Detoxing from pornography

Here is a fantastic article, at the following Jerusalem Post link.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212387707&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


And just a quick word about the dire danger of pornography. It is not an issue of being a "prude." Pornography, as it exists today, works to erode a human's sanity and their survival ability. Pornography, as it exists today (not as it used to be, which was difficult to get, much softer in its presentation, and an almost rare "treat" event, rather than an addiction) erodes one's very health, one's very soul, one's coping mechanisms for life in general and, ultimately, destroys all chance of genuine love and intimacy, either with another human being or, in a spiritual sense, with God. Porn addiction can be thought of as being like someone so addicted to drugs that they stop drinking water or eating food, and they starve to death, but in this case, pornography blocks normal life, normal brain processes, normal intimate relationships and, ultimately, the normal state of the soul.

Do everything that you can to break your own addiction, or to do an intervention for family members, friends or work colleagues to help them understand the above dangers, and that it is not a question of being "liberated" or that those who warn of the danger of pornography are "just prudes." Pornography will place a person in an earthly hell first, because it estranges them from real normal life and the comfort of sane real intimacy, and secondly, in the actual hell after death, because it becomes as powerful an idol as if one was worshiping Beelzebub, and when one is estranged from God by continually selecting a corrupting alternative as one's priority, one ends up in hell when one is judged by God at one's death.

I cannot over-emphasize how much porn has ruined mental and spiritual health and has been a prime reason in many-including self proclaimed "saved" Christians-from NOT, I repeat, not achieving salvation in heaven.

Self appointed morality watchdogs not justified

When I look back on my blog posts, I am always sad at how irate, chastising and warning of divine retribution is the tone of many of them. Just think, though, that if I am shrill and often livid in my nagging how irate God, Jesus Christ, and the angels must be. If you need a refresher in being reminded that Jesus is not the peacenik stoned grooving “anything goes” guy, read any part of the Gospels where he speaks of the hypocrites, the vipers, and the false words of those around him. And, of course, the Old Testament provides much reminder of the wrathful God, who never changes: he is both loving and forgiving, but also perfect in his rendering of judgment, both at the end of one’s life, but also day to day in the course of knowing all that there is to know about each person’s thoughts and deeds. If I stood on the top of this building and screamed with a megaphone, “You are all in danger of not being saved and going to hell,” I would not be understating things.

Here is the problem. People have become consumed with a sexualized and idolatrous view of life, including of God and his will for how humans should live. As a result, even those who believe in Jesus Christ and have been born again in him do some very inconsistent things for being saved, due to the prurient and vicious, easily tempted, problem of human nature. Here is an exercise that I think all of you will find “relevant” and spiritually revealing.

Imagine that someone that you know, or a perfect stranger, has been secretly photographed while performing what one considers being an unchaste, adulterous, or fornicating activity. Would you look at the photograph? If you would, and you have, you are in grave danger of your soul, despite how often you proclaim Jesus Christ. Would you tell other people about the photograph and the acts? In other words, would you treat that information and visual as something to share with others? Worse, would you keep a copy for prurient and even sexual self gratification? What do you think any of the above does to the state of your soul in the eyes of God?

To obtain the answer, get out your Bible and read the four Gospels with a pad of paper and a pen or pencil next to you. Write down every time that Jesus chastises a person for a sexual act, including adultery. Are you having trouble finding any examples at all of Jesus expending even one word of chastisement regarding sexual misconduct or proclivities? Now, at the same time, write down how often Jesus condemns people for the words from their mouths, such as hypocrisy, false pride in their holiness, gossip and other problems of the tongue. Do you find that Jesus has provided plenty of examples of his irritation and condemnation? Would you feel comfortable bringing a sexually explicit photo that was secretly taken of someone to Jesus and telling him that you viewed the picture, kept a copy, told others about it, shared it with others, and found ways to harm the people in the photograph, and then insist that Jesus look at the photograph to see what an “adulterous sinner” is depicted there? Could you even bear to look in the eyes of Jesus with such a mission, and such a list of your own sins of pride and lack of charity? Did you perhaps think that God, and Jesus Christ, need spies to keep them abreast of the sexual doings of other people?

I do not understand how so many people that I know are totally obsessed with acts of intimacy between other people, especially adultery or homosexual acts, so that they involve themselves in the judging and propagating of this information, while at the same time think they have clean eyes, ears and hands in front of Jesus Christ. Do you remember what Jesus said about plucking out one’s eye if it leads on to sin? What kind of sin do the eyes lead one to commit? Looking at secretly taken intimate photographs of other people is one of them, just like being a voyeur (“peeping Tom”), or a pornography producer.

I know many of you will deny this, but I know that many of you value what St Paul says more than you value the totality of what Jesus said and did. So I invite you to do the same thing with all of the writings attributed to St Paul in the New Testament. Please write down for me (actually, for your own use, since I already know the answer) all of the times that St Paul condemns, chastises or even mentions a sexual impropriety. Then also list the number of times that St Paul condemns or warns against what is spoken, the deeds of the tongue, and no, he did not mean French kissing.

