site is under construction! It´s a google translation. This means if
something seems very strange, it may be a wrong translation. So ask the
author and webmaster. See Kontakt.
Preuschoff - German Diploma theologian - religious teacher retired
The Third Way!
One way is that of religions: Here is everything what has to do with sexuality and does not take place in a marriage prohibited. Even not allowed is to talk to about it, especially not with children.
The other way is the one which many schools in Germany (and sometimes in Austria also) go today: not only to talk about everything that has to do with sexuality, but direct guidance, how even very young people can have sexual games up to sex without fear of sexual diseases and pregnancies - up to promiscuity. Often this way even goes towards pornography.
What is missing is the middle way,
Third Way! To this route, which combines the advantages of both paths
to each other and their disadvantages are avoided: There is the
opportunity to talk about everything, to seek the high love and until it
happens to have to fun with innocent nakedness up to harmonious skin
contact and at the same time learning good people skills. It is always
said, this way wouldn´t be possible, but he goes! But the condition is
that young people know about it. He is also the one of the
historical Jesus, this means the real Jesus, which he most likely
For this purpose, an experience of educational practice of the author:
A (female) student's mother had once asked him many years ago at a Parent-Teacher-Day, what was the purpose of his religious education. He then, only once rather flippant therefore said: "The girls are all but somehow schizophrenic." She: "???" He: "Because of the harmless and fun, which could help them in a usable knowledge of human nature, namely before `naked at the beach' they are terrified. But what is problematic, namely sex with too often doubtful partners, which sometimes even will bring them a lifetime trauma, they want and make it". "And," said the mother," what do you do now?" He: "That the girls make the respective other." The mother: "If you will manage this, then you´ll be good!"
If this was not a challenge for a very special educational
commitment! And it was a mother who had a real authentic sorrow about
her daughter. The problem is the transfer into practice: Because such an
idea has only a chance if it gives pleasure to all who are connected.
But there is a pseudomoral witchhuntingmentality from which a
combination of morality and pleasure cannot be imaginable. Morality and
pleasure never will be possible! There a very evil devilry will always
be suspected. Look into the website how the author will solve the task!
To The Happiness Of The High Love
This booklet is intended for young people without "experiences" and for parents and grandparents and other educators and even for curious contemporaries.
The thesis of this issue is that especially the young man is a highly moral being and wants to do everything right, even and especially in the sexual.
But he learns in our more or less decadent civilizations, the moral potential inherent by nature in him, to invest in shame, so in a hypocrisy place in a truly meaningful morality.
And so young people generally act then sometime anything but useful and of high moral standing.
Just ask once young people in puberty (and earlier): From my experience as a teacher as girls have an almost panic fear that someone might see her nipples and even before the complete nudity. But they seem to have no problems to plan "love" and when the opportunity then "make" also with any boy or man - and if one is "nothing", then just the next.
The Chinese wisdom teacher Confucius said that there are three ways to be smart. The first is by reflection, which is the most elegant, the second is through imitation is, this is the easiest, and the third by experience, which is the bitterest.
In this issue, you now want that young people do by thinking beforehand what makes sense and what is useless for them in terms of a high love and a good partnership and do Straightforward and make the problematical.
It is also quite an intelligent abstinence before marriage, which simultaneously brings not only a good self-esteem, but also a useful human knowledge. Such an abstinence belongs now once and for great success of relationships.
The concept of this issue is inspired by the principle of good advertising, which should also be the principle of good pedagogy: "Never negative, only positive" parents should no longer educate their daughters against the wicked man's world (which always only wants to have sex), but better to bring their daughters concretely how beautiful can be the harmony between man and woman. When searching for a partner, the daughters are especially geared to the relationship with her father. What they have just experienced in beautiful innocence with him, the same they will want to experience once with a partner!
Here is the fictional conversation. Author: "Then you had so even before your marriage no sex with a man other than your husband?" Mother: "Yes, I had, unfortunately." Author: "And were you even ever been to a nudist place?" Mother: "no. "Author:" How do you tell your daughter so then such rubbish as if there would be a relationship "?
Break up this nonsense, thus a high sexual morality among young people is fun and gives them self-confidence, and therefore they may like to be held, is the concern of the author.
In this Issue, the author not only everything to the test, what a young person experiences in his education so that he is the way he is. In particular, the HEFT offers a concept of how it would all slightly different.
Anyway, the author tries to omit
nothing - except when it comes to religion. The role of religion is
studied in an even thinner notebook.
Instead of a preface A LETTER
Dear girl, dear boy, dear parents, dear curious!
When I think about the statements of young girl of my acquaintance, that her first love was a pure disaster - despite the fact that the but actually would want to be beautiful, then going on here but something wrong. It is sometimes been so terrible, I was told several times that she had run away her boyfriend. However, with some also the friend had run away after he got what he wanted. It was obvious it was only gone about having sex with a virgin.
My impression is that just something goes wrong in regard to the first love of girls is confirmed by surveys: For 24% of all women, the loss of virginity to the wrong partner was annoying, to put it mildly. When asked by other women, I learned also that really happy to start on its earlier decision, with love, was hardly one of them. So there is unreported. But most say anything about it so as not to embarrass. They were also of the opinion that a bad experience at the beginning would be now again, as needed by simply woman.
Although the 24% is a very high number with a very high number of unreported now and although such disappointments in youth, women often pursue life-long and largely shape their image of men, no one really cares objectively to the problem of how women could make it any better. A student once lamented that no one sees responsible for this problem. "Man" leaves here still everything to chance. Or is it not desirable that young girls from the outset have a better perspective and decide meaningful? This indifference also relates to the religions. They proclaim possibly disabled moralinsaure "recipes" and not work when you need it. It all looks then as if for the religions is important, "behind" the forgiveness of God to convey.
So I felt addressed and looked for the causes and especially for a meaningful concept that is running in a different way. I could not imagine that nature has people so wrong and created so blind that, especially in matters of love must meet only once wrong decisions girl just me. These false decisions must simply be that we somehow violent act against our nature, so that we all collectively make something wrong. Since you have something better to do!
Unfortunately, my time had not been sufficient as a vocational school religion teacher, so it goes then on!
In the TV movie Uwe Tellkamp novel "The Tower", a scene is shown in which the young protagonist that is because of his dissident behavior in a penal company, visit a classmate gets that will show him with their visit their sympathy, and indeed the is perhaps even love with him. He likes it simply because of its bold appearance, and they would like to encourage him in it. On a walk, the two come closer now - and finally it comes out in the fresh nature of spontaneous sexual intercourse, as it looks for both of the first one. Both are then dismayed - happened over! And obviously they do not come together well, everyone is certainly alone again or now.
This incident is certainly not far-fetched, unfortunately, is something in this direction too often reality - you just need to listen more closely once! A student once told me about her "first experience" - she had even specifically requested - that it was just awful and that she ran away after her boyfriend and never wanted anything to do with him again. Another just wanted away from home and looking for a friend to whom she could draw. Again, the sex was so disappointing that they finally have always found excuses why it just did not fit her, sometimes it was their "days", sometimes their headaches, sometimes their work stress. A student found my website on the internet, because they once after something useful about "first sex" was looking for. For two of her friends had sex, and for which it was so terrible that she ran away to the boy, and in the other it was probably gone the boy all about the adventure to deflower a girl, he ran away after the girl. About the sort she had never really heard anything Sachliches, not even in their sex education.
I could tell here are other such stories I've noticed and I go all very close, especially since there are always these were very nice and pretty and very intelligent girl - as far as I could tell.
Of course I did - if this was possible - asked how they came to such actions, why could they be so blind and denkblockiert before. And I got to hear all sorts of reasons that fit somehow no common denominator. One was so much in love that she said that it was the great and eternal love, the other was not in love and wanted to get away from home just simple. One wanted to abide by the so-called proof of love her boyfriend, another her virginity simply give way. And again, another wanted to be free and self-determined, another simply did not feel as full-fledged young woman because all her companions had their first intercourse allegedly already behind and not the only one yet. Yet another had started it, so as not to be considered as bound bigot. Also I heard as a reason that the "first time" actually was a disaster over and that it would therefore be better to start "start" with a country other than their own man, so that life with him then unloaded from such a terrible experience is. A variant of this was that when a girl the parents' marriage was just crappy, and would in his opinion it because their parents had not tried it before with each other (the mother had always maintained that there was nothing). When it was happening with the girl, to put it another go as the mother, and that was not running well, it was found that the mother had lied, they did have a disappointing intimate relationship with another man before marriage - so therefore their opposed to the body. The reason for this sex was actually about the same as that of so many other girls: to have the beginning at least once with a man bred Sex - before a life of boredom. I can only say: The poor man later with a setting! I would be a pity to me, at least for a woman with such an attitude. More understandable, I think at least, here was the reason a now old lady who had experienced the war as a young girl: She just wanted to have the first sex with a man of her choice before they would raped by a Russian thing quite time could happen.
For all women who told me about her first experience, loyalty was actually a great value. Your first experience with another man she justified then also so that they would finally know in advance who the right thing, they could be true. That, however, such a tasting experience already raises doubts as to their own ability to be faithful, they were not aware of. Also slipping on bitch is so fluent. How can such a woman then expect loyalty and sincerity of a man at all? Maybe the women falls with the faithful also only in order to put a man under moral pressure? Happy or even radiantly happy was certainly none of the women who told me about their experiences.
Anyway, I was not able to find reasons to convince my students that they are better kept to the rules of premarital abstinence, so they came to beautiful love that also represents our Christian religion, or should represent at least.
So I was looking for a different approach. Eventually came to me now memories - at what was then the little girl wanted (see p. 53).
Yes, and there was also the opportunity to talk to a girl or even with a young woman who did so sorry for what had happened and what they had quite explicitly wanted nor themselves. And it was also obviously willing to talk to me about it.
I see a course that quite a huge urge to have sex is possible against one or woman after all can not do anything. In my questions therefore was not even a matter of principle, all "no" to say about sexuality, but whether because the urge is related to the intrusion. Whether that was it her aim to experience the intrusion? Had there been no alternative for them? The young woman's answer was that in view of the penetration actually absolutely no urge was there (and when I talked to other women about it, I heard the same thing), clearly a harmonious naked extensive skin contact would have done even more and fully , But that had never told her someone. Thus, it did not even come up with the idea to talk with then-boyfriend about it, although it was possible but that they would much rather wanted basically.
Naturally we have chatted more, I came mainly to the enjoyment of their body while then click the nudity and the fun of the nudity as on a beautiful beach or anywhere else in nature. No, not only with the skin contact her no one would have said, and just the nudity had been always held up just as bad and as something impossible and against privacy. Nudity serve but only the Aufgeilerei of tensioners or Glotzern and is a danger to their morality that would have taught her so her mother. Oh how horrible and sinful this is! They had been made downright crazy, as if there were such an automatism that the men turn into unpredictable Sexmonster if they only see her tits and pussy. Then there was none that would have made even true that pussy as much or as little to do with sex was like the mouth with the smooch. And that the shame of all means uptight and has nothing to do with genuine morality. It would have been easy stupid, this moral nonsense to believe so much that they would eventually even internalized it as perverse and disgusting. Therefore, also came a veritable horror about to nudity - and so they would ängstlichst attention in the wrong direction.
My commentary was that the paradise clothes very often but simply convenient, practical and logical would be and that there but nothing happens when you only make sense hires. For both Viewed Become than the reputation of another do but hurt no one.
Sorrowfully they agreed. But here obviously had formed in her head a hypocrisy with a fake, a physical enemy morale and fixed model. Of course, such a hypocrisy exists finally else in our minds. Is this the reason for a lack of naturalness in dealing with sexuality, so for perceived as a nuisance awkwardness of that hope then consciously-subconsciously to overcome the young ladies with intercourse?
If I, however, think of a woman, an absolutely respectable family mother telling me - to my question - had their joy of paradise clothes on a beautiful beach with "which has something to do with the human and the natural" reasons, then that would mean that yes, that all those who always have their problems with the nudity, have simply not fun at human and the natural.
So wrong, a physical enemy-morale model? When he openeth not here an approach to change anything! So how about a overcome the hypocrisy of opposed to the body?
It now is not about that we should constantly walking around in Paradise clothes, we run yes even now not constantly in bikini and swimwear around. But once you're wondering just girls on this topic. You will wonder how obviously wrong with the awkwardness of. Of objectivity and natural relationship to the body is certainly no trace, as the paradise for clothes is probably most girls actually only "disgusting and perverse and even a mach'-The-I-never" - sound does not sound whose setting anyway. In contrast, the really problematic, namely the non-binding sex as something normal and natural is seen that even now may well be, indeed must be "on trial" (as you call today or else). Finally, the adults also assist yes this view, either expressly or by advocating this because they find no conclusive arguments against it. And so have the same girls who are so vehemently opposed to the paradise clothes, then obviously no problem with those really "problematic things" to begin the often really hurt, both physically and mentally.
It is certainly understandable and quite reasonable when young people at some point want to explore sexuality with a partner and try and do something, after all, no one wants to be many years or even "forever" with this partner. But the question arises as to whether this is due to the sexual intercourse calculated. Because of this traffic is perhaps not as good as "tasting measure". The "penetration" may well be a more aggressive and offensive act against the woman or the girl and a border crossing that is not irreversible and then always hangs something unpleasant. And such a delicate and ambiguous (ie doppelwertige) thing is actually supposed only take place if the relationship is really clear, ie when emerging a balanced mutual give and take.
Of course, not enough positive attitudes towards paradise clothing, as more part of it! Just leave out something that does not work.
In the search for other contexts I still came across something: the young ladies with whom I spoke, though always thought all to know about the sexuality, but they knew just not that what is most important to them than girls when it the sexuality goes: you simply had no idea of meaning, function, and above all of the spiritual dimension of orgasm.
The problem here, however, that we have lost our ability civilizations, especially to girls who do not have experience, clearly talking about what is going on. But just who should know it yet, here would indeed - if ever - sampling more appropriate! For it so happens that orgasm with a partner and work with the other not - and very often even lifelong. Two-thirds of all women in Germany never have an orgasm. In contrast, a woman needs the penetration really not to try, because in principle but every penis fits in the vagina, no matter how long and how thick "it" is. Above all, the orgasm and the particular and the uniqueness of human sexuality and the human condition in general, it would be all right, nothing to miss.
Criticism: "That's impossible: It's long been proven that young girls can still experience no such orgasm, women can use it only after a certain age experience - around mid-twenties."
Well then let's look again at how it comes to this view, like that So usually the first sex among girls and women is - and why not experience orgasm.
Previously this was still the case that women do not often know what it was when they got married. The ideal was but that girls should go clueless as possible in the marriage. Because even the knowledge of the sexual intercourse was considered immoral because it particularly girls allegedly seduced even try out what they know because. And now today know very young girls what it rotates and this warning by earlier view is confirmed because the girls want to actually try it now. This Warner overlooked, however, that on the one hand sooner started many girls without such knowledge with sex. And on the other hand, ought also to be understood that, of course, part of the knowledge to get a knowledge on how to deal with it. We all know since our childhood, which is fire, and yet we do not set fire to any houses. After all, we have yet noticed the right use of the fire since our childhood.
Anyway flash through the girls, at least when it comes to the sex going on, still the old thoughts:
-Will that do now hurt?
- Is this really the right thing? We really do not know really!
- Is this really right, what do I do now?
- Oh God, how the pants and smells and wobbles, disgusting, so I have my never imagined!
