crazies seem correct

 the "eisenhower" matches

as we study the details and claims of the 1954 "dentist visit" the puzzle peices FIT together like a puzzle. i refer to atomic bomb bits.

in time order: 1945 truman dnc, during war, ordered the use of atomic bombs to mass murder two japanese cities in a broad explosion worse than poison gas which was illegal. japanese emperor did not surrender so soviets invaded crossing the amur river then japanese emperor surrendered.

soviets and americans temporarily divided the korea peninsula to manage but the locals some wanted soviet style communism but others wanted american style... democracy? they called it "REPUBLIC of korea" not democracy. democracy was the communist north same as dnc since the year 2000. [clinton was the last dnc non-communist. maybe later they will switch back but they like bad bernie sanders and his socialist leanings. the perfidious jew.]

communists in south korea made terrorist attacks and later north korea invaded south korea pushing the defenders far south and many surrendered.

u.s. sent jets to help weaken the invaders.

soon u.s. made a landing in west korea cutting off supplies and the counterattack from south swept northward... freeing the occupied south korea.

when the forces neared the pre-war border the north did not surrender so the u.n. amd u.s. forces led by mcarthur chased the dangerous north army to destroy more and more and annul the threat. [later israel had the same situation in the war with syria. syria invaded in 1973 and israel pushed them back to the border... did the losers end the war? no... so israel CONTINUED chasing the dangerous army into syria, almost to the syria capital city conquering the golan hills during a defensive war]

the invasion of north korea ALMOST unified the korea peninsula as a republic until chinese army aided by soviet mig 15 jets aided the "reds" and hurt many u.s. forces... NOW the relevant part...

mcarthur called for u.s. to USE the atom bombs against china for getting involved... would rnc president use them same as dnc?

 NOPE despite during war the rnc had opportunity and even a military request to use the nukes but eisenhower rnc said they are only to deter not to use.... matching conservative sanctity of life. the soviets wont use theirs if we have so nukes save lives but not to use as truman dnc used EVEN during war.

we can copy if rnc had been president in world war two then SAME as eisenhower they would not have used the atomic bombs.

how do i know? because during war the rnc REJECTED mecarthur request... this matches the "conspiracy" of a galactic republic... that people ridicule but the puzzle peices fit...

in FEBRUARY 1954 after the korean war ended eisenhower was in california. at night he left to go "somewhere" and three strange things happened: one a news agency reported that ike died... 2, his family said his tooth chipped on a chicken bone and 3, the crazy people say he went to see the corpses and/or live ambassadors of the galactic republic.

obviously night has enough hours for ALL THREE to be true... he can have a dentist alibi and also go to the air military base but WHY need an alibi for a military base unless... he did die. maybe all THREE were true except the dentist that  they said he visited, never recorded his "real visit"... that is the one part that is a fictional cover up why would they need to cover up his visit to a military base... only to hide something...

he DID DIE so they rushed him to the ALLIES who had superior technology and revived him before it was too late.

then they reported he was alive so the first message "must have been a mistake" because nobod but jesus died and revived. if now alive must not have died.

the crazies claim details: at the air force base ike met alien allies. he negotiated with them about nuclear weapons... considering the korean war had ended by 1954 AND ike was the one who as above REJECTED THE REQUEST to use it this FITS!!!!!

they were sure he would agree to disarm u.s. nukes in exchange for tec because IKE HIMSELF was the one who had rejected mcarthur request to nuke china during war.

we see he did not disarm because he needed to deter soviets the only thing stopping soviets, from firing atomic bombs, was the fact that u.s. could retaliate. remove that and soviet would kill u.s. citizens.

still i am sure he was grateful they used super tech to revive him after humans found him dead and were helpless and needed to go to the base as above.

the craziess add that OTHER galactic visitors negotiated with ike they did not want the disarm of nuclear weapons so ike compromised with them as long as they returned the abductees he would give permission as duly elected president for whatever good of the research.

all the details fit like a puzzle... the claim of the crazies about nuke negotiations FITS that ike was the one who rejected the nuke request as above. they had hope. but he turned them down.

the report of his death matches the crazies that he met advanced alien allies... who revived him when helpless humans could not and considered him dead... there was even time to go to the dentist if he had not died... but that is the lie, exposed because dentists keep records but he did not go to the dentist that night, and that fits that he died so rushed to the advanced alien allies. in exchange for the agreement u.s. got some advanced technology leading to the space age in 1960s as well as "so-called-civilian" patents in many areas of science as the advanced alien allies gave u.s. a "leg up". still we were not trusted with advanced weapons so we did not have any during the vietnam war... which waged many years.