Where in the Bible, Old or New Testament, have any of you thought that you have the right to observe, judge, and propagate knowledge of other people’s sexual activities, whether “adulterous” or not, when you cannot show me Jesus 1) allocating any of his valuable ministry time on that subject and 2) Jesus praising those who ran to him or to others with tales of other sinners? I mean, I must have missed the part in the Gospel where Jesus offers a special place in heaven for the gossips that catch other people having nookie, who pass around scrolls depicting their acts and telling others about it, and then hurting the people who have been secretly spied upon? I have lots of Bibles and none of the translations seem to contain that part of the scripture. Am I missing some pages in my Bible? Just curious, because I have trouble finding the intimacy secret police and pornography producer reward section.

How ironic that many western Christians and seculars condemn the morality police of Islamic countries. Is that not funny when you think about it? The morality police are trying to enforce actual current behavior, not secretly spying on people for prurient purposes and star chambered judging of the intimates. And westerners do not mind flooding the media with visual pornography, exposing their children to increasingly sexualized images, yet if they “catch” someone “doing the dirty” they secretly photograph them and while proclaiming their righteousness on the one hand, get their “rocks off” through prurient possession, viewing and distribution of the material, or at least a good long gossiping description of it to equally self righteous people. It’s not too long ago that I blogged that this modern generation would care more about “what position” that Abraham and Sarah used to be intimate, rather than the miracle of her conception of Isaac. Those of you who are, as I am, disgusted at what I just wrote, please excuse me, for that is part of the great sadness of my life and the state of the world, that I have to dash people with cold water of such images to make them see how sick and depraved they have all become.

How happy people are when they “catch someone” being imprudent in intimacy, yet they often go the entire day without thinking once about fear of God. It is impossible not to think about someone else’s sex during the day (especially if you have electricity and hence TV, video, the Internet and other media), yet it is very possible and very common to never think once about God in a day.

You ought to be scared and you ought to be half wishing that you could have removed that eye of yours, rather than participated in the spreading of knowledge and visuals of someone else’s acts of intimacy, sinful or not.

One of the reasons that God is so protective of marriage and monogamous intimacy is because the focus is always on the bearing of children, children who need a stable home and to know who their parents are. How ironic that the abortion loving generation loves to sneak pictures of adultery or other sexual acts and then, hypocritically, cite scripture as their justification. As I pointed out, I would like to see where in the scripture God, or Jesus, spends any time condemning sinful intimacy itself, and encouraging vigilante and prurient monitoring of it as “justice” and “information gathering.” If you really understood the Bible the bulk of the concern is the spiritual harlot and the human adulterer who cheats on God. That is why the adulterer and harlot image is so predominate. God considers those believers who even dabble in idolatry (such as love of money) as being adulterers in their divine relationship with God. That is the kind of adultery that God knows humans will almost always lose their soul because of, not the nookie in the back of the car kind of adultery.

How many of you go to church, yet gossip and defame those you consider to be “sinners,” such as I described above in the photos of adultery example? How “in the model of Jesus Christ” is that?

How many of you go to church, yet receive daily briefings about activities and news that are provided by users of the secret and the occult?

How many of you go to church, yet believe that you are “privy” to “information” that makes you a participant in divine events (and thus a servant of false prophets?)

Woe, woe, woe, woe to this generation. I see no hope, really.

Understanding God: body of faithful, gay discussion

*warning, some blunt sexual terms and ideas, as usual I regret having to do so and look forward to God's coal on my lips for having to dialogue as such, but someone has to do it*

I am going to write more, here, about understanding God, understanding faith, understanding sin, and I will illustrate what I am going to explain with using the debate about being homosexual (I will use “gay” for brevity) as a case study.

One must first understand that while knowledge of God and obedience is an individual matter, faith must be and is a group matter. In other words, the faith of individuals is not enough; the knowing and the worship of God must take place within the gathering, the community of people. Why is that? Well, first of all, recognize that what I am saying is true, before I explain the “why,” by examining the scripture of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths. All of the scripture is oriented toward the “body of the faithful,” the group working united and in unison in their belief. Just because the word of God is spoken through an individual, this does not mean that God is not addressing the group as a whole, and the scriptures all make that plain. In the Book of Exodus God has Moses gathered the people together, and they “see” God in the great Theophany, even though the words of the Law, which are for ALL the people, are spoken into Moses’ ears. Likewise in the Qur’an God, through the angel Gabriel, gave the Prophet (PBUH) instruction and law for all of the Muslims as a whole, as it emerged as a faith from amidst a time of unbelief. Thus the Prophet had companions to whom he explained what God taught and required and he (the Prophet) expounded on the meanings (preserved in the Hadith) and, further, had them memorize the Qur’an, which was at first oral and then written.

Finally, Jesus taught continually in the community of the faithful. This is obvious if you only note that in his public ministry he went from synagogue congregation to synagogue congregation preaching to the whole body of the faithful: the original body of faithful assembled by Moses. Thus God’s law and his word are continually given to the entire body of the faithful as a whole, not as a matter of personal and individual endeavor.

The Muslims, despite the sad split into their sects, retain this understanding that God instructs the body of the faithful, and not individuals. Likewise the orthodox Christianities understand this quite clearly. The Catholic Church, heir to the Apostolic church, and the equally united and ancient Orthodox churches (despite the divisions among the Orthodox and their sad separation from the Catholic Church) understand and preach the unity of the body of the faithful as the recipients of God’s teaching, law and grace, not individuals. Individuals must work to remain in communion with God. This is where many have become confused, particularly among Protestants and their children. The salvation of the individual soul is of course of importance, but it is done through the entire body of the faithful, as God intended and made clear in the first place, and consistently through the orthodoxy of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths.