- (Or even :) Such a perfume boy, also disgusting!
- With such a long life - never! Since I will prefer a lesbian!
- What if it was all a lie, why am I doing this now?
- This should therefore be that of which all talk?
- Actually I've dreamed of the great love, which is now not determined. What if that is now gone forever? Anyway, the love of the One's now well over?
- What if the reasonable men, and a sensible man will I pay for life, but on the virginity? Either I get a not so, or I myself must now begin with the lies?
From the basic requirement for orgasm, namely dropping, is certainly no trace! What many here, even in very many, if not happen in most cases, but is a rape with his own consent, that a rape has also willed himself and the one behind is not even allowed to complain. Therefore, regardless of whether the marriage sooner or at today's entry into the sex: liberation from all inhibitions through sexual intercourse? If that is not a single cramp! And that should go well with a view to orgasm? Never! No wonder, does not give rise to a reasonable Orgasm: Pinching - cramped - and (unfortunately too often life-long) screwed up! Psychologists are talking about a trauma that is never or very difficult to work up again. It does also the right one come to write with a traumatized woman, and I will redeem them from their trauma.
Therefore that's now very often so on: The next partner the same thoughts: Whether this is now the right thing? Whether he keeps me if I'm not just an adventure for him? Or: Which I'm really terrible no matter who would much rather make love with another, but he did not get it or not, I am for him only the fool that he believes his Lügerei and join in his Verarscherei. .. In reality, the despised me yet. Drop me at the - never, never! Or: What the heck, earlier, when I was a girl, I had no desire to have sex, but where I happen to have begun ich's need precisely. So I do make the best of. For me, this is therefore only an adventure, I am also interested in anyway no real relationship, because the men are anyway all just puke when woman's looking just a bit more detail ...
In all cultures have always somehow it's the same song: Where is there already a reasonable preparation for the girls to orgasm?
So I have heard of none! A meaningful preparation there is nowhere, either in the past with us, not with us today, and neither the Muslims with their Verschleierei of girls and women, where the girls are then also bartered down from parents to the highest bidder. A reasonable preparation is obviously also provided anywhere.
Of course, at some point, freeing many women and make the most of their situation, they might find the right partner - so they also experience orgasm. I remember: Those who can not do it with orgasm, do here in Germany, after all, two-thirds of all women. That is to say that the women who experienced an orgasm at least once in their lives, make up only a third. Among those who have an orgasm at the beginning of their love relationships, it will probably be pretty much 100%. So this is what, in practice, the reality of the desire for racy sex, so some girls want to start their love life with then. The frustration is programmed.
It is hard to believe that it will be better than elsewhere in Germany, on the contrary!
But how can that be different with sex, how can the sex from the outset to be a fulfilling orgasm?
The nature it is but it has now even set up so that the joy is coupled to the intercourse with the possibility of fertility, so that same sex even a child can be witnessed with joy. That's just the order of nature. So we should finally stop trying to be smarter than nature with the use of pill and condom, but installing the order of nature back into our lives. It has never yet brought something when people have massively violate nature - and it will also bring anything here until we cast off forever only against nature, at least not in the long run! So stop all of today so massive decoupling of joy of sex and fertility!
It is like that: The shared nature of the place is here as before marriage. Of course, this one is hoping for a marriage that deserves the name "marriage", which was so threaded ever by all the rules of art. It must also agree the conditions for a successful orgasm straight!
Of course, this does not mean that sexual intercourse should be after pregnancy only in conjunction with the desire, because even without any precaution against pregnancy happens fertilization average only one out of thirty transports. Nature wants so know that we (with a partner) have far more traffic than is necessary for reproduction. But does the possibility of fertility also specify that the nature of sexual pleasure a strong community wants in this fun not only have "consequences" but in the "Follow" also are quite desirable (if not every time!). And in which the woman can drop really, because she knows that she is the man safe and secure.
And how will that go with orgasm else?
First of all: What ever is the orgasm? Young people usually have no real idea even when there is so much talk about it and then put the desire in all of our bones. Especially girls without experience should make even aware if it really goes to them in their dreams to sexual intercourse, but not contrary to satisfying orgasm, whatever they may they mean.
For this purpose, once the details here: The orgasm has only removed something to do with the moans and screams or Gezucke that we can see something in porn movies on the Internet, everything looks much more worse after more or less acting. He is certainly far more than a nice feeling in the genital area: Especially for the woman he is something completely different, it is a shock to their entire person from their deepest soul out, he is like the force of nature an earthquake!
If even a comparison is possible, and to convey at least a remote idea, then perhaps comes as sneezing into question. Also sneezing is something completely different, so the straight is not only an interesting feeling, but also has something. Se of the Nature of an earthquake And something has sneezing with orgasm together: One can indeed sometimes by "conscious tickling" or even a gentle touch in or on the nose or anywhere else cause the body, but this is somehow unsatisfactory, the best is but if this "earthquake" somehow comes naturally, in any case, with as few taps. Anyway, can be reached by spasm or even violence have nothing. The special feature of orgasm over the sneezing is now that he is prepared to speak. Through an exhilarating feeling to another human being, which is usually the woman to a man
The desire or urge to orgasm from his deepest soul then gets out to speak with us, it seems obvious to belong to the essence of man. And we are here to speak of nature delivered, regardless of whether we have already experienced this orgasm, so know him, or whether we have not seen him and puts only a profound idea in us. We find him easy!
When the man is with orgasm now relatively easy, it's enough if the semen is expelled, the woman is all much more complicated. The deepest reason that women turn to another partner, is in most cases the expectation that they will get somewhere else rather what they miss from its partner. So you want to break out of a psycho-physical boredom. Once upon a time, women found from this boredom, because she had enough to do with kitchen and children and with the Church, they comforted on life after death, if only they behaved their (domestic) met wifely duties. But today, the women let up here - today it is just much more likely to hunt after orgasm, even if they involve breaking the purely externally most consistent relationships.
The orgasm is a high-tech product of human evolution. In order to experience it or try to, there are certain rules.
The advantage is that the nature has given us the chance of a central nervous system induced orgasm here, so that is an orgasm that comes without intercourse and even without any explicit manipulation of the female reproductive organs existence - it rich gentle touch in loving embrace what so for just cuddling heard. However, during orgasm play specific parts of the body, in this case just the genitals, have more of a role. But here, it's kind of similar to when sneezing, with spasm or even violence is nothing to achieve. The real orgasm makes just tired, neither of them still need "more". Yes, that is so special, we can even try innocently without problems, so we do not even need this "intrusion" to experience orgasm!
However: the orgasm is now even call it a high-tech product of human evolution (or creation order, depending on your taste), and to experience it, you have to follow the proper rules of the game. The most important thing is just a condition in women are looseness and freedom from fear and a feeling of security. The woman must be able to drop in a mate so right. Because only then they can be themselves so much that really works with the orgasm.
Therefore you can find out something about the souls - there is such a thing as a soul relationship with your partner? You mentally fit to each other? The orgasm is even so that does not happen here without intercourse, which also does not happen with certainty with sexual intercourse. That's the way it is, and you should also accept. The reason for this is that all the nerve cells that have to do with the sexual feelings of women, are located on the external parts of the female genitalia and that inside the vagina are virtually no nerve cells. If this were not so, it would be unbearable for some women to use tampons, they would always be perceived as annoying foreign body, but that they are not just
(Maybe this tip:.. The problem is the fear In an intense emotional relationship is now always in the room that it to sex, so penetration, comes the woman just in no case will the associated fears can then naturally block the orgasm So it seems to make sense, at least initially, to meet in full dress, even if female, or both, and have no other problems with the paradise dress for yourself you can afterwards even talk about it with each other -.. and then see.)
Even if "taste", but then makes sense: "The legs together and God before his eyes!" (A female student told on my classes out this tip that you would have given her mother: "Just as now, she has also said it ! ")
But the boys and men want to but do not want to but the intrusion, but who want sex!
There may be some who want the so - and then from that to which the girls first very often rather difficult, because they are more active in these things. But for the vast majority of other's true in any case not so, at least not in young women, even the boys want at least a first and a beautiful partnership happy love - and they had no objection to a heavenly skin contact. Finally, the skin is the largest organ of the human yes. But they are in a quandary stupid. If they do not want sex, then tell each other but the girls that they were gay or impotent, they mean at least ...
And it's not even the dream of every boy trigger a so to speak, central nervous orgasm with a girl he loves only by his charisma, in any case, if he knows about this opportunity? It is precisely that gives him a huge self-confidence and above all feel real love with the girl opposite him. Because as soon a girl has such deep feelings for no other. And who really likes a girl who wants to do it by no means hurt and fully understands when it wants to live a partnership of the great love in his life and if it is to no traffic, so as not to anything else yet to take the risk, as bitch to stand? Above all, there is of course good, if a girl is otherwise open and unclamped, as that is excited here - and openly says that it is the boy's attitude well.
Nudity and humans (s) knowledgeable.
Yes, what we really hide our swimwear and bikinis? The specific body parts can not really be there, because we know it (at least Images ago) and half of humanity has the same anyway. It's also not about the body parts that have in fact only a representative function. It's about Mental: So we hide our insecurities, our fears, our guilt, our (unassimilated) trauma, but also our falsehood, our hypocrisy, our back-stabbing, our malice.
In addition, there is a great risk if we are not used to the nudity that just in a certain infatuation these body parts are so exciting and so much push to the fore, that the soul totally overgrown and is pushed into the background. So let's start with the "love" to, meant seriously with a. But at some point this is the superficiality over, because even the most beautiful body is boring - and you realize that it does not work with the soul and the hangover is there. Sometimes it is even the trick of women or girls, men to lure the Exciting Make their body parts and build loyalty - or use them only as a sperm donor, because they just want to have a child. (But this is something other than express openly with the self-image of nudity from the outset, what you look like.)
There is therefore a great people (s) knowledgeable effect when young people first of all have the ideal of paradise in mind: Just a woman or a girl unconsciously-automatically sorted by completely different point of view than without the ideal of paradise: Who else has this understanding of the experience of paradise, so for abstinence before marriage on the one hand and for a heavenly openness on the other side? And who does not have this ideal, and whoever is not to get into it, with whom you can not even talk about it, the girl should any reasonable run in any event as soon as possible, for which it is anything anyway!
If something is supposed to work in a particular situation, then it must also be prepared accordingly.
On the Internet, there is a site in which a doctor is a corresponding instruction for girls to experience orgasm, or at least to prepare for the experience of orgasm (!): Girls should be brought only once by nice warm showers in an appropriate mood and then masturbation learn by fumbling on their genitals in order to overcome the hostility body. But is such a method which is obviously otherwise recommended nowadays girls, not only unattractive and primitive, but it's also completely misses the point! The default setting of people who recommend such a thing, is it: The men are all idiots anyway, they can women understand and they do not inspire properly, let alone get through the influence of their person to orgasm not easy. So we do therefore prefer the most personal thing in the world to something purely mechanical, impersonal, independent of any concrete man, and of course of each concrete loving relationship. But that is not typical level prostitution? With a preparation for the great love that has certainly nothing to do. Where but here too: How it resounds in the forest pure even schallt's out: When girls So go to this level and thus make a kind of prostitutes, as they supposed to find those boys and men who reason with avoid them?
And how will that work in practice?
Concerns us, however: Homosexuality is accepted in our free and democratic societies, who is on the other hand, is condemned as old-unresolved-intolerant, porn movies and prostitution are allowed, only the heavenly clothing that is frowned upon, which is as immoral, perverse and even portrayed youth-endangering. If one argues for, then ring the same alarm bells, since all the rain (?) About it on, before that young people need to be protected and preserved, which is prohibited because the police are called equal! This is but the most natural and most human in the world, from the no one is harmed by nobody is deceived. What are we but a crazy and sick society!
So why not here cool and clear and unclamped be - as the children?
Of course, even in children, there are already those who are totally jammed and for the paradise clothing is an abomination. But there are others who have their greatest pleasure. That's all somehow dependent education. I am thinking here of a four year old girl, said during a hike with the family and friends of the family passed the awkwardness and the Hös'chen made wet. As a punishment, it had now run without Hös'chen on - and even before all the other Ange plated. The child is still damaged für's whole life! In contrast, another girl (9 years), actually more introverted and shy acts: It knew the paradise clothes of the family here, even and especially on the ocean beach, and then met in this "costume" on camping one of the friends of the family ever unobserved by others, ie the two knew each other even before that "without". And here there is a change of perspective, and cunning-gleaming sides of the girl, as if to say: Look, I do not look beautiful? And I have something that you did not though, and I can get babies so that you can not though! Sure, it had to of course in family or be otherwise where sensible talk (this here rather to the nuts) - and also the approach of Rigolettogeschichte (rather from the Father, s from p. 53).
Why should this Pride in one's own body and the impartiality not remain so when the girls get older - if they have only really taken the right approach to this?
Attention: Sexuality is addictive!
During sexual intercourse, there are two possibilities: If he maybe not just like a girl the same, so pushing something in him, in many cases at some point, but more on that. For there is also something of an addiction: Just once you have begun abstinence can be like a torture, sexuality urges just simply by repetition. Now what if woman wants nothing more to do with your partner, because they slowly realizes that he's an idiot? And if she lets him run and quickly gets involved more or less with another, because it pushes it just after sex, it shall be considered as bitch or even as a whore? How long it should wait with sex in the next three weeks or three months?
But there is also the other case, that sex did not like it and she has had enough of it. Eventually, however, they generally want then again have a friend and above all a real partner. Also, it's the way that you, just want something with which one has only once had a bad experience repeat someday under better sign.
So she starts but then again so on.
If they are lucky, you will now find the right thing, but what if the can not find - especially since the engine is so aroused now? There are of course just here a sense of honor and decency - at least initially. Therefore, would particularly female not that people are talking about their bed stories.
So why not at an escort service aboard (a modern term for prostitution)? First, it's often very anonymous because the men come from somewhere else and just now are in transit and secondly's even an often pretty good pocket money to boot. Yes, why not take something like that, why only give away for free? Of course - sometime already comes the hangover, if one considers where you landed ...
How practical and beneficial it would be if she had, not made this lousy experiences with one that it was not worth only! How nice it would have been if either "nothing" happened or if it had been only in the skin-contact!
Note that even the skin contact can be addictive, especially if it is a more fulfilling, it also burns like fire. After all, it has a desire for contact with the skin actually nothing dishonorable in itself and straight woman can turn them on again to start from scratch, as if there were "nothing" was ... And the man that is of course the same!
That the shame, the "laughter of the devil" and what really matters - but why no one else says so? (Go to "laugh of the devil" s. Issue 2, p 11 m)
Quite simply, that's neither politically nor society from religion here nor otherwise who willed that the young people wake up in time and really live independently. Because if it were not so, we would have just today not already set this in our time, in each and everything is scientifically researched to the smallest detail, any scientific projects in motion? But nothing of the sort! Consequently: You want just do not think that young people see clearly here. And I wonder why not?
a) No socio-political interest
People who live in very harmonious personal relationships are simply too independent, too pleased with himself to frugal. Just do not give a great new car, with a great new home with the latest fashion, with expensive vacations. For them, the normal tut's - it's different with them important.
Of course, they also want to work and live and spend money on this, but they do not have to and to impress themselves and others and to indicate but simply to lead in community with others a beautiful and harmonious life.