gift ideas

 Gift items for adult lovers

a meaningful gift indicates that we knew and thought about her interests (and her preferences must be considered too).
FIRST
Choose a book or a set of books in the type she likes. maybe mystery if interested? or drama or poetry or picture magazine subscription , to the type you know she likes. unless she is the rare lady that will say "book? boring". then instead of book,  continue the list for other suggestions. a book has the advantage as showing that you see her as a thinker not you see her shallowly.

b, i recall in series big bang, that lady gave Penny a portrait painting. similarly, hire a local artist to paint personalized art. if you can't afford that, then a mug with a decoration or theme you know she likes, filled with colored wrapped candy sweets, or simply wrapped in colorful wrapping paper. if can afford more expensive than a mug, then better than a mug, give Kitchenware, whether a new coffee machine, or electric can opener etc. or cookware, or if apt, a cocktail kit.

c, if you can afford buying jewelery, then make it "Personalized". depending on budget and occasion choose wrist bracelet or necklace, or ring engraved with "her initials" or a meaningful date in her life or your relationship. those not in top ten percent , will probably need options with gold plated or just a pair of earrings. but for those who can aff, important to spend as their status not "cheaper than status". i mean imagine a rich giving simple earrings!

d, a gift certificate to a spa etc. or even just to a long professional massage. similarly for a cooking class, she can attend free, to fill the gap until your next meeting.

e, a repeating gift, that "keeps on giving" monthly delivery of wine tasting or fruit (reference series everybody loves Raymond) or any of her interests. it can ne a magazine about food,  or a book club.

f, if you know she likes tech stuff, then a new smartwatch, or new wireless headphones or something tec category.

g, an empty scrapbook or photo album for her to fill, and a short handwritten personal note. if you can afford then "monogram it" like homer simpson did when he changed his name, but not with his initials instead with your and her initials. similarly towels, pillowcases etc.

so those are some suggestions of gifts for adults. when i was young, age nine, i felt very excited when my girlfriend bought me a lego gift, fond memory even now decades later, but adults have a different level for appropriate gifts.

Defending Judaism from dawkins, was easy and what he missed

 look at the failures, the opposition cannot find any real error in monotheism so they do name calling: "tribal cult" to make an image of worship: "primitives shouting monkey style, while wildly jumping around a fire", but only stretching the word tribe that meant families. but stretch it to fool people.

i can use the ugly word "cult" too and MORE accurately toward the agno-atheism ugly "cult" characterized by hollow name calling and mocking, and worse a faith so blind that its "apostles" or followers only make "brief claims without basis" just as much "blind faith" as their accusation to christian proffessors and educated muslim sheiks.

BARBARIC describes our atheist culture with unending rapists... at least religions teaches rape is bad while godless said "who said WHAT is really bad?'

the oppositions call monotheism a "great evil" or "affliction" or "barbaric", without saying WITH that claim any harm? just hollow name calling but i can call "godlessness a great evil" but when i do it WITH reason pointing at so many many rapes... because people do not fear god and even deny god... they tell themselves, the evildoer said in his heart "who will stop me" even the few who hesitate, reassure themselves "dawkins said god is a delusion" [he did not, but opposite possible, but only the title is famous] causing people to feel free to rape... victims of any gender.

rape is the thing TRULY barbaric, that afflicted atheist socity who do not fear god. ask: is the only reason not to rape fear god? we see without fearing god NOTHING ELSE stops the incessant rapes. 

the rape is barbaric, not a book that said "punish rapists" the "barbaric bible" said to punish those who rape, deter with money payment like a ticket for "runnin the red light" or speeding faster than the speed limit fines.

they mock with word games, "heaven=sky" and "father is called by kids lovingly daddy" so they mock, "sky god and sky daddy" as if they found a flaw?

the true flaw is the fool who described a SPIRIT as "literally patriarch HENCE loathe lady" as if logical support? it is a spirit.

while christianity is the one that preserved its lady leadership, not loathe lady. the foolishness was saying about a spirit so no "hence" nor "literal" in a package containning god is spirit. could mock mr. zeus that is not a spirit but the opposers FAILED to find real errors in monotheism.