So why does God insist upon presenting himself to the unity, the community of the faithful, rather than allowing faith to be an “individual” matter of “conscience?” There are two very fundamental reasons, and many supporting purposes to God’s will in this matter. I will explain the two fundamental reasons. The first is that belief in God is egalitarian, as everyone is in truth God’s adopted children, equal in the sanctity of their newly made souls when they are conceived, and equally open to his love in God’s eyes. Thus God will only consistently reveal and rule to the body of the faithful, not to individuals, and further, his expectations weigh upon the entire body of the faithful, not upon individuals. When individuals fall away from the orthodoxy of the true faiths they fall away from God; it is as simple as that. They cannot “good guy” their way to God as individuals who have fallen out of communion. The writings of the Apostles and disciples, and the early Church fathers, often meditate on the difference between those who have never heard the word, compared to those who heard the word and either reject it, drift away from it, or fall from it. St. Paul in particular was a stern taskmaster in this regard and rightfully so. Here is the way to understand it. The soul is the individual “currency” of salvation, for it is the soul that like a penny is put into the salvation bank. BUT THE COMMUNION OF THE FAITHFUL IS THE MINT, the treasury that maintains the value of the penny. Thus one must never think that the entire focus of the faith is the one by one “good guy” model of finding individuals who ‘believe.’ That is how the penny is used, but it is not how the penny is made nor is it how the penny maintains its value. Someone who denounces the orthodoxy of their faith and its community has lost his or her value as the “penny,” since they denounce the mint that made that currency and its continual value. Jesus never ceased to explain that he is addressing “Ye,” the body of the faithful, and their need to stay together, worship and believe in unity.

Thus to maintain one’s place in God’s egalitarian eyes, as an equal loved “child of God,” one must recognize that this gift was given to the “child” through the community of the faithful that God enfranchised, not through individual merit or “inheritance.” God has enfranchised the communion of the faithful and given his expectations to them as a WHOLE. Thus the Law, such as the Ten Commandments, are given to the people as a WHOLE, not individuals. Jesus preached to synagogue congregations and crowds of the thousands, thus the Beatitudes and his other preaching was given to the people as a WHOLE, to be followed and members of, not to individuals. This is why as I have pointed out in previous blog postings that Jesus never did a “tsk tsk” scolding of individual sin, such as sins of passion or greed. For example, when he recruited Matthew from being a sinful tax collector, he did not give him a lecture on how immoral he had been, he simply said, “Follow me.” Jesus continually emphasized that while individuals commit sin, communities are saved. Do you understand the nuance? When a saint talked about the saving of a soul, that saint did not mean salvation is an individual matter. That saint “saved souls” by getting the individual back into communion with the orthodoxies of the communal church! This vital understanding has been totally lost in this “me” generation that has turned that understanding on its head, in total error.

The second reason that God gives faith to communities of faithful and insists upon it is that faith cannot survive individually, for humans are too weak. We only need to look at the past several decades where the more people feel they can individually “save” themselves through either trust in Jesus or through “good deeds,” the more they fall away from orthodoxy and the communion of the faithful, and the more they are likely to be the among the surprised who are not saved. Jesus warned that many will say “Lord, Lord!” calling for recognition and he will not recognize them. While Jesus used social justice and charity as the examples of people who did not recognize him among the needy while they were alive, think about who he was talking to at the time of the Gospels: the faithful who belonged to the body of the communion of the faithful. In other words, the background assumption that Jesus is using is that these are people who are among the communion of the faithful, but fail in their charity. How much more will he not recognize those who not only failed in their charity but deified themselves by taking themselves out of the communion of the faithful that God himself had created?

So you must understand that when a soul is spoken of as being “saved,” that means that soul is given faith and belief and brought back into the communion of the faithful who have authentically received God’s word and enfranchisement, for lack of a better modern word. Jesus warned how difficult it is for the rich to be saved (the eye of the needle) for example. Remember, he was speaking of a rich man who was OF the body of the communion of the faithful! How many, rich or poor, will be saved if they are “giving the finger” to the communion of the faithful, separate from them? Can you say “infinitesimally small odds?”

Therefore, let me now use an example to help you to make this distinction. Let us look at the seeming contradiction between God prohibiting the practice of homosexuality in the Bible, and the assurance that all are equal before God and open to God’s love and salvatory power. Remember that the law is given to the COMMUNITY. Thus God prohibits to the COMMUNITY homosexuality. I will explain why in a bit, but first, let’s focus on this important distinction. Look at the first Commandment, which regards that there is only one God and only he should be worshipped. That is a COMMUNION OF THE FAITHFUL commandment. Thus the Jews, the Muslims, and the Christians AS a WHOLE are to believe in one God. Why is that distinct from individual sin of disbelief? Because, obviously, many humans fall into periods of disbelief, paganism, idolatry, even being raised that way as children. The community of the faithful “keeps” the first Commandment, and thus individuals who are at odds with this can “find their way back.” Likewise the second Commandment, keeping of the Sabbath, the day of God for worship, is a commandment of the COMMUNITY. It’s not like a billion people all conduct their own “service” whenever they feel like it. The communion of the faithful maintains the Mass, to use the Catholic example, even if a handful of people attend (or even if the priest must be alone). Thus is it always there for those who have fallen away to come back. The Commandments, each and every one of them, must be understand as COMMUNITY Commandments, not solely as individual “choices” and “behavior.”