And that happens to be quite interesting for the economy and thus also for our society as a whole or only moderately interesting.
b) No interest on the part of religion
People who also human have a fulfilling life and their humanity without the famous "mistakes and disappointments in personal matters" (in the language of religion we speak of "sins") live, have no feelings of guilt, so do not need any sins repent and to not pray "forgiveness" (formerly of us and in many other religions that works even over Pay) and have no need for a idealerem life after death. They had already here and now everything.
The philosopher Arno Plack (1930 - 2012) once has our need for a life after death interpreted: "We can with the finiteness of our lives not resign, because we have not lived our sexuality properly." So what would happen if we our sexuality lived right? Arno Plack proceeds as well as the vast majority of sex researchers, however, believe that monogamy is a straitjacket that does not correspond to the nature of man, and that man must therefore be released from his Monogamiezwangsjacke. What, though, if man is by nature but monogamous, so only one sexual partner should have to live long? What if only glaring mistakes are made in the implementation - which is assumed here? (Can we, for example, does not prepare the best food so wrong that they are unpalatable or even the most delicious food served so wrong that no one likes me?) So it's with monogamy: monogamy and inhibitions will be with us in general as belonging together seen. But that just does not know true monogamy (ie one that people like to live) and inhibitions simply have nothing to do with each other! Therefore, it is about a meaningful experience of monogamy.
c) No interest on the part of the men who consciously or unconsciously looking for an "adventure". Let us imagine that all girls and women sex practiced only within a loving partnership - then what about all those who, because of their previous morality found no or no real love partner? It would be terrible for her, but she had no more chance of getting at least now and again to a new and exciting sexual experience? A flight to Thailand at least helps in the long run no more, because that is where women will think quite fast as well as here with us so our thanks to globalization.
d) No interest on the part of women, also not the mothers, also not the feminists. Because they would even possibly admit their daughters that they themselves were once so bigoted and stupid, and all the false morality that they had been told, had believed and practiced. Thus, they were the disgraced and who wants to be occasionally embarrassed? But they could indeed bring just the excuse. Where they had it for something else better to know if they had only ever heard of a morality in connection with the shame and no one had seen responsibility to tell them once something more sensible?
The concrete love thread useful!
What would be so if the two in Uwe Tellkamp "tower" "Experience First of paradise while the procedure paradise dress and skin contact and orgasm yes - Traffic no," the idea is, pleads for here, have had and practiced in the head? Then it could have been during the walk on the subject, both could arrange to meet to it and work to make it fit once. You would have been able to cultivate the common paradise clothing and common skin contact - quite a beautiful art of seduction before - from whatever side. So perhaps a mutual Full body massage (but without the genitalia!) Or even a nudist race on a lonely beach? Both could determine if it's all about relaxation plate or even satisfaction, ie whether the male partner wants "no matter how" mainly to get rid of his sperm. Or whether it is true harmony - where you can gently or racy embrace lovingly, in each case, where also quite allowed to stand in men or boys drive to trigger the central nervous orgasm girl. (Even the boy is doing already come to his relaxation and can be used without a fait accompli determine whether she likes it or not.) And with mutual "wrapping around" without a lot of traffic intensive mutual skin contact is anyway possible! In any case, both know more and can plan a future together or have better phase out the relationship with the motto "Where there is nothing, even the Emperor lost his right" and no one needs to complain afterwards, what idiots or what he Pig his innocence sacrificed.
While the failed traffic - and many first transports fail unfortunately completely - never ever comes to a harmony, is the the harmonic skin contact in the foreground. Both partners are - quite unlike the traffic, where the female part is very often only used - on an equal footing, which is the most important requirement for a good relationship before. And with this skin contact occurs quite something of a mutual energy transfer - everyone is from the other without losing yourself of what he has something. Yes, here at least there is more chance for a dream partnership - and certainly after the time-honored (game) rules of our Christian religion!
A boy or man who is reasonable and really loves is, with such a "method" be in full agreement, he knows that there are many "cheaters", which is all about the sex, and it will only would like to differ from those types.
If only the nudity and the associated high morale of love is the natural and typic of men, how is it that the nudity has such a bad reputation and is often made devillike even perverse moral hazard?
The elimination of this morality of "high love" just the girls so that they join because, now possible with an extremely effective diversion after the loop "Stop thief": The one who does something really bad or even properly Criminal, pointing to a, of not being bad and maybe even very natural-basically normal.
The true pigs it is all about really not so much as a kiddie nudity with the associated "staring", in which women and girls generally have an almost paranoid fear. Rather want to simply just penetrate, so they want the irresponsible and non-binding intercourse, where people have no interest. Your attitude to girls and women is like the prostitutes. Of course, they have little or no say so openly, because then no one would even join in, but they hide their setting behind a drivel about love and emancipation. In any case, their attitude - as I said - more to do with possessiveness, indifference, hypocrisy, disdain, bullshit, manipulation and domination of men over women.
It is thus somewhat exaggerated totally harmless and natural to something bad and disgusting and unnatural and Nichtnormalem basically and then also denounced as harmful to minors and destructive moral, namely the paradise clothing. According as it is presented as something childish, from which mature adults should have freed. This may sound paradoxical and illogical that something is simultaneously viewed as childish and destructive as moral, but in many people with logic here anyway not align. And yet just natural nudity rather something with the harmony of human relations, ie, with enlightenment and emancipation, with equality of the sexes, with knowledge of human nature, intelligence, reason, look through, openness, honesty, reliability, responsibility, self-control, naturalness, humanity partnership, high love and also to do with joy and harmless fun.
The voyeurs and the tensioner and the "peepers" or the exhibitionists are so demonized the evil and deviants, so that especially young girls to be "stared" solely on the idea that if the paradise clothes "bear", already paranoid -hysterisch respond. The advantage: Then it no longer falls to specify that the irresponsible and exploitative sex that they themselves practiced and therefore also seeks, the real is problematic.
Thus, the ability of the people and in all probability is manipulated his natural disposition to a high morality of love and partnership in a way that this goal is not only not reached, but that man is diverted directly from that goal.
If this making devillike of paradise clothing is not a gigantic people dementia, after all, make it then even with all, even and especially the particularly good will!
Yes, especially the good will fall even on the fascination of "morality" in, that is not a real one, but rather a hypocrisy (or a substitute morality). For what it otherwise, if not a hypocrisy when we see the paradise clothing as something sinful and dangerous and so avoid anxious and keep the more or less casual sex to try for something normal? My mother always said if we wanted something not attract as children: "It is not something you look the other way" - and this fits here certainly much better. Instead of that now especially the mothers downplay their daughters against the fear of paradise clothes and give them tips on how to naturally and emancipated deal with it, and also encourage them to make them the people (s) knowledgeable effect (see p. 18) can use it, make it even more generally bitchy and stuck. As if they did not know that "it" finally getting quite different happened. The "initiative" is but experience has shown just for the "first time", ie for the "Introduction to the practice of sexuality," rather by the girls, and this home has nothing to do with any clothing paradise. Because they can obviously them andre ized in our civilization or culture tightness in the long run simply not stand. For many men do then mostly without conscience problems because superficiality and lack of concepts of the girls with them now once already cause no protective instinct. These girls just earn their opinion, no honesty and no sense of responsibility.
Even otherwise, all to do with anyway! Thus, some speak out about them to say anything because they want to be considerate of the feelings of the girl. But it does not realize that they thus prevent just that the girls noticed the reality in its full clarity and can be set up accordingly. And so the girls live sex but then instead in a questionable dream world where paradise clothing and bawdy talk negatively, look positive. Thus, these "consideration takers" unfortunately complicit when watching girls finally have a fear of innocents and do exactly what caused the real problems. These culprits moreover includes all typical Religions: Just the religions live so assume that the rather harmless demonize ("sin of Unschamhaftigkeit") and ensuring successful it this way, that people finally do exactly the non-Harmless thereof then get a bad and guilty conscience. Actually is clear that a reasonable actions and corresponding information or specify a suitable education belongs. In law, there are the principle "nulla poena sine lege" ("Without Law no penalty"), which means that they can only be punished for something when there is a law. This principle can certainly be applied by analogy, that: "Without such information no sin." And if there are no such information, and is not even research object, then it must be assumed that the sinful action with the corresponding guilt is expressly intended, because a corresponding repeat business is the more important. There's also this: Forgiveness is but the business model typical of all religions with the promise that the "repentant sinner" go after death to a better life.
And finally developed the twisting what's really good and useful and bad and unnatural, such a momentum, so that no one dares to go against it. You could not get the reputation of evil for many people yes. (Note theologically interested: The Greek-Latin word for "devil" is "diabolus" And that literally means "confusion throwers", or "twists"..)
Traumas are like germs or viruses to penetrate the people affected by them until their final body cells and impede genuine work-up and real recovery.
The problem is that it also is a collective trauma in our case, an indication of this may be our compulsive use of at least swimsuit and bikini, so clothes if they are rationally not necessary. This collective trauma is also passed as a disease-like illness from generation to generation.
Of course parents and other people who are not un- or even malicious, but who simply do not want anything to stir up again what they have ever experienced. You want the only forgotten. But they a see that their children need all these ideas - and so they are quite open when other educators with their children talk in order to work this trauma.
A teacher from my early school days had us what's going on here, even in the simple example of a swing, how is it about on a thick branch, said: The village Depp tried to rock the daughter of the village mayor on as a hanging swing. He shakes like crazy on the ropes and then caulked in the sweat of his brow, the girl with force upon her seat upwards so that it screams even before afraid of heights. Everything a single seizure, the swing with the girl just will not as he wishes. But then shows him the little girl how to do it with the rocking "easy", if only the laws of nature, a little known and respected. So the child leaves him, which is much heavier than itself, to sit on the swing - and it hits him in the rocking rhythm of swing - and in this way it creates the child without great effort, this village idiots up high in the air to "push". And both have not only not afraid, but even the highest enjoy this game!
Yes, that is the same with sexual morality, as it is generally taught to the young people. It is certainly not only religion, so depp village way of lining up when it's especially annoying even with her. We do not pray the Lord's Prayer that God's will (and not ours!) Might happen? If we return to the example of the swing transfer: Which of the two has probably understood the will of God, the little girl or the village Depp? And it's like this: Just as we do not preach sexual morality today, not only makes them not fun, but young people have even complexes when stick to it. That it would otherwise many is no longer imagine. Therefore, they can not stop thinking about it objectively, too. (I see it as the curse of original sin We can, however, of the free but.. We need a corresponding sampling time only really want Lastly, one certainly here: How are our traumas that prevent us from our liberation, hardly blame themselves - and even if we "something" were deliberately slipped into it, we knew it not better)!
How girls shape men.
If a girl, and just one that still had no sexual experience, a boy or a man gives sex, so the defloration, then that also means a gift for the person concerned. And a gift is even provided a kind of reward. With rewards and people will now always been (and not only that they cover all living things) coined. Because when we realize that we are rewarded for something, then that means for us "good experience", so let's move on so - and if we realize that we are not rewarded for something, then we will change our flat.
But what is sex - and just the first - for a gift and for whom? In this sex occurs for many girls did not matter whether the boy or man is responsible, whether he deserves it or whether he just can adjust only be good. The main thing he is "sweet" or something. But sex has also something to do with sexual urges - and the applicant shall also rewarded for his impulsiveness and possibly also for its sophistication to be able to adjust. If so start a good relationship? And why are women and girls complain because then afterwards about the irresponsibility and treachery and superficiality of men - and that but in the end all pig? The question we must ask yet again: Who has the men made by the process of "imprinting through reward" like that?
In contrast, the Paradise Clothing (clear, meaning the "complete"): If the "granted" a girl, then you have a man can muster, he must have under control. He has to be able to chat objectively and seriously. And it is at or with a girl he likes and he respects for which he feels responsible and he does not want to hurt to do so only to happy.
Who "of the two varieties of man" probably has more of the high ideals that a girl or a woman would also like in a man?
With the joy of (innocent) Paradise clothes men and boys would therefore shaped in a completely different direction!
But because the real bastards so now no interest - so they demonize the paradise clothing. And the stupid people of good will be dazzled by this hypocrisy and make. Sorry. (Perhaps they are indeed self not so good as they do?)
Here is the approach of this Web site, change the setting of girls. Of course they would have to be used to the paradise clothing, and everything should then noticed the boys so that they can set early and on time it is.
And do not worry that behave in particular young girls now uncontrolled shameless, just because the are so inherently high moral beings! Only you no longer waste their moral disposition now by being pointless paranoid-jammed, but by act smart-smart.
Notes: The one with the "true pigs" was formulated deliberately stilted. On the one hand, no one should be unnecessarily burdened (somehow we are all "victims"!) And on the other hand is no longer figure out anyway, as once it all started. This was so even earlier. Therefore, the Bible also pushes all evil on the snake.
But it does not say, "Who is playing with fire, which comes to it?"
The question is, who is playing with fire. Is this the one that young people especially girls and for good behavior of ignorance, boredom, uptight, naivety and educates opposed to the body, or who educates them on openness, cunning, self-esteem, self-confidence and courage? Playing with fire is above all the disregard of the hidden fire, which is much more the super explosive. In an education of young people and especially of girls to this good behavior are - especially in our time - (sexual) experiences but programmed so to speak. Therefore: Dear little risky (or even what sounds risky because unfamiliar) begin with an open mind and thought-out concept, seeking the good in boredom, naivety, ignorance and opposed to the body!
An animal experiment confirms it: we are all fetishists! So we should rid ourselves as quickly and thoroughly as possible from this fetishism!
In the GEO magazine (Feb 2015) reports on a study with rats, which
had a completely unexpected result. They had dressed them different
colored jackets, to distinguish them from each other in an expreriment.
So they had sex with each other perk, just with this jacket. When they
then took these rats for another experiment, this time without the
jacket, it was found that they were sexually listless. The explanation:
This jacket had when the rats they wore on her first sex, as it were a
fetish action - and without fetish lust had disappeared on sex.
Obviously we can not transfer the results of animal experiments to
humans easily, but if they are a confirmation of other established and
well-tested theory as in this concept here, this transfer is likely to
be well accepted. The conclusion: All clothes we wear in our "clothes
cultures" (or civilizations), not just lingerie, also has a fetish
effect and disrupts or even destroys a normal or natural approach to
sexuality, depending on the species. Therefore, there is then also all
the forms of "mistakes" in our peoples, may be that we want to have sex
on trial with someone who is not the spouse, and not even for an option,
it is that we later infidelities drive, it was, that we are looking for
new pleasure or sexual partner. Anyway, this seems (rather random) rat
experiment, a confirmation of the thesis of the concept "Towards to the
happiness of the high love" that changes in attitudes towards
nudity would make our whole sexual behavior of natural and scenic. Of
course, there must be a corresponding pedagogy, but that would be easy
to do, because young people without this fetishism are anyway open.
And the others if their parents think differently? The need to educate itself according to yourself. Girls, who are about to pity for any painful and unnecessary experience and want from the outset good relations could do about once clear that they are very mercy of their feelings for the request (in which man is just "BOOM" making), rationality and even best intentions help them further here hardly. There is no shame, that's only natural. Of other than our previous attitude to morality and nudity, so with a more natural setting, our emotion on the (meta) level of nature's violence is now actually (ie at a higher level) influenced or even completely revamped. Our emotion or our spontaneity selected at a fetish free for more natural setting or just after paradiesischeren viewpoints!
Now that a lot of adults have absolutely no interest in
changing, you young people already have to get care of yourself! The
usual adult will not make any event bother to mention that they are
afraid that their work could be misunderstood.
