex workers I doubt the reports and would like to see the numbers myself. The only numbers I can find from your references are that 3% of sex workers have STIs, and a much higher rate of infection for gay sex among men.

However for a comparison there's no data for infections among the general public except being told that it's "much higher among the public. (Which is a fair point. Sex workers would lose their jobs if they get infected so the number stays low, possibly out of no other reason then they can't find work, making them part of the general public stat once discovered and fired). With the data in mind, is the general public at a rate of 4% STIs or 45%? What counts as a "much higher rate?"

That said 3% of sex workers having an STI is too high a rate to suggest a mandatory sex experience for your kids at 16. Three out of 100 kids getting a new STI, is two high a number to consider as a parent. To think that number wouldn't go up with a higher rate of costumers is unrealistic. At that rate and with the kids basically given the OK to have sex (because their parent took them to a sex worker), you can expect the rate of infection among the general public to increase dramatically.

Or is that also outside of what your willing to discuss Toni? That kids having sex at a younger age is going to increase the rate of STIs as a whole?

We cannot address the issue without first looking at the motivation to have sex, in this case of a 16 year-old boy or girl.

The reasons for wanting sex are extremely varied (http://psychcentral.com/blog/237-reasons-to-have-sex), but can generally be categorised to come from one of the three lower chakras (energy centres): Muladhara, Svadhisthana and Manipura, broadly motivating for survival, pleasure and control, respectively.

Under survival comes procreation, attempting to perpetuate one's body. Also the hope that partners and/or children/progeny will care for and feed us when old.

Once survival is relatively assured, one turns to enjoy sensual pleasures.

Next, one wishes to improve their social standing and fame, rising up on the pecking order, as perceived by both themselves and others. Sex with appropriate persons can help facilitating this.

A 16 year-old is very unlikely to be helped by a prostitute:

* His/her survival is not going to be enhanced: they will not get a baby, nor physical/financial support (quite the contrary, their parent pays).

* They will get little sensual pleasure because the act will be rushed and mechanical with little warmth, love or comfort - for the prostitute, this is business, unemotional and part of their survival strategy!

* Having sex with a prostitute is not a social achievement: there is no conquest to be proud of and nothing else to show off, after all it was obtained by dad/mom's money rather than by one's own merit.

What a 16 year-old may sometimes obtain by having this sex with a prostitute, though, is to please their parent(s). Yes, one should not abandon the fifth commandment, but such parents must be sick indeed to condition their parental love on sexual "success".