Think about the ninth and tenth Commandments prohibiting coveting. Coveting is a mental stance where one craves what someone else has to the point of wishing ill or loss on the other person. One doesn’t even need to lift a finger in harm to break those Commandments. Again, while individuals perform sin it is a COMMUNITY Commandment, for God’s communion of believers must not create a society where coveting is encouraged, children are raised to covet, and coveting is even forced on others due to their suffering and being deprived of what others have. Both individuals and communities break the ninth and tenth Commandment, and that is a dire problem that, frankly, fills hell with some surprised people.

Thus one must look at homosexuality that way. God is prohibiting to the community homosexuality. God is not damning the individuals. Remember that the first and second Commandments are examples of how the communion of the faithful maintains obedience to God, so that the orthodoxy is always there for those who are not part of it at that time. God does not want humans to structure themselves as a homosexual society; it is as simple as that. This does not mean that God damns gays, or that their individuals acts are necessarily sinful or unforgivable, or that they must be closeted or they must be oppressed. If the Commandments and the Law were viewed that way, you would see, for example, the oppression of individuals while they are out of phase with the first and second Commandments. No one drags the faithful to synagogue, the mosque, or the church, and they are not damned and demonized if they do not go. They are, in the long run, individually accountable to God when they are personally judged. If the Commandments and God’s scriptural admonishments were targeted exclusively to individuals and not to the community, the scriptures would be filled with such examples. None observers would be beaten to a pulp with God nodding in approval, so would coveters, and so would gays. But there is absolutely none of that in the scriptures of the Torah, Bible and Qur’an. As I said, Jesus never so much as gave a “tsk, tsk” to individual sinners, but he brought them back into communion. More important, the purity of the communion was preserved, not succumbing, in what would be a falsehood, to “social pressures.”

God does not want, therefore, humans to organize themselves as a homosexual society. God does not want humans to organize themselves in a coveting society. God does not want humans to believe in gods, which are false, other than him, nor does God want people to work throughout the week without having a day to be in communion with him, and at rest with one’s family. God does not want an adulterous society, nor a thieving society. God does not want a society that dishonors parenthood. But that is the communion of believers, when one refers to society. It does not mean that individuals do not do the best they can with the cards they are dealt. Thus the non church goer is not damned, nor is the adulterer, the thief, the parent abuser, the coveter, nor, using our example, those who are gay or those who have conducted gay acts. God’s heaven would be empty except for the angels and the saints. No one is saved if they either 1) pull apart the communion of the faithful by appointing themselves arbiters of their own salvation or 2) “modify” the community of the faithful to suit the sin that they are engaged in. Again, by sin I mean the societal structure that God prohibits.

Gays who expect the communion of the faithful to endorse a homosexual society are out of their minds, since that is clearly not what God wants. But God wants homosexuals to come to church, to believe, to live individual lives the best that they can.

Let me be a little blunt, as I dislike doing, but I have to be, obviously. Some gays think that unless the church endorses their sexual positions that they are being slighted. Um, who else brags about their sexual positions in church, heterosexual or homosexual? I mean, do we show up to church in order to let people know how hot our partners are and where they put their genitals at what time?

If that were the case, then think about Abraham and Sarah, who conceived Isaac in their extreme old age. I’ve commented on this topic before as this was the time that God himself appeared as one of three angels to Abraham, as simple travelers. Abraham realized after a while who they were, including that God was with them and even argued and bargained with God to try to save Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction. It was during that visit that God announced that Sarah would conceive in her great old age, and bear a child, and Sarah laughed. Well, if church is the place to brag about sexual positions for equality, would we not have gotten some details about how Abraham “turned on” the elderly Sarah? I know, and I’m sorry, that the decent of you are horrified at what I just typed, as am I at my need to be so blunt and crude with moderns; you have no idea how sick at heart it has made me over the years. But unfortunately the depravity and error of this generation is so bad that, like Jesus, I have to be blunt in the vernacular of the times. If going to church, or speaking to God, or receiving grace, or witnessing a miracle related to genital body parts, believe you me, the Bible would have recorded, well, how Isaac came into being.

So it is disgusting and absurd that some gay people think that they go to church so that the church can say that where they put their genitals and with who is “great” and “wonderful,” any more than I want to know if the couple next to be do “muff dives” in their straight relationships. Shut the hell up and make it about God.

In fact, you all ought to be ashamed of bringing such thinking into the church, mosque or synagogue at all. Just show up as a believer and shut the hell up about what you do or what anyone else does.

So that is why there is no inconsistency with what God teaches, admonishes and expects. God instructs the communion of the faithful (representative of hopefully all of humanity, God willing) how humans as a whole, as a society, should function. Just as we should not have a society of coveters, we should not have a society of homosexuality. That does not mean that God exiles or damns anyone, coveters or gays, nor is the love of God, or Jesus, diminished at all. It simply means that society should not become comprised of those values in total.