Nudity in art is quite "normal", even with biblical themes. But in the
praxis of life "bourgeois-decent" people want none of it - is not that
strange or ridiculous? The author is here not satisfied and thus builds
the nudity in its ethical concept a - he's just too inspired by the
Bathsheba bathing (Artemisia Gentileschi, the most important painter of the Baroque period, 1597-1652 / 53), Neues Palais, Potsdam
1. Critical Questions and Answers
And now the points of criticism and the answer:
"This concept is still unrealistic."
"The concept is unrealistic even for another reason: It is never going
to reach all."
"The problem is to motivate children to such issues. Children have other
issues in mind. "
"You should probably start in a children's classes with positive
things, but the Rigoletto story and the other examples are
"You advocate a very harmful Frühsexualisierung (Early Sexualisation) for children
, it's never good and useful if children know all that about
Well, or not. The question
is, what else is there to tell children when a lump sum, any meaningful
"Enlightenment" is referred to and rejected as "Frühsexualisierung".
Something you have to tell I suppose. So they tell children (not only
from religion!) to be the of the shame and that they must therefore be
wary of nudity. Because that is indeed against privacy. If we now assume
that children in particular are highly moral beings, then automatically
leads to the fact that the shame becomes morality and that they get
fears that someone unauthorized could see them naked. Just little girls
develop downright paranoid fears that a man could take off her panty
- and yes, it is sufficient alone the idea that someone wanted to do
and could, then the result is a trauma - and often lifelong. But that
what is at real morality actually mattered, namely not to have sex with
the wrong partner, which is a suitable occasion no problem for them.
Young people are so hostile physical but not moral. It really is that:
The fun of innocent nudity is equated to young people with the fun of
pornography - and they want nothing to do with this. Therefore, nudist
later never comes into question for them. But sexual experiences up to
adventures are accepted and perceived as normal. So who's to blame for
this twist in the minds of young people, what is good and what is not
"They are playing your attitude to nudity children but only pedophiles
in his arms."
"Many people have the association in the head.` Children + nudity =
"To lay hands on children, but is the worst."
"How does the now harmless or even from Paradise?"
"There are more important things in life than young people's sexuality."
"But why always just this topic? There's probably more, where can suffer
just young people. "
"The approach here's totally out of fashion, girls and women have now
freed from the old constraints and sex with different partners is but a
sign of their freedom and emancipation."
"Well, the` lower layers' where perhaps one should not be so oriented.
This simply corresponds with sex before marriage but the emancipation of
a modern woman. The make all but the case today. "
"It is only reasonable if already know young people especially girls and
everything about contraceptives and sexually transmitted diseases.
Because then they can be much freer and need no more fear of pregnancy
and sexually transmitted diseases to have. "
"You are misogynistic. Rather than use them against the sexual
relationships of young girls, you'd better act on the boys and men, that
they no longer bad about people and especially about girls (and women)
talk that have different ways of life. "
"There is but this research, as children grow up in primitive cultures.
The children drive from an early age to sexual games through to sexual
intercourse. And thus they grow freely on fears and constraints and are
so happy. This is then continued when they get older, so there is in
these cultures also a partner stress, no battle of the sexes, no
jealousy, no aggression. "
"I suppose you is not unknown that children quite figure out saying that
it feels good to touch on the genitals. Little boys and little girls
do, big boys and big girls too. This has nothing whatsoever to do with
how these children were raised as to whether or `` narrow'
or not-narrow'. "
"You talk too much about nudism'. "
"The shame of it is also a matter of our culture."
"There is but a natural shame."
"But nudity is still perverted, immoral and disgusting."
"To see nude exercises as the highest sense of the practice is for my
wife and me simply unacceptable."
"Among the ancient Greeks, the statues of women, so the Kores were
"The problem has other causes. It's not the clothes, not the paradise
nudity. It's just the wrong information of children and young people and
adults about the nature of women and men and how they can complement
"But still, we think differently!"
"Nonsense! The shame is just normal! No discussion! "
"When it comes to such openness, such as when two adjacent despite
paradise clothing abstemious spend the night, without leading to` sexual
action', then that means but harmful stress? "
"Many people find themselves but just not nice enough for the nudity in
front of others."
"But what if young people do not want to talk about all this?"
"As if the display of the small difference would be the important
"But women and girls in particular are still more interesting when
they're not completely naked."
"Sure you also know what has been done in the past decades / centuries
with the taboo of masturbation and the generation of relevant guilt
among young people. This was worse, MUCH worse than when parents teach
their children concealment of certain body parts. Therefore, I can
absolutely not understand why you encounter the same tune as these old
Schuldgefühleinreder. You do that too most "passing" in your notebook,
and the horn sounds neither flashy nor loud, but it's clearly the same
"Abstinence before marriage is but a typical Catholic particularity, the
other non-Catholic people of no concern."
"Some sounds very good, but in the end it runs only on abstinence before
marriage also with all its fears and compulsions, which represents the
church. Ultimately, you are still a slave to the church. "
"The concept presented here is a step backwards."
"What an old dog can not learn, Hans learns nevermore":
"That woman just can orgasm without intercourse test, of which I have
never heard of."
"The idea that a girl should test in the proposed manner before
marriage, whether it be experienced with the elect an orgasm, is very
far-fetched. If have two like each other, determine whether they fit
together, whether they "smell" can, what you should prevent AFTER find
the consummation of the marriage means and ways to reach orgasm? The
claim that it almost is subject to Divine Providence, whether with a
certain man an orgasm for the woman is possible or not, is not more than
that: a pure assertion ".
"But can not make me, what all do?"
"You talk so much talk of orgasm - is that so important?"
"The concept is against the sexual autonomy of young people."
"You just young people, especially girls are persuaded guilty."
"Why should you as an adult at all interfere with how the young people
find their partners - to whatever they do?"
"Without the joy of sex with the possibility of a new partner, it is
much went back to the old boredom."
"You look suspiciously much to young girls."
"We have here but as a problem as a self-fulfilling prophecy
before us. Something is only perceived as so bad because it
If you do not speak ill of sexual intercourse to the sample, it would
not be perceived as bad, "
"My wife and I had sex before marriage - and has not harmed us!"
"But can a girl (or woman) in this comprehensive skin contact not easily
"You worry too much about this" first sex-theme "would not be much more important, how to live together, so that a partnership succeed?" First, I'm a bachelor/single, and as such hardly competent in matters of coexistence. And second, if just chose a love partner a girl, then it looks at him anyway everything through rose-colored glasses, so how it wants to see it, so it will throw all his previous notions about the. I therefore give me any "advice" about living together and go only to the problem "love partner" field.
It is this: on the one hand, you criticize the inhibitions that is
inoculated children by implicitly or explicitly informed them, nudity is
something disgusting and immoral. On the other hand you are building a
new "no-go area" with the requirement that private parts must not be
touched, neither of other people, even their own. "Unaesthetic and
primitive" is the self-satisfaction, you write on page 19. That does not
sound as bad as "disgusting", but it comes out to the same thing.
"Nakedness (so also the paradise dress) is decadent
"I'm probation officer of sex offenders. I find this concept some
parallels to the views of these sex offenders "
"By being propagated here openness especially between father and
daughter is a danger of incestuous relationships."
"Here is an outdated purity delusion is represented."
"It's really inhumane to make such advertising for virginity, many have
not. If you think that does not infringe the principle of equality?
"So even if it was a mistake, when a girl had her first sex with the
wrong person - so what? What's in a single error, if the person is
otherwise okay? "
"Recent research has shown that women love the variety in bed (s. The
book of Daniel Berger" What Do Women Want ")."
"When I look at some specific movies, the young people take all of this
was very loose with their sexual adventures."
"Where is the freedom, especially young people?"
"All well and good, what you say. But I think it is reasonable, like
other only once to live with a man to the sample. "
"When girls about their early twenties, are still virgins over a certain
age addition, they will still bitchy and inedible-conceited and often
"But some churches have moved away from the stubborn attitude that there
should be sex within marriage. For just gave this stubborn attitude and
there is so much hypocrisy and pronounced suffering. Important since
been teaching young people that there are different ways of life and to
take people with different lifestyles seriously and respect. "
"I've actually if any men stare just something about it to other naked
humans, and especially children sick."
'It is but the natural and the vitality of young people that they will
eventually also want sex. "
"So, you mean as a Catholic catechist you know everything better than the sex educators."
"However much heterosexual traditionalists yearning: The never really
existent heal hetero world is lost. She's never coming back "
"You say, somewhat hidden and implicit, but clearly states that
homosexuality is a" perversion "is that would disappear in an
appropriate way to deal with nudity and sexuality (s. Previous
criticism). Thus you position yourself against what is now regarded as
reliable knowledge. It would be an urgent need to provide for this claim
evidence: namely investigations recognized anthropologists about the
fact that homosexuality does not occur among primitive peoples, and a
rationale for why homosexuality occurs in higher mammals (and therefore
there is "natural"), in humans, however, arises only through alienation
from nature (ie "unnatural", "perverted" is).
If you want to change something in our society, then there is really no
longer important areas as the problems of small girls. I think of the
unemployment especially young people, to the portrayal of violence on
television, on the ubiquitous pornography.
"Here you are, where is your classification, where is your methodology?"
"While a representation in the form of this book would be quite
sufficient if it were only to make suggestions for reflection and
comparison with their own experience ... But there is even now certainly
more in your notebook, namely statements that claim to general raise
"What is all this, my goal of education is tolerance."
2. The problem of perfect theory: Why something happenes or doesn´t not happen.
Let's go even other "theories" by!
Let's start with a theory of Buddhism!
"The problem is that the good example. So if you have experienced as a
child not a good family, which can later even hardly or not your own
good family succeed. "
"But is that good parents because not a prerequisite for successful
children's relationships later?"
"And what are really caring parents for now do better?"
"The shame is still the basis of every sexual morality - and the young
people of today just do not have enough shame."
"But what about the impulsiveness and the weakness of man?"
"Infatuation is a biochemical process, since it is just powerless."
"Just look at once the site of Durex condom factory in the number of
sexual partners a person has in life. And you want to change it? So the
Indians have about 3, the Germans 5.9, the Turks 14.5. "
"Order of nature? What does that mean? Has not a fascist background of
the concept `Fortunately, the high love' go?"
"In our anonymous mass societies nobody really cares more about the
other, and there is therefore no responsibility for one another in love.
Everybody wants only his own pleasure. "
"You can not do anything now anyway - the media is too powerful,"
"It is known that the actions have` No sex before marriage' never helped
And all of these are easy to pick apart basically, if you're only something factual. But there is a very plausible theory: Especially for girls, but also for boys, is at least initially to find partners in the foreground.
So that man is by nature not only a highly intellectual and highly moral, but also a highly social animal. In matters of sexual morality, the young man is now just determined by the idea that he must behave like other normal people, so he is not an outsider who is considered to be jammed, unliberated and frigid. The only way he can, in his opinion eventually find a suitable partner. The need to be normal, like a language: If single parent a child in a highly intellectual and beautiful language educate, but other people do not speak that language, the child will keep his parents sometime incompetent and is "made moves" , So we have to make clear that it is rather pointless if single parents want to raise their children to high standards when, for example, the daughters would be lonely virgins - and make the girls rarely with. So an education would be too high morals always community thing. In one group (here just also offers religious education in) your child will also talk (want to) - and how! And the fun of nudity would be an indication of special Unashamedly awareness, so for a successful overcoming opposed to the body, and for real emancipation and intelligence.
Added to this a little more to what I have written on page 23: It is, after all, the most natural thing in the world that the young man is dating, and that he would like to get a good partner. For quite on monogamy (see p. 16) oriented human-typical courtship behavior belongs above all, that he advertises himself and of course other respects also to advertising. It is indeed a question of obtaining healthy children into the world, so to healthy genes on. The natural advertising is now, that showcases his health (and that everything is on it) and also that of the other wants to see - and, of course, not only in terms of a potential partner, but to many. Man or woman wants to have a choice. And we are now once programmed so that we associate health with beauty, so we want to show and see!
But now happens in the typical decadent cultures with their hypocrisy, after which it will at least look as if you had a morality following (Note .: also decadent cultures have a moral, but a sham morality or Feigenblatt- or just a swimsuit morality) : something completely natural, namely the free play of seeing and being seen even and especially in public (ie where there are many possible partner) is taboo and presented as something bad or immoral. In order for a human basic instinct to choke off so to speak. The result is that there are plenty of good or especially stupid justifications that eventually always equal helter-skelter all happens - and very often really not suitable partners! The phase of the chance of unproblematic sorting out unsuitable partners had to yes (culturally determined) can be omitted.
So if we want to change something in our present (sexual) morality for the better, we must start here! This primarily to allow the free play of View and show and cultivate.
Note .: If the youthful body shapes for old people are attractive, that
does not mean that "old people" also always equal to young people "go",
rather the opposite. For there is also something about a
father-daughter-effect between actually stranger who opposes the well.
If this effect is activated by naturalness and openness of young people
once he causes an extraordinary care of the "old" for the "boys". And
this effect remains even if, for example, which are perceived as
daughter girl is getting older by the motto: "One daughter - always
Preliminary note on the issue abaut child conformity
To the idea with the "clothes of Paradise", so the nudity, which belongs to
the approach of the concept, brought me children. In a children's
holiday camp in the seventies of the last century they were the ones who
started with Paradise costume. Unfortunately, I had at that time also
among those who "something" had stalled with - as if the sexual
self-determination does not apply to children (especially in quite
innocent paradiselike!). But then it went not help, the time just was
not ripe. Meanwhile, I see this as a chance to demonize children to not
something fundamentally and thus make it somehow bodily hostile, but
introduce them to the problem of ambivalence, so that may be something
good or bad, depending on how one uses it. It then must of course be
further elaborated outdated, especially girls want to know contexts.
Unfortunately sit very many adults here everything indiscriminately from
a regard to the prevention of Frühsexualisierung (to make children early to sexual beings). These adults,
however, need to want to leave under a guise children stupid and naive
like the criticism that. For in this way children can hardly develop their own
ethical concept of action and so they are more vulnerable for later
manipulation, from whatever quarter.
The impression of the desire for knowledge of contexts has been fully confirmed for me in a religious education with children a few years after these children free time with other children, when I came with a similar history as the opera Rigoletto on the subject. It was as if I had opened a barrel - what the young people, both the girls and the boys did not want to know everything! And it did not stop at the one hour in the next and next it went. There was so much to talk about! My impression was that the girls were happy just to have once found an adult who had a setting in the sense of her innocent moral feeling and with whom she could talk. When I wanted to tell mothers what I was doing, I only got to hear: "Let times, it's fine how do you do that!" Apparently, the children were being told at home from my classes. Here in the group all went much easier and more natural in what would one call parent / child look more like spasm and scare the children. Why then the positive reaction of the mothers.
So why not right from the beginning?
In this opera is about the care of a father to his most beloved daughter from him. I think that in this story the subject very well "roll up" can, both for girls as for boys. The girls are more affected, so I speak to them. But it's also about the boys, they are addressed in their protective instinct, experience has shown that they also like to take if they are required only at an early stage.
The advantage of today: Even very young people know about the biological of "multiplication" communication, as well as via sexual intercourse. The only thing missing to complete an appropriate concept of morality. And as I said, in my experience, the children, the wish, too!