i can agree the bible of judaism SEEMS "anti-human" with many death penalties... but aimed at the GUILTY not  "blind indiscriminate killing the masses of humans" or innocents just the guilty... such as incest... a list of relatives in leviticus 18-20.

dawkins apparently could not bear seeing his sister [he did not have one?] as "off limits" so he and his apostles COMPLAIN, asking, "who said i cant do incest or incest is bad?"

is death penalty "unpleasant"? human courts have death penalty is that "unpleasant"? maybe but by now we know, when france cancelled its death penalty around 2006? surprise? the murder rate increased per capita. not just more murders as population grew but RATE increased when cancelled death penalty, surprise? the "foolish french" should have THAT year reinstated the death penalty. talk about "fiercely unpleasant" that is the hangings in pirates caribean 3, world end, not just centuries ago but by modern britian in 1930's maybe later... and gun "firing squads". or the ugly "tremors" the horrible quaking in the electric chair, i am not laughing. 

the fastest painless death penalty is the one we humans do to cows and which a hit man did indiscrimanatley in video, when the guy took the cow killer and killed humans. the weapon of the hit man in 2007 "no country for old men". for guilty perhaps that is less barbaric, i mean first general anasthesia so no pan nor fear and then when out use the hole punch, less barbaric than the options listed. if i were guilty i would rather that painless cow "puncher",  rather than hanging by neck until dead, or trembling vibrating in an electric chair or the terror of facing a row of rifles in a firing squad... that is the babrbaric godless society.

back to incest dawkins page 58 whines about the "morbid obssession with incest restrictions" what was he opposing? his neighbor's wife? some amazing aunt? such a complaint indicated his  morbid obssession to do it? i could say the same UGLY WORDS "atheists oppose bible restrictions revealing their morbid obssession to do incest unhindered and without shaming" if they deny god they can tell people to stop feeling guilty for their urges and actions?

the only thing ugly in the phrase is the word obsession, but is it even true? that is baseless name calling who can measure if god was obssessed with anything? just name calling that can be mirrored MORE ACCURATELY at those who oppose limiting incest. 

dawkins is a pro at finding ugly words "charred flesh" the image of a bomb scene... but the same words are "aroma of barbecued beef" same exact words but he mocks saying charred to try and make it seem ugly but anybody who does barbecues knows the aroma can be enjoyable. just words... because cannot find any real error.

he attaches harmless things to obsession... when as above we dont know if god was a judge or obssessed but what we can see from his wording that dawkins was afflicted by sevral obsessions and was clearly STRUGGLING to suppress his own sincere faith. that caused him to choose such failures and blunders.

when a boxer wins the match is he evil for "feeling superior to the many rivals he defeated" that is not bad but reality. in fact to deny the supperiority would be the bad detachment from reality. so dawkins lied that it is obsession.

one final lie to expose, dawkins whined that he is "not allowed in the private club" complaining about the "exclusiveness of the chosen tribe" those are his best attacks on judaism? exclusive can be a praise, of quality, but he meant exclude which is false as the famous story RUTH was not excluded but joined anybody can join if they wanted... not excluded and not an exclusive club either.

a lady can join without any surgery in contrast to the men.. who have an obstacle... they can only join if they do a surgery... yet those rare sincere men DID do circumcision as adults... and that is another reason to let infants grow up intact. if you believe they would agree then those sincere will do the religious cut themselves and if not sincere then let them choose not to cut. do not say "we must because no option" we see the option that sincere do as adults and with better anti-pain. the option is real... but parents KNOW almost certain the child WILL SAY NO as an adult and knowing they will "not consent" motivated them to rush, they "get it in against his will when powerless infant" THAT is where dawkins could attack judaism... that is the problem that dawkins should have found... the only reason for a modern parent to obey 8 days, if modern, is when they are certain the kid will not do it as an adult and then KNOWING against their will, the child will NOT consent do it against his will when a powerless infant... if they were not knowing "violating the son's decision" the alternative is "he would agree anyway" if so give him the chance to agree... or not. the parents if  believed he would AGREE, no rush, he will do it later! and also give him the chance to AGREE WHEN ADULT that is the ugliness but dawkins was busy with the wrong uglinesses as above he was only bothered by the incest limitations, only.

bill clinton the ugly republican

 clinton is most famous for his accusation in court.