If God wanted human society to be “gay” in total he would have had parthenogenesis or other biological techniques for reproduction via cloning or splitting to be the norm. God does not want society to be gay, to seek artificial human controlled means of reproduction. That does not mean that he did not “create” “gays,” as in, gays are like everyone else, born of God’s heritage and those called to be saved and join him in heaven after leading worthy lives. How can you not see the vast difference between being an open and serene person who happens to be gay and creating gay agenda gay nation? Gays bridle when some pastors try to use such comparisons as loving someone with a disability and so forth and I understand that. I don’t view being gay as a disability. It can be a cross to bear, just as, actually, being anyone in search of decent love is, straight or gay, a growing cross to bear in this insane and cruel society. I have to compare it to the sin of coveting for my analogy, though, only because we are discussing the scriptures. Just as God does not want a society of coveters (but apparently, that is what we have today) God does not want a society of gay agenda, what one could say being purposefully proselytizing of gayness for its own sake. People covet; it is human nature, and that is why God prohibits it, to curb its power. Likewise people have the desire for love, which is good, and some are straight and some are gay, which is normal, but society should not be structured to be “gay” anymore than it should be structured to be coveting. I don’t want to know what Abraham and Sarah did in bed. Why should you, and why should you force me, and our children, to know about it?

Thanks to former President Clinton many children learned what oral sex was years before they should have, especially since the media lost all self control and pushed oral sex discussion at all hours for our children to hear about. Likewise, children are not “naturally curious” to “know” what Fred and Ted are doing in bed. Shut up for the love of God.

I hope that you have found this helpful. The water’s over the dam and the horses have left the barn, and the barn has burned down, but all I can do is keep repeating myself in hope that you all will allow me to help pick up the pieces that remain.

Inappropriate child "sex education"

I just heard that there is some sort of law allowing Kindergarten level teachers to “give a clinically correct answer” to the theoretical question if a five or six year old child asks “Where do babies come from?” Argh! What incredible morons modern people have become! (And when I use the term moron I am not disrespecting the developmentally disabled because, um, that’s what I actually call people, developmentally disabled, being compassionate I have never called them morons in the first place. Thus I have always reserved the term moron for incredibly willful stupid people who ought to know better). Anyway, here is the problem with this “law.”

Modern humans have somehow forgotten so much of basic biology and infant/child development that I truly despair. Remember that not so long ago I had to blog to explain that one reason that babies cry when their diapers are being changed is that the cold air striking the wet part of their bodies actually hurts their sensitive skin. Anyone human knew that a mere forty years ago, including young brothers and sisters who were children themselves. Yet somehow we have raised a narcissistic generation or two that are too foolish to even understand the basics about infant and child biology and development. The “asking where babies comes from” is exactly the same problem. People worked out what the proper response was decades ago because they understood a child’s mind at that age if they ask that question.

When a child asks that question at that age they do NOT want a clinical and detailed answer! There were many studies showing that providing a child with too much detail in answer to that question is disturbing to them. By study I do not mean lab rats or highly paid liberals in universities who “test” in false conditions. We had this marvelous resource called pediatricians (who were the lowest paid of the doctors at that time so they were truly in the profession for love of children) and parents who shared anecdotal information that was considered to be filled with valuable knowledge. Here is what the previous generations of parents and pediatricians used to know.

When a child at that age asks “Where do babies come from?” they want a one sentence answer that gives the category of reference, not the details. Here is an example. If a five year old child asked their mom, “where is the milk” the mom answers “in the refrigerator.” The mom does not answer, “The milk is in the refrigerator. Did you know that milk comes from cows? Farmers squeeze the teats of cows every day so the milk squirts out and then we put it in a bottle and here it is in our refrigerator to drink!” But this is how narcissistic that modern liberal adults have become, that they think that children are miniature versions of adults that want to know the nuts and bolts of things. Children aren’t READY to hear the nuts and bolts! It scares them because they have no adult frame of reference for the implications of hearing the nuts and bolts, since those details are also still mysterious and strange and somewhat scary to a young child. Sheesh. The image of the “precocious” wise cracking smart mouth child who talks like a smart ass mini-adult is a total Hollywood invention, and one of the most destructive (of many) that they have shoveled into the minds and down the throats of this depraved and warped society. SHEESH!!
Only a parent knows at what level of understanding is their child, and how to best deliver the “one liner” response that is all the child expects. At that age the child wants to know only what they are actually asking, which is “where do they come from?” Good answers depending on the age: They come from mommy and daddy when they decide it is a good time to have another baby. Mommy and daddy know how to make a baby. The child at that age is asking “where” not “how.” The child is thus able to eliminate in their mind the other possible places that babies might come from. When they ask “where” they really mean “where.”

I remember reading many books and articles on this subject when I was young and that is what the common wisdom based on pediatricians and parents ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDING children instead of distorting them into something that they are not, and frightening them as a result. This is why the answer to that question at that age must come from the parent or caregiver. They have the frame of reference to understand the context to answer the “where,” such as, for example, if the child asking has brothers and sisters. The parent can then use them as an example and say, “Mommy and daddy decided they wanted a baby so they made your brother so and so and now he’s grown up to be such and such years old.” For the vast majority of children (who have not been raised as freak show society tarts and sex toys from infancy) THAT is the right level of answer. Studies show that kids will think about that and at some point will come back (often months or years later) with follow up questions. It is this freak show society that is forgetting normal and SAFE child development and instead distorting their perception of children so that you all think they are digging for “the details” when they are just in their minds trying to sort out whether babies come from hospitals, stores, God, the stork or whatever. When they ask “where” they MEAN where, only in the most general terms. Parents or the primary caregivers (grandparents for example if parents are “unavailable,” you know, like being drug addicts or in jail or something) must be the ones to answer, NOT teachers who cram agenda down the throats of even the youngest and most vulnerable in our society.