Specifically on the history of opera: The father's Rigoletto. A jester, crippled. The daughter's name is Gilda and is beautiful. Rigoletto's wife, Gilda's mother has died. The action takes place at the court of the Duke of Mantua in Northern Italy, about three hundred years ago. This Duke is a womanizer, as they say, exploits its charm and certainly his power to have sex (intercourse) with the women of his palace officials and, with many other women. He uses women, despised them and playing them first love or even reverence. The women make with, perhaps, because life is too boring for them otherwise. But the Duke amused how stupid and naive women are to believe his love lies and join his sexual adventures. The men of these women feel cheated and of course see themselves as the tricked, especially the Duke because he seduces their wives also about her and her anger, just laughs and scoffs. But what they should otherwise make as good of a bad job. They also are dependent on him.
Even now, the court jester mocks the other castle officials, because they can be dropped from the Duke all. But at the same time he has an insanely great concern for his daughter Gilda that once fell in love with the Duke and she is exploited in their love of him. And so he hides all other his daughter Gilda and hides them in front of them. Only on Sundays it may - of course unrecognized - go to church, you are so pious.
And when she meets a cute student with whom she falls in love. This
student is now the Duke - disguised, so also Gilda does not recognize
As at the end of the opera Rigoletto Duke will be murdered, Gilda died in his place. It is not clear whether they sacrifice out of love for him or if she just wants to death because their innocence and therefore - as she says - the possibility of a great love for them is lost forever anyway and therefore no life has more sense. All very sad.
(Note: The virgins are in the vaginal opening a hymen that is destroyed
in the first Sex - "man" can thus see later, if a girl already had sex,
however, agrees with this "proof" is not always the potential shock
after such a.. experience has now been widely regarded as a consequence
of a physical enemy education. On the other hand, the possible shock
will experience the young people when they are confronted with the
nudity, regarded as something that makes young people need to be
protected. the concept of this booklet visibility is now vice versa.)
Now back to us today!
It is an age-old problem that fathers (and parents at all) to their daughters have worried that they also "something" could happen. You do not want the daughters fall in love with such a Hallodri that only she is lying to and deceiving and exploiting and for the sex has nothing to do with love and relationship, but only a fun game. Unfortunately, a lot of parents in their care anyway as helpless as this Rigoletto and do many things wrong, so very often exactly that happens, what should be avoided.
Of course, parents (and other teachers) do not say this so that they are
helpless, but they say that this is normal and natural, when young
people to be falling in love with the wrong guy and have sex with him.
Since you can simply do nothing in their opinion, however, because young
people are now even no knowledge of human nature have to distinguish
which man is about real love and partnership and what it's all about the
sex. Therefore, it explains the young people today only know how to use
condoms and birth control pills, so they also are not pregnant and / or
infected with a sexually transmitted disease. Obviously keep the adult
is not much of the intelligence of young people.
And now again specifically to girls!
So the problem is: What parents need their daughters to teach, so that they see through such a Hallodri time that best suits not only a love for such a man comes up and that they therefore also have sex with him, but only with the man, in which a beautiful and honest love is reciprocal and is also a good partner for them, allowing them to have a nice family.
I see an almost criminological task for a girl! How is it time to get out the truth?
We need to first of all look closely at all events, what happened here, how that happens and why it happens.
The experience is in any case that any homilies and friendly admonitions to a young girl help anything, especially not if it's only been in love. Girls (and not only) who then were, a rose-colored glasses and are limited in their freedom of will and know everything anyway better - that's the way it is with very intense feelings. But even before that young people want such a moralinsaures or even pious talk just do not listen and switch off and do uninterested when their parents or other to do with this topic.
So had to my friend the parents of whom I speak and found my ideas are
good and useful, looking at her daughter a different method. Not least,
they would, it was clear to all, study after their time at school once
somewhere alone. Since they would all sorts of people and also fellow
students and others to know men, and they would also ask hardly the
parents who they can trust and who not, and if they would certainly not
be in love once. Also: Whether parents can really tell who is right and
who is not? The girl must find out for yourself. But how ???
In my observations, I have now found that exactly this "stupid men" in general have no interest in nudity of a beautiful innocence that has something to do with the paradise, neither the girl nor on their own. An innocent paradise clothing, such as on a beautiful beach, would be for the absolute horror. Such a thing can not simple. They also have a thousand excuses why they not willing to participate. You mean to say that this is supposedly stupid or even immoral, etc. Or they talk about stupid that they already could with the paradisiacal nudity, but that they did not want that. Here one should be and remember what is behind their "reasons" noisy: Nothing but empty excuses, they can just end not. Because if you really have pleasure in something, you do it but only to you. This is true but even more to the paradise clothing along with nice people and even more so with someone in you're in love - of course when and where it fits.
Ah, if not here is an opportunity and is even the best opportunity to implement the approach of the late Pope into a reality! What is the value of the greatest idea, if it does not come to a practice of life? Also, this is really about now about the "value of a person", the Pope also has in mind. Besides: Where is the sense, young people, and especially children, was to show a wrong way to later just to present the opposite direction than the right one? What would be so if just a girl is educated from the start so that the fear of paradise clothing not only comes up that it has even enjoy this natural - and that his new attitude to nudity this as a test method of high love compared to men employed? Finally, such an education is exactly what is natural - it's not that primitive people in hot countries the nudity at least once ever had any problems? Problems which came but it was only through contact with Western civilization, in which there is just such false love with the corresponding hypocrisy. Then took the people of primitive peoples clothes, even if it would not be necessary because of the heat.
Anyway, the paradise dress itself is not evil, evil is only when you interact with others exploiting driven and contemptuous. And that happened just now especially with textilener clothing!
The education of her daughter with my friends was sometimes even very
nice and funny, especially she gave this family the freedom to much to
do with each other. For if the paradise clothing is no longer a problem,
then you can camp together and also use the same room - so you can be a
really nice and loose team. Obviously, the daughter had also understood
why her parents did so with her, because she had all talked about it.
The idea of the proposed approach is after all also that a daughter what she has just experienced at the beautiful and the Innocent with her father and also with other, first of all want to experience with a boy or man, when they eventually fall in love. And they will find that some boys and men can not talk or want and not only did not want to participate, but also even make fun of it. But others will find it quite great. I think a girl for so clever it to be boys and men will appreciate all right, depending on whether and how to talk about it rationally, and that it can abort an inappropriate relationship in time. Not least, so also have the boys are fine, the desire to find a good partner, and for ideas on how this could work, open.
Of course, a girl or young woman who has no problems with the innocent paradise dress must remember that not everyone can be in this "paradise dress", automatically are good, and that by no means all boys and men, the problems here who are malicious and hypocritical. For it may indeed be that they simply understand everything wrong because previously no one had ever spoken to reason with them on this issue. And that they therefore can not be as free and open. There are now at least talking points!
And just as I said it, it's finally happened to the girls! No, not exactly, but much better. Somehow, the daughter of my friends must have something broadcast that the stupid guys have not even been dredged. For it is not even so that all boys and men are bad and always only "A" (ie sex) want. No, if they hit an open and nice girl with a reasonable adjustment, it will never despise and want no sex from him - or write beautiful love letters and want to marry it. Eventually, now a young man with whom was the daughter of my friends talk about the ideas and wanted to found and who found the quite great. He has also assisted in their attitude - and both were probably a beautiful paradise time - before her marriage. They have now been married for eight years and have a dear daughter - and everything is fine, of course, as far as I can tell.
Whether young people now understand the concerns regarding the nudity?
Young people should experience once something innocent Paradiesisches
and, of course, also be aware of the deeper meaning has the whole. The
remainder is then already surrendered by itself.
Given my suggestion: Whether the children perhaps even make their own experiment to see what happened and how they feel? You could encourage about in a school or church teaching, sometimes asking her dad and her mom if that can go to a beach or lake corresponding with them in the summer, so that they can earn some experience with Paradise Clothing in nature? Of course, they have to coordinate with their siblings and tell them why they want to. I bet you can find it all then only funny and beautiful. They will also continue to ask: Why is it that even children usually have such problems with the physicality? Who has an interest that these problems exist? Why tries someone know that rectify useful? How is it that children above all what he seems to be very natural, after all, often can not even talk and want? Here, too, criminalistic sense is required. And I also think it all has to do with a big criminal case, we are here on the trail!
Children are but in general to crime stories very interested if not could give good talks here?
C. Summary: What do we really want?
Today we live in a time in which anything and everything is scientifically studied and researched for solutions. Importantly, however, is that we accurately describe the problem and describe at least roughly, what a solution we want. It is like a contract to a contractor, the specialists there must already know exactly what we want - and then they can also tell us (if they are honest) if our idea of a product into practice is feasible or not. Yes, maybe it's even the case that something does not go, because one goal excludes the other. Boiling water can not freeze after all. Where nature ends, the nonsense begins. But many other goes up - and very good!
So and just as it is also in religious education and moral education! We'll have to ask: What do we want as educators (and theologians) exactly? Or: What we do not want? And can one combine with the other at all? So we rewrite at least our first goal exactly we lie but once fixed!
- We want good-faith young people who then also believe in God and all
improbabilities as the creation of a god, a virgin birth, the
resurrection of the Son of God?
If you only have a little rummage in this book, you'll know what I have
decided. Brav-believe and to be simultaneously-is-out-creative,
implement moral standards into practice, that just does not. Also, "Joy
to the high morale" fit and shame not together because shame is a
displacement or an (irrational) fear - and fear can perhaps cultivate
and make bearable, but the real fun can now even with the not so , Also
true free people with it are not possible because an irrational fear on
the one hand always means rule on a separate page, so lack of freedom.
Fears are just like chains. Also, they help the anxious not really,
because they really protect them from any danger. They are just an
instrument of domination of others. In contrast, the truly free man
where it is appropriate, "fear". The difference is that there is a fear
of a clear view out forms and that it relates to really dangerous. Also
know the free man how to properly deal with really dangerous. Some
combinations of targets are now once again possible and others do not
(or a lot of effort or force). So we combine what fits "naturally"
together and "easy" is possible!
My commitment depends certainly also related to the educated
middle-class parents house where I grew up. You just went to art
galleries such as the Louvre, the Rijksmuseum and Uffizi Gallery in
theater and opera. At some point I noticed, as here, the more bourgeois
audience voyeurs (also tensioner) are somehow: Especially in the opera's
suffering with love and sex largely the main theme, but that's become a
pure ears tickle - one hears and sees the pleasure of exactly how in
road accidents "hinglotzt". I think of the opera "La Traviata" and
"Rigoletto" (Verdi), "Don Giovanni" (Mozart), "Madame Butterfly
(Puccini)," Katja Kabanova "(Janacek)," Wozzeck "(Alban Berg). Time is
the theme that a father his daughter can not marry civil-decent, if the
son masturbates with a noble prostitute, sometimes the care of a father
to his daughter, so they do not fall into the hands of the
"Oberhallodris", then Playboy, of all women and girls gets it, or refer
the case to the American naval officer, for the love of a Geisha is just
a pastime, eventually neglected by her husband woman who buys himself a
lover, or a simple soldier, the wife of the a drum major is unclamped.
Very often break the main characters in their fate and commit murder and
suicide. No one seems to have the idea that these "stories" always have
their cause in culture and religion and that one should take care of it
but once, to develop a pedagogy for young people, especially for
children already, so that such "stories" not even happen. Last but not
least is what we are seeing on stage, only too often human life, though
rarely in this drama. In the opera, etc. just so many things are thought
through what our everyday people then did not dare.
Detail of the gods in heaven of the Capitole of Toulouse (France)
So you are against such a "fundamental disguise"? Sure. And not only for aesthetic, but also for moral reasons. Because the basic shame, which is the basic irrational compulsion to cover herself, is just a sham morality, just young girls are framing a false sense of security in moral matters. The right Hallodris, so the men and boys, which the morality of the girls (and women) is ultimately irrelevant also a savvy psychology and know that with the hypocrisy. They also know the fact that they have to dredge only long and skilled enough until they get what they want. Yes, if the girls have not already sick of this hypocrisy by itself and therefore intend to do with the high sexual morality in general circuit and the Hallodris even downright chase (to be freed at last from the perceived as burdensome virginity). Of course, it is not sufficient to abolish the shame, it now needs a morality of the heart and mind to come.
So you would never raise a daughter in this shame or even moral
inhibitions, as you call it?
I thank you!
On the getting of this issue were many involved, both those who agreed with me and
gave advice that still has an issue in that way, and even critics who
made me indirectly attention to gaps in the argument. I want to thank
you from my heart all. I would like to mention in particular a Viennese
girl (16 years) and a grandmother from East Prussia (77 years), the 1945
had witnessed the arrival of the Russians with the rape itself was,
however, not affected because of their former childhood. The girl gave
me excellent advice for structuring and found the result is "great," and
the grandmother said that her issue would have helped a lot especially
in her marriage, she would have known it just before. Also, she helped
me with constructive criticism
Thoughts - such as reading the newspaper
By the way: It is also complains that it is no longer enough to "Japanese junior" is due to the "lack of desire" of young people. It has to be said quite clearly: Healthy kids have nothing or only a limited something to do with superficial adventures (because this offspring is not exactly desirable and is prevented by any means), but rather with beautiful love and relationship and thus also with working families.
The question arises, why not the young people come to us in such
chastity. We mean it, even with us, everything is so obvious as in
Japan. But maybe not? Possibly with us the pain threshold is simply not
reached - also bad experiences with sex are still very downplayed and
portrayed as a sign of immaturity. A mature person has just said to
"something" have seen it all, even if it was painful. Even just works
already mentioned several times, Des-Emperor-new-clothes-effect. The
question is for how long.
About the author:
Michael Preuschoff, born 1941, a reserve officer,
industrial clerk at an electronics company, studied theology and
graduated with a diploma theologian, additional training. Active from
1975 to 2004 as a religion teacher at professional schools of the Erftkreis and
in Düren, West Germany.
Santiagopilgrim - in sections. In this "Camino", the
author provides an excellent opportunity especially for a retired
religion teacher with other people, and come with young, in
touch. It may very well be talking about the realization of
our religion in our time, after all, the Camino is indeed a
Christian pilgrimage. What are the implications for our lives
resulting from the current knowledge about the historical Jesus?
Anyway, this book talks that have given significant
Preuschoff is unmarried and was never married. However, he has a Vietnamese foster daughter who is happily married.
Anyone looking for a reference to a particular religion, and particularly a Christian denomination in the publications of the author who will search in vain. Because the aim of the author is not a religion, but an ethics which applies to all people. The rejection of traditional Christian dogma that ultimately only hinder a particularly useful Ethics for young people in their important questions of love has, it also meant that deprived him ecclesiastical teaching license. His ethical concern was about the Lehrerlaubnisentziehern totally indifferent. All the more Peuschoff has then dedicated to the task of ethics.
The job of a professional school religion teacher offered him the great
advantage that religion is no exam stress in the subject, the teacher
may thus lead talks about what the young people moved - andto learn for
himself. In terms of his approach his disciples said sometimes, that it
was not wrong in what he taught, but with them it was all too late, he
had better go to the elementary schools. Because it did not work well,
he wrote this book - for those who want to know more so that what is
commonly taught at primary schools.
Issue 2: What to do with Christianity?
What's in the concept now really Christian?
The betrayal of Jesus in the history of the Church and a concept of the past (ie after the real) Jesus.
The ideal that sexual
intercourse and partnership and love go together is perverted in the
typical religions. Although they pretend to be ideal for this, but they
also transmit either not or only crudely-unprofessional young people.