officially he was democrat dnc and implemented several dnc policies... however as his second term ended he started weilding his authority for ELDERLY people and schools and bipartisan stuff he finally added emphasis on rnc values and those earned him approval rating around the same as ronald reagan.

if people had free speech they could criticise obama but any criticism gets punished by the accusation racist so people were bullied to give obama an unearned high approval rating but only clinton earned it by his bipartisan policy and as above rnc style emphasis on conservative idea boost elederly and schools.

people reslized rnc policy is better so despite high approval of the dnc guy, they did not want dnc policy so elected bush rnc.

if people gave approval due to his dnc policy that they loved they would elect another dnc but respect elderly is a conservative idea that people liked and instead of a dnc acting rnc they voted rnc.

similar logic

if jewish parents such as reform jews were CERTAIN the child would agree to circumcision they could WAIT and rely on kid to choose cut as an adult.... instead they are certain he WILL NOT AGREE so cannot wait for the son to grow he will not do it so knowing against his wishes they CUT  before he can protest so we must protest for those who cant protect themselves.

back to politics from the start of 1900s, from 1897, the 24 president until 2000 had 18 presidents. how many were dnc? SEVEN  from 18 not even half, but 11 times favored rnc. and clinton was popular as above for bipartisan and conservative elderly so truly favored 12 for rnc policy. 

the tragedy is that two dnc were during war time and with president authority called command chief we see the horribly awful decisions mismanaging the dangerous wars. 

no surprise that after wilson 1921 more voted rnc and no dnc until 1933 fdr.

truman who i condemn for using unjustifiable wmd on a city worse than poison gas, with a broad area burn instead of limiting civilian deaths, did get reelected a second term after 1945 but then people did not want dnc policy so voted rnc in 1953. so removing those 2, for awful war decisions and mass murdering 2 cities leaves five dnc in a century in contrast to as above 11 rnc plus one.

simarly from 2000 until biden who now has VERY low approval rating... 

only ONE dnc in 20 years, and he is unfairly protected due to his skin color so we  cant criticised.

free to harm

 hh

hh

hh

my Summary, Catcher rye

Catcher rye, 1+2, pages 1-13

intro, this book is awful quality and boring dialog so to save you time i summarised so you can know, who talked and the bit that happened, instead of reading thousands of low quality words and grossness.

Summary: in Pennsylvania, Holden got expelled from school, for "failing four of his five subjects." he only passed English class. On the Saturday before Christmas, he lost the fencing team’s equipment on the subway, so their trip for the competition got ruined.

Holden started going towards a teacher's home, but when he tried to run, he stopd to breathe because he was a smoker. 2: the teacher was ill. so Holden lengthily conversed with him until Holden interrupted and went to his dorm room.

3=14-30. Holden sat reading, and was wearing his new red hunting hat, with a long brim and earflaps. Ackley, who often acted gross, entered his room and started asking annoying questions. later, Holden’s handsome and popular roommate, named s', entered, so ugly Ackley left. 

4 while s' shaved, they conversed about stuff. Holden judged that Ackley is an obvious slob, but s' is a “secret slob.” h' knew that s' was one of the few "sexually experienced" boys. s's date waited until finally they left together. Holden felt jealous that this Jane was with s'. Ackley returned again and was grossly squeezing pimples.

5 Holden ate steak for dinner and threw snowballs. He, a pal and gross Ackley traveled and ate burgers, played pinball and returned to dorm. there Ackley sat on Holden’s bed and resumed squeezing pimples. h started doing school work for his partner. he wrote about a guy who copied poems on a baseball glove, but that differed from the assignment. h described his younger brother "incredibly nice, innocent and the most intelligent member of his family" he heard Ackley snoring in the other room. 

6 Stradlater=s entered their room and read the work and complained it was the wrong topic. h angrily tore the work and smoked. Holden asked s about his date with Jane but s won't tell so h fought him until losing. H was insulting S until s punched Holden's nose. Holden insulted him some more until S exited. Holden went to Ackley’s room. 

7 Holden lay in bed in a's room. He worried about jane but slept and awoke. they talked until h left and packed. he don his hunting hat, and started crying. in the corridor he yelled probably waking people.

8 Holden walked to the train station. he rode until a stop, where a lady sat by him. She is his classmates ma. he lied to praise him to her.