If a child asks a teacher the teacher should send the child home with a note that notifies the parent that the child has asked this question and offering suggestions (pediatrician and so forth) if the parent has trouble answering. PERIOD.

My young readers, you have no idea how much you have been screwed. Your “parents” and the institutions “schools, government, agencies” had destroyed much of the common sense kind and tender knowledge that generations of parents had available to them about how to nurture a child’s development in a healthy and truly “age appropriate” (to use one of their favorite words) way. I hope that what I write as it comes to my attention through the media (since no one yet actually speaks to me or asks me those questions) is useful to you. *Hugs for those who have had to grow up in this depraved and moronic society with its lack of common sense and values.*

Fr Pavone writes re Holy Spirit, Church doctrine

This is a lovely and insightful writing by Father Frank Pavone (Priests for Life), of whom I am a long time fan, that discusses the Catholic Church doctrine about marriage, sex and family planning within the context of the Holy Spirit as the bringer of life and love. So this is very helpful to those seeking to better understand the Church teachings AND those who try to better understand the nature of the Holy Spirit.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=667

More about love, sex, attraction, societal change

A follow up thought regarding my previous comment. What I’ve done is not focus in on one simplistic, though important, issue regarding “hot” or sexy clothes. What I’m doing is starting a series of instructions that will help you examine your own, and your partner’s, character. It is as though the past two generations have forgotten how to fall in love. It really is as simple as that.

Genuine love is falling in love with the entirety of the person’s character. This is different than the common misconception that one falls in love with the total inventory of their attributes. For example, a boy may fall in love with a girl because she is beautiful, kind and exciting. But I invite you to think about this quickie exercise. If a boy is able to rattle off the list of those attributes, I would think to myself that he’s not in love with her character. Her character defies description, because one is so focused on the integrated overall package that one cannot articulate the list of specific wonderful traits. If the boy is truly unable, if asked, to explain why he loves that girl so much, that is a very good sign because it means he is focused on the entire package, which is her character. Character is not an “excuse” word where you love someone who is not so hot in the attractive category, but you say in compensation that she has “nice character.” Character includes beauty! Character includes the “shallow” physical attributes too! Remember, the body is the temple of the soul. One’s character is shaped by one’s body, mind and spirit. Character is the overall integration of all those “components,” since they really are not separated in an authentic person.

So the boy or girl, or man or woman who is unable to describe what exactly it is about the person they love is actually not just a dweeb poor with words, or someone who “doesn’t know what he or she has got.” That person is actually, probably, more authentically in love with the person than if he or she could list their categories of wonderfulness. Real love, and the love that has been celebrated through the ages, has been character based. And remember, the attractiveness of the body or “chemistry” is part of character. Character is not just a catchall word for the “dry” attributes, like “is nice,” “is full of life,” “has a beautiful soul” (yuck, I hate that New Age canard). Character is shaped by one’s body and its attributes, so true love falls in love with even the most beautiful woman in the world based on her character. I know that’s hard to see but if you work on understanding this, you will recapture much of the depth of love that the previous generations knew and actually took for granted. This is what “loving eyes” means. Loving eyes does not mean that because you are “blinded” or “compensating” that you think your spouse or beau is good looking when he or she “is not.” Loving eyes means that because you deeply love the entire character of your spouse or beau that you would pass a lie detector test thinking that he or she is the best looking that there ever was.

I often look at couples and think how hot they are together, and how handsome the guy is and how beautiful the woman, even though if some modeling agency was looking over my shoulder they’d think I was insane. But I can see each person’s “character” and how they are magnified and glorified when the two are together and genuinely in love. That is having “loving eyes.”

See, modern society both overtly and covertly teaches that one should date and select mates according to “categories” of attribute. They rationalize it by saying things like “scientific studies show that monkeys or people do prefer more beautiful examples of the species because the human eye likes symmetry.” However, that is a totally fallacious type of study. Here is why. In the “old days” men and women did not even look at each other in those terms. Their brains literally were not scanning each other looking for optimal in any category, including beauty.

When one singles it out in a scientific setting by presenting, say, comparative pictures of beauty, one gets a specific brain response and preference. But humans actually are not programmed to think that way naturally. They have been programmed to think like that by themselves, due to societal influences, very recently. It is not a “hard wiring.” It is hard wiring that causes the brain to light up in scientific experiments, where pictures are shown and opinions elicited, but that is not how evolution actually programmed humans, and it is certainly not how humans saw each other until recently. I mean, people weren’t blind, sure, everyone knew who the “knockout” of the senior class was, as far as looks. But people did not pine for the knockout, or “settle” for someone else as second best. They were looking for the whole package, the character, that also gives them the feeling, genuinely so, that they have “the knockout.”

For example, men used to have a certain view of beauty related to motherhood. Men could look at a woman who might not be considered by a modeling agency to be the most beautiful woman in the world, but feel that she is because men had a sensual image that included the capacity for having and loving children. Body types that model agencies find unforgiving and unflattering were highly attractive, genuinely so, “back in the day” when men looked at women and envisioned a life together, rather than a stream of individual activities. Men used to look at women and think “forever,” and women did the same. When you think like that you tend to have more “open eyes” to the fullness of beauty or handsomeness. Recently people don’t think that way, and so they have a mental programming of even a potential marriage partner as being the person who is the “best” in a number of “categories” of sequential activities and purposes, including sex, that does not really comprehend the fullness of the person.