The suspicion arises that religions really do not want that because
(young) people succeed in this ideal. The religions live indeed believe
that people are (for now) waste and therefore make mistakes that they
repent, ask a god for forgiveness and sometimes even hope for a "later"
in which everything is different and a lot better is. that's the
business model of religions.
The concept "Fortunately, the high love" is assumed that the ideal that partnership and love and sex go together, a human value, so that can also be taught to any faith without reference and should be. And that works very well if it's just really wanted. for young people in particular are at least at first openly and willingly for it. We will see that then also completely new aspects and ideals of our humanity come to the fore when we finally take care of here at a reasonable ethical concept ,
The author thus sees life as a concept for a single task existentially important concern for the young people in particular are so clever that they "not a good experience" spared. The promotion of further learning is then almost programmed.
Note: We now have a lot of research on the origin of our Christian religion, and especially over the past (ie the real) Jesus. The author has encountered in his research that Jesus (and the early church) had exactly this concern the notion of not Vertuns (the "squandering" is here called "sin"). Thus, the historical Jesus and, indeed, the early church was in contrast to the religions of the time, all of whom were typical religions with the typical religion business model. That was also the reason for the crucifixion of Jesus, he caught up to them to destroy their business with religion.
And the relationship of the concern of this approach to religion: In Catholic theology, there is the doctrine of natural law. After God asks nothing of us humans what already is not appropriate and reasonable for us from nature. So when it comes to something meaningful and sensible for us humans, then it is not necessary that we also appeal to God (and the Bible), because it is from God!
Suppose that both have distinguished academic and the more crudely vulgar religion, belief and Bible critics correct: "God is pure invention", "The Bible is largely a more or less pious figment of the imagination", "religion is the biggest business "," religions are all criminals. "I now feel that criticism less than an attack on our faith, but as motivation to research what was real. Whether or not, can not do something today from what remains after all the criticism, or only so cometh to the light? Whether such criticism of religion and belief can not be regarded as even "cleansing bath" or as an invitation to a "clearing out" at the end? Whether this may be the concern of the past (ie the real) Jesus only really comes to the fore - and also can develop its full potential?
But now hopefully clear enough to what I'm doing:
When adults young people spoil indecent assault with them, so that's criminal. When adults provide young people with guidance on how they destroy each other (I am thinking here of the "educational movies", "sex-we-can" for schools teaching under http://www.sexualpaedagogik.at/sex-we-can /), then the criminal but also After all, there is still an excuse that you have to show something to protect minors against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. But if adults who should know better, even how to prevent this destruction, do nothing relevant to the question, however, and in the end do not have the advantages of it, so I think that's the motto "The fence is just as bad as the stealer" a fortiori criminal ! I would like to not even be a criminal now, I see here so for me an invitation to worry about why running with the young people as it is running, and try to do something Sachliches it.
And I beg you to consider: I am a teacher - and it is an old pedagogical rule that there is no unwilling or unruly student, only incompetent teachers.
But whether effective pedagogy in terms of morality is possible and then also in our time? I now believe that there is always something possible, you just have to want it! Sure, if you have any beliefs in mind, the do not want it in any case, you have here a kind of thinking may block that blocks the way to possible solutions. So we have to make everything we practice in matters of faith and morals education to the best of our knowledge and belief to the test: What is really true and what has really free a moral Nähwert and what we must, if appropriate?
Yes where is there serious research, such as the "entry into the sexuality" of young people and just the girls so usually begin earlier than boys happens? Actually, yes could the Catholic clergy, who are also confessors, get something out here - and develop concepts. However, no interest! And when I tried to put the issue on the agenda during my studies, my "theological career" ended.
In particular, I do think morality to be very conservative, especially in the things of the (sexual). Friends attack me and sometimes even try to make a fool of myself when I am against sex before marriage. That was everything but long outdated, even on the part of our religion. And who now still I insist that it is a sin that is hardly taken seriously.
I see it differently. During my military service, I worked as a high school senior from a protected middle-class family - at least initially - with comrades from all sorts of professions "in the room" together and also got their talks "after work" with. They were very often now very crudely directly. Girls were about principle than "lfG's" ("Shorteningcrazyness Bundeswehr") refers, ie as "easy/light fucking objects." It was interesting to me that that is the negative tenor of his comrades against a sex that is not in the order of our religion or our human nature, the same was as in our faith.
Since it was inevitable, of course, that I girls who were close to me, about this thought and speech "enlightening" and they recommended less to keep religious, but certainly from live practical reasons to the rules of the commandments in our religion. Because they are surely too good to be judged by men "so".
Against this background so plump allegations that I was unfashionable of my moral settings ago, quite up completely on me.
Eventually I felt then, not only for the girls who were close to me, but basically responsible for all the girls. Yes, what if the behaved differently, ie not as a "lfG's"?
Therefore one does not have to be equal prudish and uptight, and perhaps is with these rules if they are designed only makes sense, our life more fun, free, more explosive, more livable and more intense?
Now to Jesus: As we know now of serious theological research ago with some certainty that the vast majority of reports about him are pious imagination, I'm trying to figure out once another way, what was the intention of Jesus. In Romans, the Apostle Paul, we now find the idea of overcoming the "old Adam" by the "new Adam" (Jesus). What if we examine the way it is scientifically as possible, what it really had the "old Adam" is all about, for what that is, the "old Adam" is? Yes, we can infer and therefore know what Jesus wanted! (The apostle Paul is indeed fallen into disrepute because so much is its <time-related> personal opinion in his letters. But his train of thought about the "two Adams" is probably the earliest surviving assessment of the concern of Jesus and is likely therefore to address the concerns of real Jesus point.)
Critical questions and answers
In the treatment of the topic now a form of conversation has emerged as so critical comments, which I then answered arrived. I would like to continue this conversation now form here.
"You do not talk about religion and faith, but a particular view of sexuality."
That just expressed someone who had left the church. But he is absolutely right! This review is about the core focus of our Christian faith. So which is it? The leading people to God or to the good - that want more or less all other religions. For this must we not be a Christian. Our Christian religion is here rather more of a counter-religion. It begins with a description of an ideal world (of Paradise) and how this perfect world is destroyed, namely with the fall of Adam and Eve. The story of Adam and Eve is now not a story about the creation of the first man (yes, who was at that time for it and wrote it down or even filmed?) And it is of course not created from nothing. We are to the template from the ancient world narrated in this story is created, ie the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. This is the seal, which reports how primitive man was created, and then comes into this world and what happens to him in the way it all. And in this world, he is now a cult prostitute (or temple prostitutes) seduced into sex. Yes, that was probably no intercourse within a wonderful partnership between man and woman, but just sex with a prostitute, even if it was in the name of religion. So then heaven was lost. For this former general folklore has now taken over some of the writers of the Bible because it was just too known, and that at that time usefully also be entered. However, this has now been installed in the order of creation of a new good God for the love and partnership between husband and wife were the special of being human and having sex with a prostitute in honor of the ancient gods sin. Unfortunately, people were indeed once disobedient to God and practiced this new old "rites" in the cult of the serpent (ngottheit) further, that had nothing to do with a genuine couple relationship. So the woman is even yet created by God, but also it is still the contact person of the devil, the men (the only "her" is, but not "is her") deceived. (Note. In the Hebrew language means "with her" and "her" the same word) That should come very close to this interpretation of reality, is of the Protestant Czech theologian Jan Heller in his work on the name "Eva" (Archives oRIENTÁLNÍ 26, Prague 1958) confirmed. Heller describes that this Adam and Eve story is a story against the former fertility cults - and these fertility cults just always includes prostitution, so that there is sexual intercourse, which is a kind of worship while, but nothing with love and marriage has to do and partnership.
So in the Bible does in fact involve a certain view of sexuality and the Apostle Paul has taken this approach in Romans!
Pair of cultic prostitution among fertility tree snake deity at Konarak Sun Temple in / India. The Adam and Eve story is therefore a counter-history to such a cult: Sexual intercourse is not intended to be more a matter of "occasional pair" in the service of a deity, but an expression of the love of a partnership couple.
"But sexuality is nothing bad, it is something beautiful and good, because after all it is something completely natural."
The problem is that just the sex, so sexual intercourse, something extremely Doppelwertiges (or ambivalent) is like so much in our world - we think about the fire. It can be something Toasty Toasty-but also something destructive. It depends on how one uses it, there is a use and abuse. So just can sex be sign of the highest love and relationship between husband and wife, but also a sign of contempt and bullshit and exploitation, and especially that of the man over the woman rule and then an ugly gender struggle, because the woman naturally resists. And this abuse of sexuality is an age-old problem of humanity. Because unfortunately, there are always people or even whole societies and cultures in which sex occurs primarily as something fundamentally negative and never or rarely associated with great love and partnership and will therefore also be seen. Therefore, it is then somehow to the equation Sex = sin.
Note: Pope John Paul II saw the ambivalence of sexuality (see p. 11), the question arises: why the many others do not see them? But do not worry, here also ends has in common with the Pope: He was concerned about a theology, this is about a life practice.
"And what Jesus had to do with all this?"
At the end of this brochure I tell in my short biography, as I came through visits to the opera that it often comes to problems with love and sex in our most popular operas. And here that somehow the reality of many people is reflected, but that nobody cares, that is a different way.
If really no one on the idea once to change anything here? But, as someone there or was there at least once actually: As yet this Jesus of Nazareth was the well-known story of the "sinner" (Jn. 8). A strange tale. So there is a woman who was caught in the act, be stoned. The questions now, when you already at something caught a woman in the act, and what kind of men who are not without sin itself (ie those that have done the same thing as this woman - otherwise the question of Jesus did not would be the been provocation that she was obviously) and then also run to Kadi, so that the woman is stoned. The solution: In this story is not about morality nor is the forgiveness history (Jesus says nothing about forgiveness!). It's about how women were then blackmailed so that they are submissive to men - in the context of prostitution. And this is where a woman had somehow it does not behave as the men wanted. The legal situation was the fact that women were considered to be transferred if they were caught red-handed by two witnesses. So the men had it just so arranged that this woman, obviously a prostitute (which can be seen from the nature of the proposed punishment, because unmarried women were stoned, married strangled, and an unmarried woman who then drove sex was, as a prostitute ), was caught. And I wonder why the stoning? Surely as a warning to other women so that they know what they bloom when they are not submissive to men. - Is not that such a "opera" and however well "everyday life" - here just in the former Near Eastern world? And this Jesus had used not only to save this woman, but also to - so to speak as the second, but now the opposite Adam - something fundamentally change, so therefore his speeches (or sermons) "against sin, against the hypocrites, for love "? It was this Jesus so obviously well aware of the concerns of the harmony between man and woman, that is to love. And he denounced the abuses in this former Near Eastern society that was basically the same as the day during the time of creation of Adam and Eve story as well as in many (not only) Arab societies.
"This is not scientifically correct to declare a single story in the Bible out the concern of Jesus, namely that it was about the harmony between the sexes him."
If you do not progressing in a criminal case, because there are too many obscure and unlikely things are told, then, a single reliable and plausible indication in the right direction, to decrypt the "case". Why not here? In addition, there are annexed to the Book of Daniel of the Bible, the parallel story of the "beautiful Susanna". This story is indeed a bit different, but here a woman related to sexuality should be blackmailed.
"On what theologians because you can rely?" The big jungle doctor Albert Schweitzer was also a major theologian. He described the problem of the past (ie the real) Jesus so that all theologians are somehow theorist and can not get rid of their academic thinking and have their favorite ideas. Therefore, it is impossible for them to find the real Jesus, who was living in a non-academic world and worked. Unfortunately, Albert Schweitzer did not come now to the really obvious idea, even to question people today from the same environment in which Jesus lived back then. Quite accidentally I now came with a farmer started talking about the sinner narrative according to John. 8, which is a little versed in the demimonde milieu. With this milieu Jesus had something to do at the time, finally included sinners, so prostitutes to his friends. And this farmer said to me on the head, that this story is obviously a billing or warning history from the milieu. This woman could save Jesus therefore he surprised the prosecutor, so to speak, telling them indirectly, that they should not do it as if they were concerned with the sinfulness of the woman. But that was too much, which was not desirable. Then the men who forged together with the establishment of its time, a conspiracy to eliminate Jesus - before he would bring the former vervögelte system to collapse.
"But all this is ultimately just speculation."
But after all, a very obvious and plausible. I know of at least some degree in theology, and since this interpretation is not only not considered but rejected even if I putting forward. So it looks like it, that it is not wanted, because it just does not fit.
"And what concerns us today at?"
Well, when sin is somehow not a chaste behavior in sexuality already referred to. But all this should be? If something is classified as a sin or just a wrongdoing, then it can not really be that you first of all, nothing at all or at least learns nothing to really relevant to the question. And if "it" happens next, then the faulty or "sinful" behavior is also condemned. I have, at least listened to my questions for girls why they had not acted wiser than once, "That was never told anyone" Yes, it is so far not a matter of luck that just experienced and girls find something for it meaningful? So our Christian religion always condemned only when the horse has been in the fountain? Should not there yet more and Sachdienlicheres on sexuality, particularly for young people in it? I was taken aback at first the Adam and Eve story of the Bible. When I told girl by her sudden disappointment after their first sex, I immediately saw a relationship to this story. The innocence, symbolized by the cavalier nudity, and thus the paradise were destroyed.
Yes, how come then to all these strange beliefs (concerning. Son of God, Virgin birth, resurrection, ascension)? "Theologians distinguish long as between the Jesus of faith, as described in the Bible, and the historical Jesus, so the real Jesus. Because they have recognized that the Bible is not reported as a police report, which was really, but that it will produce the stories of Jesus with the stylistic devices of the time faith. So it was - unlike today - the former authors not to the realism of, but on what appealed to the people of their time. We notice today in any case, that all these miraculous stories that are told by Jesus to us and the sound today so incredible, Jesus already circulated as gods stories in the mythologies of the peoples of the Mediterranean and the Near East. What a coincidence that all even fit on Jesus! So many coincidences there but not with certainty. It all looks after that the authors of the stories about Jesus have put together all these wonderful stories from other mythologies. We must remember that Jesus was not famous first and certainly not the Son of God was yes. Therefore, nothing wrong was seen in him with the means to improve the time and refine - especially since he's how a criminal was still miserably died on the cross also much too early and. It would have it nor added that he still would really want to do and say (to which he was not stopped coming, as was supposed). Also, it needed a typical gods glorious end, that he was communicable to others. Therefore, the stories of the miracles of the Virgin Birth of the resurrection of the Assumption and much more. So it came to this belief, as we know it today - after all, the most mysterious dogmas, everything ultimately a corruption of the original concern of Jesus. That´s precisely because of the "improvements" later faith would get inaccessible for the people, but they did not think at that time. To lie and fraud is, however, if we do everything only, so only continue - although we could know better or know. So it's really about time to finally clear out our faith by all these harmful for a Jesus-faith ingredients.
Assumption of the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius and his wife Faustina (relief from the Vatican Museums): Like the idea of a virgin birth and resurrection comes the idea of the Assumption of the deified people from ancient mythologies.
"But not to the Christian faith, the resurrection heard after death? Would not our faith empty and vain (as Paul in 1 Cor. 15: 12ff writes), if it were not for the resurrection of Jesus?"