9 at the train station in n.y.c. Holden decided not to phone any of the people he knew. Holden rode a cab to a Hotel. In his room, he saw thru lighted windows: he saw surprising stuff. he spoke on the phone but did not arrange any meeting.

a tale of two orphans

 frank flew from fildelfia across the states to l.a. he hopped off the jet at l.a.x. and went to the car rental. the car he had reserved was ready. it was a pink and pretty prius with the new battery called hybrid. he saw the battery was charged, on the light meter, but the gas tank was almost empty so he used his smart phone completely produced by the u.s. company shevroe, to search for gasoline, shortened to gas despite being a liquid not a gas. using the map feature he found the one nearest this airport and drove toward it. 

while frank "fred" freedstyn waited under a red light by an intersection, he heard the loud booming of a rapid fire weapon... coming from his right side. soon the huge hummer was racing into view with its powerful engine roaring hardly humming... and at least three long rifle muzzles poking out the windows. the light was red for him therefore must be green for those terrorists even if they only shot in the air scaring people... he would stop them!  as the hummer neared the intersection frank estimated the few seconds until it would zoom in front of him and at the correct second he slammed his foot down on the pedal... the extremely light car leaped forward slamming into the side of the hummer... its low front prying a bit under the raised door... the hummer got bumped with great force and swerved on an angle as it rose up in one front wheel...then flipped on its side and rolled a couple times into a couple of fuel pumps where the crash ignited a fearsome fireball of bright orange. the tragedy was he would need to flee the cops despite doing what he thought was good getting rid of evil people.

and he could not fill his gas tank. so he turned sharply and went toward where he had heard the gunshots.

a short swerve and he was at the front of a house. its windows shattered and a long row of men and women corpses on the brown grassy lawn except for the red around the corpses. the bride in her bright pink gown was down and only the lower part was still pink as the top got dyed while she died. the groom in his crimson red jacket and white suit pants lay beside her. almost everybody looked young in their twebties and they were clearing doing a home wedding. only two old corpses apparently the parents lay among the corpses. too late frank noticed the baby carriage. he exited his prius and walked worriedly toward it. inside was a tiny baby barely one year old sleeping. its bottle lay beside it. he walked to the from=nt door which was open and looked inside he could smell and see the fresh hot food lined up on the table for the reception meal. he called around the home "you can come out now' but clearly everyone had been outside for the wedding in the front lawn. 

fred reasoned that it was only fair that he would not need to pay rent in exchange for taking care of the orphans. he cancelled his checks on the rental apartment in philadelfia so he would not pay while he lived here.

he brought the carraige in door and put the baby in the basement. then he put most of the food in the basement fridge.

when she cried he used to frozen milk in the freezer to feed her. he did not need to buy food as the food for the wedding filled the frij and 2 freezers. he stayed in the basement ignoring the sirens apparently from cops who came to gather and identify the body. they did not even enter the home once they saw the whole family was dead. 

nobody came to collect rent and even the phone did not even ring... month after month. he took care of the orphan for almost a year before the bank representative came. 

that fateful morning when he was giving his daughter fran formula from powder that he had ordered delivery using the credit cards in the home, he heard the doorbell ding. he went to see who was there?

the man gave him the papers "your mortgage is complete you now own the house". apparently the automatic payments had been from an account that had enough to pay the last payments. 

frank lived in the house a few more years until fran was four. he lied to her that he was her father but her ma had died in a drive by shooting which was true.

time to send her to preschool. no he would home school her. he studied franticly calling himslef frantic frank and getting his online teaching degree in a couple months.

then he used the new york ciity curriculum to teach her preschool addition and language skills.

he added science by telling her about the world and reading stories from the website "simple classics dot org" a website he had started where he rephrased classics in simpler english for kids. now he read from his phone to the calm kid. they never ever needed to leave the house and apparently all utility was automatic from the credit cards...

finally the credit card dates expired. by then fran was 8 years old.

seeing the date of expiration he ordered froom the same bank and they identified him based on the home phone number so they mailed a new card. after all it was for raising the kid.

finally the fateful day came when summer vacation some cousins came to visit.

the phone rang for the first time in years. he had only been using the phone to call out. a male voice said, "glad we got you at home we were gonna go to the k.f. joint for lunch but if you are home we will bring it to you. 

frank told the truth "my name is frank. whoever you thought lived here moved" like moved to the grave. well if you are not comfortable inviting us in we still invite you to join us at the joint. "no thanks" replied frank and pressed the small tong of plastic. 