Here’s an example. Men used to find women who were fuller figured and rounder the highest of attraction, not for gross reasons, as the media would have you think today, but because men still thought of themselves as providers, and they found beauty in women who could “rely” on them to be softer and less afflicted by life. They would be horrified at the “work out” ethic of today and its effect on “beauty.” To them, a woman who did not have to be lean and hard from working in the fields was beautiful, and they made sure that they did the best they could to provide for them so they’d not have to work as drudges. So a man would genuinely find a rounder, heavier, softer woman than those who are considered the thin beauties of today to be much more attractive and the “knockout.” This is because he would view her appearance within her total character and the image of them together in a lifetime continuum.

Haven’t you ever wondered what it was like several generations ago? While there have always been exceptions, you would not go too far wrong with this image. Before many young people went on to college, but just finished high school, the entire class would often be pretty much matched up in marriage. Once men started going more to college, and women followed, it was very common to pair up and marry upon graduating. Now, in high school, often the first to marry were not the “hotties,” as you would call them today. But they were beautiful couples who thought they have found “the best” in each other. There was the chemistry of two characters that would bring them together. And there really was very little of that competitiveness, or hankering after the same guy or gal; each graduating class tended to sort itself into couples in a remarkable way. They were the foundation of “the greatest generation,” the ones who fought World War II, and who you’d see celebrate their fortieth, fiftieth and sixtieth wedding anniversaries. Today we have the exact opposite, where people do not see each other and recognize the character chemistry that brings along with it the beauty and the handsomeness. Instead people have check off lists and categories, issues and hidden agendas, and visions of a string of separate activities instead of a lifelong marriage, in every sense of the word, where there is overall character compatibility and yes, loving excitement too. It has been very sad for me to see people lose out on that, what I considered the height of human romantic and family culture and its highest epitome of authenticity. People think they are more authentic now, but they’ve never been more fractured, fragmented and fake.

I could write more on this, and probably will, but with all mindset changing (and genuine overturning of some very deep and destructive programming) I know it is best to put these thoughts out in kind of one unit at a time (the opposite of evaluating your prospective partner, ha).

Discernment exercise re "sexy" "hot" clothes

This is one of my series of blog postings that are mostly directed at young people (or, I guess, the young at heart, but I’m not leaving out those who are the weary salts of the earth of this society either). But mostly I need to help the young people develop skills of faith, reason and discernment that really are poorly understood and rarely taught at all anymore.

This is directed to young people where the subject is dressing in hot and sexy outfits in public. I know that readers probably assume (with an eye roll) that I’m either just addressing women with this post, that I’ll say something hypocritical, or that I’ll be a prude lecturer. You would be wrong on all accounts! This is for young men and women to read, and it provides an exercise in discernment.

Suppose you, young lady, wore a typical very “hot” and revealing outfit one day. Now pay attention, boyfriend of this young lady, since the exercise applies to you too. So you walk around the town with this outfit, and at the end of the day a researcher surprises you, telling you that she had been following you around and interviewing the people who saw you. Suppose that she provided you with statistics indicating that at least one man felt less admiration for the beauty of his wife or girlfriend as a result of seeing you In that outfit. As follow up is conducted, it is found indeed that secretly he has come to think less of his girlfriend or wife, and that he even has flashes of thinking of you, that stranger, in the hot outfit when he is being intimate with his girlfriend or wife. This is the quiz: How do you feel about that?

Too many young women do not dress “hot” because they are pleasing their boyfriend or husband, or because it really is the “required fashion.” Too many young women would have pleasure knowing they wrecked the satisfaction of another couple (perfect strangers, not rivals). And guys, what kind of gal are you dating (or married to) if she is one of the ones who finds glee at transposing her sexy image onto the brain of a previously happy couple, so that a stranger now looks at his girl or wife thinking she is not as hot, and feeling diminishment of her in his eyes?

I suggest that all young people give themselves this quiz. If you are a person who would have genuine glee knowing that your “hot dressing” “ruins it for someone else,” then you have quite a problem. If you are dating someone who feels that way, oh boy, watch out. Is that someone you would be proud of? (“Hey, my gal likes to dress hot, hoping that perfect strangers will ditch their girls, or at the very least, feel less ‘hots’ for them than they did before.” You’d really think that’s indicative of nice character?)

There’s nothing wrong with dating, or marrying, who you feel is the hottest around. In fact, I would hope that you do honestly feel that way, using loving eyes. However, once you have the hottest around, would you not wonder why she feels she has to dress in a way that harms what we call “the custody of the eyes” of another couple, people she doesn’t even know? I would feel quite icky if someone told me that because I dress provocatively that her man no longer thought she was hot, and worse, thought of me instead of her, even when with her.

Actually, I’ve been on the receiving end of that, where I’ve been hurt by other women tempting the guy I cared about with all out neon flashing "ho" exposing fashion in order to get him entranced. And so it goes.