If the life of the spirit out not even make sense if there is no such resurrection? Is there a need for an interpersonal harmony to a beautiful love and partnership nor the particular motivation with the announcement of a life after death? Is there a such harmony is not enough drive on our own without the threat of eternal damnation and without the promise of an eternal reward? What are the only people for whom a harmonious world is by itself not attractive enough, but still need any outside or above the world sugar loaves and whips for?
"No matter what some theologians say, for me, Jesus was God-man"
It honors you very much that you need for a God-man Jesus - in other words for the "Son of God" - keep. But unfortunately this is not important, because is much more important to safety, for whom Jesus thought of himself and who he really was and exactly what he wanted. And if we are indifferent to these questions, then it stands to reason that we have made Jesus the front man for our own selfish and interests, and we do not want to see reality from there. Moreover, even if Jesus should have actually said that he is a God-man or even the Son of God, says nothing, because Jesus was now once Jew, and in contrast to the other peoples of the region in which only the prince of God was, every male Jew had among the Jews the honorary title "Son of God". (The objection "No matter what all ..." also came from a lawyer. The question may well be allowed if the lawyer as well is indifferent to his work, what he is told by someone and what is real. Probably not . then why he behaves here in a matter of religion as irrelevant?)
Why do we need Jesus, if that's all not true?
Yes, unfortunately, was and is the real concern of Jesus still overgrown because of this wondrous stories and therefore can not, or at least hardly noticed. So is this concept here is a completely different approach, so the concern of Jesus of love among people back to life. It is no longer about the condition of a belief in any dogma, faith-oriented concept. Instead we allow ourselves through the teachings of Jesus motivate them to seek ways to teach ethics and which are practically live that they work today. Yes, important for Jesus is still primarily that keeping the law actually in practice "works" - and those to whom this operation is invalid for any reason whatsoever, blind guide and hypocrites, for him (s. curse of the Pharisees in Matthew 23). He also said that the one who is great in the kingdom of heaven, not only keeps the commandments themselves, but they also keep other people teach (Mt. 5, 19). Since this is now experience, not so easy, it is certainly appropriate to the recommendation of Jesus, "Be wise as serpents" to refer to the keeping of the commandments and doctrines of bids or the statement "Learn from the children of this world, wiser than the children of light. "The reason is therefore welcomes in connection with the observance of the commandments! And the commandments should not be a burden, but joy, as it says in the Psalms (about 119, 47): ". At thy commandments I have my joy, I love her from the heart"
"So you do not believe in our own resurrection and life after death?"
The German philosopher Arno Plack (1930 - 2012) has said that we can with the finiteness of our lives not resign, because we have not lived our sexuality properly (see also Issue 1, p. 16). And the sex researcher, sociologist and psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich (1879 - 1957) believes that what most people do with their sexuality, pure Kopuliererei is, as do also the animals from human fulfillment can be no question. Instead of the solution to which both come now, namely sex whim of whoever to practice (a fulfillment that's not!), Here is the opportunity is seen to reach a meaningful ethically upstanding approach to meeting , Once this goal is reached, the need for a belief in a life after death would spare so.
A bishop criticized "under the aspect of an expert" that my commitment is intellectually and existentially consistent.
It may well be that my commitment is not particularly intellectually, but this is not an argument for or against it, because it is not a question of whether something is intellectually, but whether it is scientifically correct. All that matters after all! Whether Jesus was intellectually? This may well be doubted, rightly, he was rather practically live - and more I do not want to be.
And existentially? This is probably also very much a problem of celibates. Because they have a real life problem, namely to find a suitable partner and to live with him, replaced by an unreal problem, namely to find God and to live with him. (Note: The criticism of the bishop was referring to the "Open Letter of an old religion teacher to young girls ....")
"Even after theological research can not be right."
Our current Christian concept is based on the two kingdoms doctrine of St. Augustine (from late antiquity). According to this doctrine, everything is here in this world anyway imperfectly, and the realization or fulfillment of the kingdom of God is (after death) only be in a future world. This doctrine is contrary to the message of Jesus, after the place of God's kingdom is here and now. So we take care of the here and now! In addition, if a professor of the Faculty of Theology in Aachen us religious teachers holding a training lecture about the sacrament of Jesus and thereby concludes that the Last Supper of Jesus, just as we know it from the Bible, does not take place, then it retains its teaching license. When I bring the school in class and I'm still a concept, simply because "negative" is not good (see above), then you cut off my ecclesiastical teaching license. That's life once, the Great allowed to run, the clay henkt you. Note: This "flesh eating" and "drinking blood" is in Jewish thought unthinkable and much more of a pagan cult, which was subsequently inserted into the stories about Jesus to round these stories with an act of worship and thus make it the former pagans palatable. Anyone who is not right here?
"As a religious teacher, you have but to represent the teaching of the Church!"
If that were the case, one would have me a CD into the hand that I had to memorize and then chew again. But I had to do a scientific study which surely means that I have to scientifically questioning what I was doing. In addition, 400 years ago, it was considered good and Christian to pursue witches and burned. In order then to be a good Christian, I would also have to join it? Incidentally: Any system and it was originally not as good and human, tends to be sometime inhuman with the main purpose to sustain itself. So you will surely also in our religion the idea after the expiry queue and may reflect on the origin?
"Jesus has conquered death but to redeem us from death also!"
The problem is that death and sin in the Bible are often identical concepts. Thus, if a "deliverance from death" is mentioned, is actually a "deliverance from sin" meant. And "sin" is above all that which destroys charity in human relations, today we would probably say "trauma caused". In Jesus' time it must have been catastrophic, the abuse of women and children was in this world, so to speak Near East is the rule rather than the exception. So in the message of Jesus it came to a release from this "dead world" - under the aspect of love. It is a "transcendence", a "transformation", but not in an unrealistic afterlife, but in a higher worldly world. Even today this salvation is by no means complete. Therefore, this commitment, as this higher world is quite possible!
"Jesus had died on the cross for our sins"
The Sühnetodtheologie (i.e. the theology which says that the dead of Jesus is an offering of himself) and thus the whole Kreuzestodtheologie (the same, but now with the name of the cross) who are behind this belief is not true - you googled times - and there are not any atheists who say that, but theology professors! The historical Jesus had probably never before, an atoning death on the cross for our sins to die. That he had then accepted death as he was inevitable, is another matter. To this end, there is a great theological thriller of the Japanese Peter Chavier "The Tears of Jesus." The author is both Catholic and Protestant theologian diploma.
"Fundamental condition of faith is but obeying the commandments of God, even if this obedience difficult times."
So God is not a dictator, the people dictated to us the commandments of morality, which actually is alien to us. No, there is a morality that is part of our nature, which is simply human. So the bids (or rules) that morality must also explain without reference to a god and can teach. The attempt is now made in this concept. Besides: Whether God really said all what any Bible writer and priest have put into his mouth and place? Or if that is the interest of this writer and priest rather not?
"It is important for the Christian that he always preparing for life after death. The commandments are the touchstones with joy or even fun have nothing to do, rather repentance. "
Who says that the really good must always be difficult to live, so that the commandments of good and certainly not with joy or fun have to do that but only says that these commandments even make him any joy or any fun and that he therefore itself has a messed up setting for the better. For him, that is, the commandments-holding means stressful ordeal. And who wants to teach others to keep the commandments? Consider: There is not just mountaineers who take the highest exertions to achieve a goal, but just today many people give even a lot of money to experience something special, even if it is still so hard. I remember the Tough Mudder-competitions, where have participated so far over a million people around the world - and entirely voluntary! The effort is not the problem, it is important that something is not boring. For example, if a girl is full of hormones and it is boredom hip, then a sexual adventure's already programmed. So why not teach the commandments so that they offer an effort that is attractive, so fun and joy?
"How can you ever live without belief in a life after death?"
Because such a belief is basically completely irrelevant. Because if there is a life after death, we are in any case not even judged by whether we believe in it, but what we have done to make our world now is paradise here. God has no arms - except ours. Out of faith act, means that we do things in this world so task-oriented and effective that the result is correct.
"The concept of <Fortunately, the high love> is a <sin against the Holy Spirit>."
(Note: According to the Catholic website kathnet.de is a sin against the Holy Ghost, "a moral failing, through which the perpetrator of the grace of the Holy defeated the Spirit in his soul and so hardened that he closes the forgiving mercy of God, and this unrepentant denied. ") it's not about forgiveness, but prevention so that it does not need only to come to a forgiveness of God. Definitely a negligent or even deliberate prevention of such prevention and hence the speculation on a forgiveness of God is a sin against the Holy Spirit.
"The ideas presented here but can be found in any other religion or philosophy."
That's the special thing about the message of Jesus! The real Jesus grabbed problems of well-informed and concrete, so that no one else was handling.
"The wounds of the people must be healed" (Pope Francis).
Nothing against it! But you have not once do everything that wounds not happen first?
Otherwise, how we can bewlieve in someone who will "heal wounds" who doesn´t use all possibilies that wounds wouldn´t happen?
If Jesus was not God-man, he was so a fool or a scam?"
Oh, then the women's liberation in the sense of high ethics and harmony or reconciliation between the sexes, which are worth to commit themselves, nothing for you? What are you on a macho!
"From a macho society 2 000 years ago, but is in the Bible nowhere mentioned."
Of course not, at that time was that everything since then ran as normal. Therefore, Jesus was indeed the big exception that saw a grievance that no one else saw and felt was therefore no need of change.
"So you do not consider the Bible the Word of God?"
She's probably priests word, did not you put priests, inter alia everything to God in the mouth? We are talking here only once from the New Testament, that is from the stories of and about Jesus. The New Testament is not only written by men, it is directly even in large parts of plagiarism. Plagiarism because there are not only since the former minister Baron v. Gutenberg and the ex-Minister Annette Schavan, plagiarism has always been there. The Danish researchers Sanskrit Christian Lindtner, in his book "Mysteries of Jesus Christ" now found that very many passages in the New Testament correspond so much older (Indian Buddhist) Sanskrit texts that coincidences can be no question. Here probably have Buddhist monks mid deliberately constructed a Buddhist teachings to the West until the end of the 1st century. They have taken the not quite forgotten figure of Jesus and then also cut the usual myths in the West gods on this Jesus. So that our faith is, so to speak to a religious smorgasbord (technical term: syncretism) become. In the real Jesus after all, the story of the sinful woman in John. 8 seems to indicate. However, it was probably built only because in the Buddhist faith construction, since she was still conscious of the people of that time and because without them the Buddhist faith design would have been unbelievable. See also page 1!
"It's far-fetched that Jesus began primarily for a harmony between the sexes."
I refer to the comments on "old Adam" and the "new Adam" in Romans (12 ff) of Paul on page 59. Jesus therefore represents a counter-concept to that of the old "Adam-society". And that is the harmony between the sexes. Without such harmony, there can be no paradise, so let's get on with this harmony!
Incidentally: A friend of mine was once an eyewitness of a stoning of a woman in Baghdad. Something had probably experienced before his "preaching" Jesus. If he campaigned against something, does not mean that he is the "harmony of the sexes" began?
"But in the usual Christian faith but it is entirely something else entirely."
In Jewish society at the time of Jesus and the women were second-class citizens while, but at least they were not always despised by men. However, was the ancient Greek society in which the Christian faith, the embossing received, we know today, homoerotic dyed through and through and extremely hostile to women. The women were basically just stuff. Thus, the aim of the real Jesus of the harmony between the sexes was soon completely ousted and replaced by a more or less abstract live far theologian highly intellectual conception. For people of the Church remained a typical rather banal Allerweltsvolksreligion à la "opium of the people" left: To ask for forgiveness and be pious and brave and uncritically believe what the priests tell and do good - if possible, the relevant "Priest organization", so you after the death comes in the sky.
"Is that really so tragic when two have sex with each other and even consensual, who are not married?"
In Judaism of Jesus' time was the underlying principle that marriage and sex go together, so that a sex means marriage. Therefore, the prostitutes' marriage-breaker inside "were, because they always started new marriages, which they then (off) discontinued. We practice the other hand, in our marriage law, including the church, Roman conceptions by which it does not matter who with whom to have sex, but who is at the registry office (or even the censor) can issue a certificate. Thus, the concept presented here corresponds fully to the imagination of Jesus. In contrast, the present general ideas of marriage, the church (n), nothing, or at least very little to do with those of the real Jesus.
"Christianity is primarily a religion and no ethics."
So this would also mean: Christianity without ethics? Whether that would be within the meaning of Jesus?
"You are destroying indeed the entire Christian religion!"
Just as the Jews of the basic idea here is not a religion, and Christianity is not. Both are simply attitudes, albeit with which religious background. Since time immemorial, is now trying in this life settings a typical religion into it just to interpretieren..Doch also the concern of Jesus are simply not forth such a typical religion. Therefore, it is the many borrowings from other religions ...
"According to the Bible, the shame has been prescribed to people but in the Fall story directly from God - to protect them."
Therefore, since God had spoken directly to the people and also gave them fig leaves to tie around? How could that be wrong? Who has the so actually observed? And anyway, though biblical, but then also: According to the Bible shame rather the "curse of original sin" is probably, the more accurate translation of the Latin word "peccatum original" instead of "original sin" - or "the laughter of the Devil ". (However, the concept of original sin is not entirely wrong, do not repeat more often than average trauma of one generation to the next?) Of a protective function is as in any event nothing. And did not Jesus freed us because his act of redemption from the curse? Of course, even here there is no magic, you have to cooperate even according to the redemption!
"The shame, so forced, at least to hide certain parts of the body, but good old Christian and especially Catholic tradition."
Not at all! Not only Pope John Paul II has been the subject nudity positive trend tackled (see page 5). In front of him was already the major English humanist Thomas More, who died even for his Catholic faith and was finally spoken holy in 1935. In his book "Utopia" Morus sees the impossibility of a combination of prudish sexual morality and life-long marriage: It can not be that you a person with whom you live long to connect with fidelity and love and wants before not even completely naked must have seen. This can not go well but! However, the solution he is now in his concept of an ideal world, the more likely is a critique of the realist world of his time, in fact, propose, is also not very elegant, realistic and mature already not at all. For the bride and groom are somehow already compared with horses that are inspected prior to purchase. In addition to the so-called mutual "imagination" are probably already most decisions like, so important would be a real concept, in which the problem nakedness and shame is worked up quite fundamental. (Note: "humanist" comes from H. humanism is a mental attitude that places a high value on human dignity and the development of his personality and his abilities with H. also a spiritual flow was named in the 15... has oriented and 16th century, the ideals of Greek and Roman antiquity.)
Do, however, is based on the original text for yourself!
Thomas More: sexual morality and marriage laws (from "Utopia")
The woman does not marry before the eighteenth year; not the man before he became four years older. If a woman is transferred prohibited intercourse before her marriage, then the both of her as hard punished the man. Both parts of the marriage forbidden not wofern pardon of the prince's offense atones: but the father or the mother, this was committed in their home, subject to the dishonor because they have their protection wards poorly guarded.
The Utopians punish this offense is why so strict because they foresee that it would otherwise arise and that few would unite in conjugal love is where all persons remain a lifetime with one person and on top of that has to endure all the unpleasantness patient, the matrimony brings with it when people are likely to indulge in unrestrained concubinage.
When choosing a spouse they observe in our opinion, a very silly and ridiculous especially use in all seriousness and with all rigor.
A set and respectable matron shows the woman who want to marry, may be a virgin or a widow, completely naked to the man (for them the competition ends) and an honorable man shows the reversed completely naked advertisers the girl.