soon cops were banging on the door. who are you why do you live here? he told the truth "i am taking careof an orphan.' they accused him of peado and tossed him into prison moving her to a doc appointemnt to inspect the damage. only after the doc reported she was unharmed did they drop the rape charges. they tried to pressure her to tell the truth that he "touched her private parts" but she just sobbed "my daddy is so nice stop saying that about my daddy". finally the psychologist said "all the indications are true you are traumatizing her. one cop said we will do lie detector on both just to be sure.

they pulled him out of solitary cell and asked lie detector questions. despite frank passed, still the accuser said he is just a psychopath with no emotions for lying and still guilty. last the daughter passed the lie detector test and her daddy was released from prison.

finally he told fran the truth, "i was nearby when gangsters shot your parents dead. so i took care of you. you are not realy my daughter" fran answered you are more a father than most biolagical parents... and they lived happily ever after until she reached age 18... then he told her it is time to find a husband and she said "if you are sure you are not my dad then i love you most. that is how frank and fran married each other despite a huge age gap. together they rasied fran junior. with fran's love for him, they lived happily ever after. meanwhile a block away in l.a. a lady who had been fonnd infertile went to her neighbors home. their baby was just two months old, at the time of fran and frank's weding at the justice offic eat city hall. she shot both parents at the dinner table, so that she could raise the orphan as her daughter. she hid the corpses in the basement. last she brought her five pet cats from her home. her plan worked and the cats hid the evidence. this child would also not remember her parents' death later she would think this ma ws her ma. and despite the lady was a cyber-expert psycho... they too lived happily ever after.

O.B.1

 

which monotheisms LOATHE lady?

 some Monotheisms Loathed women but one did not

a Critic was planning to make monotheism seem evil, so in part of the claim he used an element, to make his accusation seem plausible. i will tell several STORIES but briefly the direction will be: the truth is that that element is false, so the accusation is not even plausible. we will see by analysis that in the end the accusation, that had been intended to sway women away from christianity, is not only false, because women were included in leadership both in action and in christian scripture, not only theory which was taught but also even in action too, but also the claim is not even plausible because the so called "patriarchal father" was spirit not male. indeed even after this idea was published by vidal and even by popular dawkins, it only served the "already gang" to stay agnostic, but failed to sway women away from christianity. they were ALREADY well aware that their church leader was male and did not care.

"my priest is male, i do not care

why do you think, i'm not aware?"

where should i begin? the most famous monotheism: which is islam that started 1300 years ago as preserved by the muslim year count now 1300, that is their number and before that this quran faith had not yet existed see endnote.

however despite it seems to be very populous, still far less because the count was not using accurate parameters, see endnote, [that that is a simple error in defining terms] truly the world has very few real muslims, and i demonstrated this in a previous blog here. so the reason to "start with it due to populous" is simply not true instead we should use: time order from the most recent near our time, due to relevancy and from then earlier.

ONE

the newest most recent faith that is famous and that i know about is BAHAI

i will tell the STORY about my experience with bahai

I flew as a tourist from New york's J.F.K. airport to israel. i saw various places in Jerusalem [the capital city of israel now and in ancient history] and stayed in a couple hotels in tel aviv, to see stuff and the beach. there, i even visited some jewish churches, i mean by jews who follow christ. later i toured saffed and even toured haifa where i saw the beautiful flower gardens called bahai. that is where i bothered to have a brief dialog with a bahai that turned into an ugly debate which he handled VERY well.

when i was entering the bahai garden the bahai representative explained that this was a place holy to them so no smoking cigerets nor chewing gum. i asked for a paper to describe the tourist location, and he gave me a "prospect". it described the garden and their faith with very clever and attractive marketing. as i wandered around the beautiful gardens enjoying the various plants and patterns and colorful flowers i planned my question and the possible debate.

by the time i returned to the entrance for exiting i had decided on my question and strategy to get information, but the best laid plans of men and mice...

i asked the bahai "do you believe in the bahai faith"

"yes"

"i was reading about your faith and i wondered if you have a pope leader?"

"no, we have a council and they are here in haifa."

"how many men and lady in the council?" so he answered "a hundred men". 

uh oh. "i read in your pamphlet you have a big emphasis on Equality, so why are women forbidden from the leadership council" the guy manuevered very well, "no law ever forbade women to be in the council. in fact women can "equally vote" for whoever they want to be in the council" 

clever but "who decided the nominees for people to vote". 