But my point is that there is a secret agenda among the sexualizing of young children through inappropriate clothing, and then these confused values are carried forward into young adulthood. It is a terribly serious problem, and is part of the reason there is such rampant sexual abuse. I’m not dragging out the old canard that rapes and so forth happen because of “provocative” clothing. I am saying that young women, and men, are not asking themselves “Why” they REALLY feel they have to dress with extreme provocation rather than more modest chic. This exercise is a way to help my readers (and their parents) to have a kind of “truth or dare” session with themselves and find out that many of you dress provocatively for a sabotaging reason, and that is not healthy for you individually or for our rapidly coarsening and dangerous culture as a whole. I know what I’m talking about. I came of age during the “mini skirt” revolution and I wore them and they were fine. They were nothing at all like how many young girls and women dress today. The mini skirt was a social statement and as such was often combined with those old devices called stockings or tights (yes, I wore fishnets!) and they were not at all what the fashion is today, which is basically whore on two sticks. Back in the “mod” and “rocker” clothes time in my day (plus the hippie dippie times, ha) women were not trolling in order to rob other women of their men’s admiration. It really was not the mindset of the culture. I cannot tell you how awful this change has been, and how extremely uncool. As fashionable as we tried to be (think Janis Joplin, for example) women were not trying to dress to mess with men’s minds in a “whore on the troll” way as they are today. It is totally depressing and a bummer trip for me to see this so prevalent now.

I hope this gives you something to think about and I’d be thrilled if it gets even a few people to move back to fashionable but more modest chic. And guys… remember, listen to “mom” here, are you really doing good if you hang with a lady who wants to home wreck the eyes of people she doesn’t even know, and would find that a source of satisfaction if she knew? Not cool for you, dude, trust me on this.

A quick answer about a sex health question

People are both legitimately interested in and giggling about a recent health story regarding potential health benefits of masturbation. Studies indicate that prostate cancer risk may be reduced if one masturbates.

I need to address this question, for both the legitimately concerned and the gigglers, as part of proper spiritual formation, since Catholic teaching prohibits masturbation.

The Bible prohibits it in the form of forbidding of the spilling of seed. So the Bible is not commenting about sexual postures or actions, but it is the wasting of seed that is the issue, by engaging in a sex act that is closed to life. Remember that God is instructing people to not engage in sex acts that result in a closure to life, and are separate from the human component of a committed couple. This is why God prohibits the "spilling of seed," and not because wanking is a "bad" position or act per se. If so he would have also stated that women should not masturbate.

As I've repeatedly taught, you need to understand God's context. God's context is always biased in favor of life, and always prohibiting actions that will take the human family, both as a species and as individuals, to spiritual and literal dead ends.

When the Bible was written God was speaking to people who, like animals, had sex that was not separated from the procreation of children AND had society that enforced that anyone who wanted to be married, which was virtually everyone, they would be matched and married. (This is one reason there was polygamy, so that no woman would lack a husband and provider even if war or disease had depleted the male population). Therefore, there was no such thing as "pleasurable" or "recreational" sex. You did not have sex until you were married, and then you were encouraged to have a lot of sex and bear many children. This is the way that is most positive for life, and for the continuation of the human species as a whole, and also the family as the center of life and spirituality.

"Spilling of seed" would have been viewed as a man who shirked being married. It's not the masturbation per se that is the problem (like I said, God would have said so if it were, and made clear that it would apply to women too). Notice that he does not. God, by prohibiting male masturbation was prohibiting gratification by a man outside of his marital family context.

Nowadays we are in a society that has shattered families, and mocked those who are without families, and without love. Obviously the Catholic Church is correct to continue to uphold God's word in all matters. Likewise, though, one can have charity in understanding that we no longer live in the Biblical society where men and women were virtually guaranteed a marriage, where loneliness and lack of sex would not be an issue. So anyone who is prideful on the subject of masturbation nowadays is sneering up the wrong tree, and show their lack of understanding of what God taught, which was plain as dirt obvious to his chosen people. God never prohibited female masturbation, and he specifically addressed the issue of the spilling of seed to men and their duties. In fact, because human women do not have yearly or only a few times of years estrous cycles, like the animals, masturbation for women, and for men, would not be a problem if this is done in the actual act of married coupling in order to achieve the fullness of the act. In other words, the seed is not "spilled," but it is directed properly in the spousal relationship. Men are not to develop a lifestyle where that is considered the norm, either alone or outside of the marital relationship. God is micromanaging the "yes" or the "no" to the married open to life relationship, not micromanaging where the hands are placed and what they are doing, so long as it is heterosexual sex in a married couple open to life family plan.

So to wrap up, the Catholic Church is correct to continue to heed all of God's instructions, which are eternal and not "updated" as society mores change. But likewise the faithful must use some individual consciousness, charity, and common sense about what God intends in his direction. The Catholic Church is not mind control; it is quality control. It maintains the instructions of God, but also has a mechanism for achieving a fuller understanding. The Catholic Church keeps its priorities correct, which is the Ten Commandments and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It does not want people to point and shout "wanker" to each other, when they don't even understand the pro-life and societal grounding of the culture of the Old Testament in the first place. I mean, use your brains please. God did not take Moses aside and say, "Oh, by the way, centuries from now humans will be so sinful that they will destroy the sanctity of life, the structure and heart of the family, and there will be lonely unmarried people, so write an appendix 'To be opened in the 1900's: it's OK to wank off if you are now trapped in a society where you cannot get a spouse.'" Sheesh.

I hope this helps.