While we did this custom as an unseemly ridiculed and disapproved, the Utopians wonder, however, about the great folly of all other peoples, when they want to buy a miserable horse, where it is only a few pieces of money, are so very careful that they refuse to buy it, even though the animal is naturally almost naked, though not yet the seat is lifted and the horse blankets and saddle pads are removed, because under these coverages even an ulcer can be hidden - in the selection of the wife but from which pleasure or disgust for life follows, so negligently proceed to the woman almost on a range space (nothing to see here except the face), with judge otherwise completely in body and clothes eingehülltem estimate and connect with close to her, not without great danger of a miserable life together, if after them inappropriate to their infirmities are discovered.
Because all men are by no means to the extent that they only see on the moral value, and also in the marriages of the ways a form of physical assets not unwelcome addition to the virtues of the mind and spirit.
Among all those cases can even be hidden ugliness so chilling that it is able to alienate the mind of his wife of the man entirely, though it is impossible to divorce from bed and board. Now, if this ugliness is accidentally discovered only after closed marriage, each lot must be just wear; it is a matter for the law to take precautions that one may not be brought into such a trap, and it was so serious to be taken into account because of all located in those parts of the world people alone to make do with a wife and marriage rarely otherwise as is dissolved by death, wofern not adultery is present, or the marriage part has an obnoxious character.
Namely, if one is violated by both parties in this way, he receives from the Senate the permission to change her husband, the other part has to live without honor in lifelong celibacy.
Otherwise, however, it is quite illegally, that a husband his wife so contrary because it takes an accident bodily harm if they otherwise meet any debt which is believed to be an act of cruelty, someone to disclose and to leave if he just needs most of consolation and that the age when set up diseases, yes this is a disease itself, which vowed loyalty is broken from the other parts.
Incidentally, it sometimes happens that when the husband match their personality traits after bad when everyone has a different game found in what he hopes to come live happier, separate voluntary and mutually engage in new marriages, but not without the authorization of the Senate to not admit of a divorce, until he has vented itself and with the assistance of the wives of its members in case thoroughly. But then the thing is not leichtlich approved, because they know very well that it does not contribute to securing the conjugal love, if the reasonable prospect of being able to contract a new marriage.
Adulterers are punished with the harshest slavery, and if neither of the two parts was unmarried, the young spouses, which happened by the adultery wrong can mutually marry by violate the guilty party, or otherwise whom they want to take for a husband.
But if man or woman, who have been hurt in this way to the concerned husband who deserve it so little, still cherishes love, the law comes the Fort stocks of marriage contrary not if he follow the condemned to work other parts will; Incidentally, it sometimes happens that the repentance of the one part, and the earnest desire of the other princes of the compassion aroused and obtained the freedom of the guilty.
A recidivist meets death.
If nudity is now not consistently Christian tradition, the fear of it so after all was ever asked of critical Christians in question. Presumably, the externalized morality was also taken from other religions and again mainly from Buddhism. We know about the situation in Thailand, a Buddhist dominated country: Nudity is strictly prohibited here, but quite acceptable prostitution. In contrast, in the early church the (rather young) people were baptized naked. The water symbolizes about the nudity armor from "holy spirit" which really protects against sin. And so the young people died sometimes better than to give up their chastity. Since we are the young people of that time should not unrealistic-idealistic-Jesus-loving judge as to now, it was with them certainly not a fundamental abstinence and one death out of love for Jesus. It may have been only the problem of "love with the right earthly partner". Presumably they were so filled with the ideas of Jesus of such a love, that they do not - how else was customary - wanted to be verkuppelt with an unloved partner.
For "inexperienced" people's joy can, in the beautiful clothing in any case be quite an incentive to a higher morality! (s. Issue 1, p 48)
"But this is all just for earlier - but today everything is completely different." Hoh no! Pope John Paul II wrote in his "theology of the body": "Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and without prejudice to retain its luster and beauty .. Sexual decency so it can not be easily identified somehow with the use of clothing, nor shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nudity. There are circumstances in which nudity is not indecent ... nudity as such should not be equated with physical shamelessness. Indecency is given only when nakedness plays a negative role in terms of the value of a person ... The human body is not shameful in itself, nor are sensual reactions for the same reason, and human sensibility in general. Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of the person. "
"The problem but is actually just the abortion. This is murder in the womb, and murder is a violation of the commandments of God. So I am committed that we do not kill prenatal children. "
In a group of religion teachers many years ago we were once at one of the ladies of the church from the maternity (demolition) advice (as it still was) made informed , And the lady told us about her impression that all women who come to her for an abortion counseling, would also have problems in partnership. Women in healthy partnerships have such problems is not easy. That would mean then that the abortion issue is a secondary problem: Now, if the problem would be solved partnership, would also be the problem "abortion" solved. Therefore, I look only to the problem partnership.
And also I have with the sin notion that only the abortion is against God's commandments, my problems. The babies are not just like that come in the womb. There was quite something happened before? You could still accept, if it is acted at an early marital union (s. Issue 1, p 39), but especially among young people may indeed in most cases of such early partnerships at all no question, is there it is but rather changing partners stories. Goods not even against the commandments of our Christian God, according to which marriage and relationships and love and sexual community belong together? Oh yes, because men were tuned involved, and therefore falls under the table? But not here! I happen to have any objection to this whole affair is only seen what the women are alone affected. It's deeply misogynist!
Also told me women, who had such abortion behind how terrible it was all for them, and they suffer most from it - and for life. And I did something about it that in these women without a better sense stir up everything again.
Besides: Where is a nice please information for young people as they thread a healthy relationship? That was and still always so: First, it is silent about everything and it will be shown wrong way and then they tell the young people something of condoms and veneral deseases, if at all. Here you are, who is doing something wrong because here, who sinned because here - by giving young people a meaningful concept that they can really live? So before we stand against abortion, but rather we should first of all take care that young people learn useful concepts for their life!
"But still, sex education is the duty of the parents!"
That's life once every pushes this task to another, no one sees himself responsible. What are we really pathetic for quitters! For more details see Issue 1, p 51 u. 52nd
"What the Church should not do if the State does not go along when abolishes about the laws against abortion and against homosexuality and then also introduces a sex education, in which the traditional sexual morality is presented as obsolete?"
These lawsuits the Church has said the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt: the church must understand that we live in a democracy and that in a democracy now determined once the majority look like laws for once. This is certainly not always good. But instead of complaining, the church should focus on their opportunities. Who was it about the kids the first place? Those are the churches with their religious teaching children. (This is my continuation of the thought of Helmut Schmidt: If the churches now taking advantage of their opportunities and teach the children a meaningful ethics, but outdated dogmas that rape the reason basically, they should pray tell does not call for the State if the ethics people not in the sense of the church.)
"Well, you may even in some respects are right, but there is not always a lot of ignorance and negligence that happens to be human, and therefore forgivable?"
I see something different: I have been trying for many years, all sorts of people and institutions to move, to do something meaningful for the moral high love for young people. But with my request, I came so far largely "concrete". Well, I was and am still might not be good enough, but you could even once put together to jointly develop a concept. But obviously is a meaningful concept not desired - not even by the Church (of which church ever).
"Here you are, how is all this fit because in the Church?"
Then you read Take a closer traditional baptismal and Firm texts by! Since it always talked before preserving from sin, for just after the Firm text intelligence and cleverness is also necessary, I think of the spiritual gifts of knowledge, judgment, determination, perseverance - and God's help. These are all skills that are needed for practical action. Now, if you consider that the sacraments are Baptism and Confirmation has always donated more young people and even children, then the interpretation imposes itself not outright that it is about those decisions that happiness or misery in the lives of young people strongly influence? And the confession fits in here: The confessor's at the same time pastors and teachers, or at least it should be. Through the confession the priest now receives in his capacity as a pastor or teacher feedback, so to speak, whether what he taught and what is taught by the Church with regard to morality, really works. If he namely realizes that his or the usual moral teachings do not help, he can make smart, why this is, and he can look for a better approach to the young people entrusted to him. But you can also give the confession only see as a cult act without specific practical sense (see p. 18 u. 19).
"Do you ever believe in God?"
First of all, we can prescribe God nothing. We can theorize at best, is there no God, we do with the concept that is represented here, nothing wrong, because it corresponds so our human nature or divine commandments. And there is the good God of the believers, then rejoices when we act according to the order of His commandments or our nature that he has created. Here, too, we are right!
"You can do whatever you want, but I believe in God!" The problem is that we know nothing of God, he is after all a fantasy and dream product. We can only know about Jesus, but above all its concerns and does not fit many of their purpose. So he prefers God as Jesus. In addition, they called themselves the Nazis, who were pushed out of the churches, a believer in God. "God" can be harnessed to provide each carts.
But is not a firm belief in God the basis for any better morale? Just as we had thought in the Middle Ages in terms of medicine, "health comes from God, and disease of the devil." If you do not want to be sick now and be healthy, then you had to just very pious and devout be. Surely that's not entirely wrong because pious and religious people just also very often live very healthy. But the real breakthrough in medicine came when we let go of such magical thinking and the questions about health and disease objectively never ceased. Especially in matters of sexual morality, we still have the medieval setting that you want to solve the problem by "faith and piety magic". Here is a rational approach still ahead. The concept of this book is to show a way before.
"But is not that religious people are better people?"
Experience shows that, unfortunately, a belief in God at all is no guarantee that people are really better. Were not worst crime just committed by people with any expressed belief in God? Protects a belief in God really hypocrisy? There may therefore the saying of Jesus: "Seek first the kingdom of God and everything else shall be given you this!" This is exactly the concern of engagement "Fortunately, the high love" with the idea of life after the "order of nature" which indeed corresponds to the commandments or "rules of God." Incidentally, "Paradise" and "kingdom of God" identical concepts - the "kingdom of God" is therefore quite attractive to some earthly.
"But it is not only a suitable spirituality only creates the climate in which also can be a high morale thrive?"
That is a thesis that can not withstand the practice. On the contrary, a religion that only cares about spirituality and not specifically about how the commandments of God are kept straight (also called "order of nature") is sexual (and still refuses to investigate concretely and objectively about it and to develop concepts) must, to the reproach leave, that's not the point her to the keeping of the commandments, but under a beautiful excuse just to the "business with sin" and with hypocrisy.
"What you are doing is irresponsible humans to destroy their faith and take away with it."
Irresponsible but only if you take away something people without giving them something better. The question is, what's better if people live here and now it right or if they are being lied to and therefore have a vague hope for a better world after her death. Of course, many people have a more harmonious life here and now no more. But at some point one must begin again, to make life here and now in the spotlight.
"But it does not mean" faith "because you just can not prove anything?"
Consider: When we talk about Jesus something that obviously is not true, how is this going on it the blessing of God rest? As if it would Jesus need us to tell stories about him any gods that you have to believe blindly. Also in the concept of this issue, it's all about faith, namely the the real Jesus - and only with this belief, that somehow a coherent faith, our world can really be replaced!
"Since you can not do anything anyway, where people are as human touch up. The Church remains "in these things" but only left to give the repentant sinner God's forgiveness "
You can always do something -. If you just really want! In issue 1 on pages 2 and 3 of which I have reported what they told me people about their mistakes (or "sins"). Those were also a kind of confession. Get with certainty, or at least got something with priests also, as long ears confessions were still common. Strange: I have when I heard something of stakeholders, immediately thought that my interlocutors are not so stupid or instinctive or malicious, and asked them why they could be so blind and denkblockiert etc. Above all, I've been using them after looking for a concept to another pedagogy, ensure that everything runs differently in the future. Yes, why not ask priests also such a thing and take care of a change? Are they so instead of "Care Taker of the Souls" (this is also a German word for "pastor") somewhat "cult priests" who see human mistakes in personal matters only cult aspects, as they can place them in God's mission - what is actually limited to the "second choice" in our faith? (This is something for the death of the German interns Moritz Erhardt from England: "... to the tasks of British coroner counts except the judicial determination of cause of death, the recommendation to the authorities and the public, as related deaths could be avoided ... Recently she took <n. a particularly dedicated judge> ... the accidental death of a cyclist an opportunity to criticize the inadequate London ruts. ") (From" The World "v. 22.11. 2013, p 27). So why not take care of in our case in an appropriate manner?
"The whole misery today is but it just because people do not think much more about confession and no longer go to confession (so a priest)."
This argument reveals the attitude of the typical Priest: It's all about forgiveness, ie if so all happened. The fact that there might be a prevention for people to behave properly from the outset, they will not mind.
Why I am involved in that?
Well, I think, that's easy! Take a look at once Issue 1 pages 2 and 3 of what I young and not so young people have reported their first experience with love. As yet there is something wrong - right? And although many now see exactly sure, but it is strange why do anything - and then only apparently Disabled? Yes, why not come up with the idea to appeal to the reason and the good will of young people here - of course, so that the time also understand and accept what is at stake? Must one not do something, if you can stay and when we see relatively easy ways that it can also run make sense? What one is for Christ, if that's all then it does not concern one? Particularly annoying are for me the callousness and indifference on the part of church officials (only way I can describe it), for any stories that have been imputed to Jesus, is more important than his concern on the success of a beautiful love for all. But it is by no means the only ecclesiastical officials, otherwise there is callousness and indifference to satisfy. In addition, all has indeed a political dimension - see the question about my interest in the "young girl" in Issue 1, pp 38th
We describe Christianity as a message of love. By this we mean the active charity, that is to help other people who are in need. However, the message of Jesus is more: it is especially once the message of love high. And high Love said the relationship between man and woman - and that will not fade left to chance, but for many people as possible now succeed here and in their high form.
When I use the traditional Christianity continuation of ancient mystery cults and therefore regard as completely outdated in this work, I can "Greco Roman understanding of religion and mystery cults as the building blocks of the Christian religion," rely on the dissertation work of Max Ortner, Vienna 2009 me well.
In the newspaper "Die Welt" 01/11/2013 we read: "Francis wants to know how his sheep tick".
The author writes that church people see the problem is that today the marriage for many a "temporary issue" and that the Pope would like to get an overview of the needs of its believers. Oh dear, "a temporary affair"! It should but just theologians know that at the time was Jesus among the Jews of sexual intercourse as a sign of marriage, ie, that Jesus also lived in this idea and worked, and that therefore sexual intercourse and marriage should belong together in the view taken by the church marriage morality. But theologians have not already accepted that sexual intercourse has become a makeshift affair and thus removed from the ideas of Jesus? So if they see the problem of "temporary issue," then they should not begin until marriage, but even during intercourse. And sitting here since time immemorial Catholic priest so to speak, "at the source"! Are not they just the ones who might know well from experience with the confessions of the faithful, where pressing the shoes of their sheep? And it's not the priests that could affect the formation of the faithful, and especially the ethical? (I know I'm repeating myself.) If not by the priests, where else people should know better concepts of ethics? Who else as yet has the opportunity to influence the ethics very young people in his hands? So why do pope and church people as ignorant and powerless?
There was a 'Mater et Magistra, "meaning" mother and teacher (of nations) ". This was about social issues. Actually, the church should rather are "Mater et Magistra" be very human questions - but apparently none And yet would be just their job!
Meanwhile, it will be in March 2014, there are the results of the survey. The German bishops Pope Francis informed, nothing more. No trace of suggestions or even suggestions on how to return to sexual ethics, how does it actually teaches the church. I refer to the amount in the newspaper "Die Welt", 4. 2. 2014: "German bishops trick from the Pope Francis - According to a survey of the Vatican believers ignore the Church's sexual ethics mostly publication kindled debate on reforms.."