"everyone, equaly women write a list of names and then a commitee organizes the names and the ones with the most nominations are the 100 in the council of 100."

so i asked, "if so, as you said people suggest nominees, and that no law forbade women, then people could nominate a lady? so why only men in the council?"

his words, "no real bahai would suggest a lady for the council" end quote his words!! 

wow, so much for equality! a lady is equal to nominate others as an equal vote but a lady is too low for anyone to nominate for the council.

i nodded and proceeded to ask about the prophet of bahai: just brief mention because the topic is loathing women and preventing lady leadership.

"i read that a prophet came and said to change from islam"

"yes, until now islam was the correct faith to obey, but in 1800's god sent a messenger to follow new writings and faith."

"If so what if a prophet will come and claim to exchange the bahai faith for a newer one"

"that is the plan every thousand years"

i pressed the debate perhaps rudely, "so if in your lifetime, later, someone will claim to be the next following prophet would you accept him?"

"certainly not! now is only two hundred years from baha-ula that would be a false prophet i told you a thousand years." his tone was getting excited a decent person would lay off.. but i was going back home so i had to squeeze...

i felt i had him pinned like a chess game! 

"are you saying less than a thousand years is a false prophet?"

"what do you mean? that is what i said?"

"after jesus, muhamed was SIX hundred years, so he must be a false prophet"

the bahai whispered a prayer "oh lord forgive the blasphemy of the ignorant".

he handled it very well but by his own rules, muhamed was as false a prophet as anyone after bahaula. we can contrast: if not a long wait then NOW and that past day i claim switch from bahai to a new faith, that differs from bahai and stop being bahai... do not need a thousand years but if do, if less than a thousand years is false prophet then if jesus was a prophet, as they say, then muhamed was less than a thousand and equaly a false prophet. despite his calm reply he had no "escape" so he prayed. after his prayer i waited to give a chance to add. then i said have a nice day. he politely waved at the heretic and i walked away.

if an evil religion is evil for loathing women then BAHAI who will not even nominate a lady for the council is evil.

the earlier faith was islam.

ISLAM

islam despite seeming populous, i refer to the number 1.2 billion 1.2*10^9 that is ONLY by the error in PARAMETERS due to western standards called self determination. if we ask someone which faith are you? when they say muslim, then based on western standards "if you say you are muslim then each person has authority to determine themselves" however...

true islam is not "only a  faith" in idea, that muhamed is a prophet but laws such as "fasting ramadan month and covering hair and covering one eye" as ibn abbas taught from the first generation of islam. since the idea of the term muslim is submission then anyone of those millions who does not "submit" to the rules of covering all face only showing one eye is not truly a "submitt" not a real muslim, not merely doing a sin but not "submissive" to islamic laws. therefore i claim very few muslims are in the world far less than 1.2 billion maybe bangledash and pakistan have a couple millions who submit only showing one eye. iran and shia [not sheva, but shia] is niqab as i explained in a previous blog.

the clothing obligation that woman must submit to others who decide what they wear and cannot CHOOSE for themselves what to wear, in general nor choose one eye covered or both using burqa as a choice, is loathing women and 

++

NEVER ever is a "sheik" leader allowed to be lady nor can she serve as imam nor kadi etc. any lady was denied the opportunity to be leader so vidal could say "islam is evil because like catholics it loathed women" by preventing leadership and also forcing them to dress as others demanded without personal choice nor decision as above, and denying them the opportunity to participate in leadership as if lower. this would be true, but still other monotheism specified that lady was included in LEADERSHIP in the new testemant.

the famous faith earlier than islam was christianity.

CHRISTIAN

the famous faith was following christ. it was called christianity and yes the word christian IS in the original document not a later term. teh word "bible" is in the original document it is the FIRST greek word of the new testament that CAUSED the book to be named bible due to its first word.

note: some ridicule saying the words christian and bible are not even in the bible... would you believe them without checking? both are in there and bible is the FIRST greek word in new testament.

Now, christian is the most populous religion. one major group with over a billion catholics 1.3b, who believe the core of christian faith: christ died and was revived from dead, and adding the unholy system of unmarried priests and cardinals and popes... truly jesus never taught such a system.

a second group over half billion christians who reject the pope system called protestant but agree to the core that jesus died for sins and was revived from dead, still i know of two earlier monotheisms.

in time order the next one to analyze is christain we see in the picture quote that in practice in action and in scripture a lady was included in leadership without criticism. this monotheism of new testament did not loathe women, even if catholics do loathe women by preventing participation in leadership which is a sin according to their own book. i do not mean a sin according to a different faith but a sin according to their OWN book that contains the book romans.

the later monotheism after moses monotheism was christ. jesus specified worship the "father only" and told the devil "worship the father only" and when you pray pray to the father, so yes monotheism and yes father so maybe that was patriarchal? nope... jesus specified god is SPIRIT the idea of father was only the commonly known role of the father to discipline, "as a father educated his son" so a spirit is not male so again the accusation is not even plausible despite the term father was truly used because "he" is spirit.

however since christianity is more populoous than the other monotheism such as sun disk faith, extinct zero followers and moses religious laws with barely one million followers, who bother to take vacation from work on the biblical festivals, and do not do gardening on saturday sabbath, we will bother to check the CONTENTS if it loathed women?

the book preserved in book romans chapter 16 that a SISTER was a deacon leader in a church so not only was lady included in the leadership, histooricly, but she was mentioned with respect in the holy scripture without loathing nor preventing her leadership nor commanding her removal !! gasp! from position. 

christianity specified that it did not loath women included women in leadership in contrast to "evil catholics" who debase and demean women by denying them equal opportunity to join leadership, same as evil islam and evil orthodox rabbinate that i condomn. however the montheism of the new testament allowed women into leadership and one of them was famous sister as a respected leader called deacon like bishop so the accusation against christianity is: not only not plausible, because the father was spirit but even in action women were included in the leadership not discriminated from positions of respect so the accusation of loathing is not only baseless, sourceless but also demonstrably false except for catholic. bad catholic that rejected the biblical truth in their OWN book that allowed women leaders.

evil catholic baselessly loathe women by preventing a lady priest or cardinal that is evil loathing of woman so vidal accusation IS true for catholic pope system but he wrongly stretched it to monotheism when he should have specified "catholic loathed women preventing them from leadership for almost 2000 years by the male pope system" which would not apply to pure christanity that lacked the unholy cardinal and pope system  but included women in leadership as above and in which god is spirit not male.

JEW

the previous monotheism was jew and it is famous because the more popular christianity preserved its name.

yet before that, i mean preceding the monotheism of moses, around 1300 b.c. was the less famous montheism of aknatan. around 1400b.c. aknatan said only worship one god the disk of the sun. only a lone god the sun that was exhibited as a disk. 

later, egyptians "regressed" from that limiting. they renewed the older faith of many gods, whose names were made famous by the great series star gate, hathor the goddess and... here is not the place for this list anyway. but moses having heard about one god in egypt, struggled with the topic. in the end he wrote that we will not regress and instead wrote "no other beside him" refering to jehova. admittedly abraham and jacob and even moses all used PLURAL verbs for god, "they led and they appeared" and later as listed in talmud, because abraham was truly NOT monotheistic nor jacob nor even moses at first, but at the end of the "forty years" they renewed aknatan monotheism around yahweh who is the solo lone god just not the sun disk. i would prefer changing his name from yahweh to a descriptive title solo... but disney star wars has copyrighted "solo."

last but forgotten: the oldest known monotheism.

SUN DISK

egyption king aknatan worshipped and ordered to worship a disk of sun that was not male so the claim quoted by dawkins with its silly words: "monotheisms are LITERALLY patriarchal god, a father therefore loathed women" vidal is not even plausible because god was not a male but spirit in monotheism. in his defense he did not list aknatan and did write "2000" so he was not accusing aknatan

for DAWKINS and equaly vidal to say ANYTHING about christianity besides a "quote" [which he only brings for other faiths but his criticisms of christianity are almost all, page after page for dozens of pages, almost all mocking a straw man, without any christian quote], is as SILLY and worthless as asking a catholic priest to REPRESENT why rabbis think rabbis are right. 

instead of believing this claim, which is as if not even spoken, due to misrepresenting the "literal father", and no real accusation exists, instead, the opposite the new testament book preserved that women were in leadership not prevented. so the claim of loathe about christian is false.

only catholic reject their own book and loathe women but not the true christianity that would follow its book.

the grouping of jew christian and islam is absurd because they all say god is spirit, so not male, so the accusatiion is not even plausible.

only the godees faiths i mean zeus and chronus were male marrying goddesses like sheva a male god who had a goddess wife, but the sun disk is a disk! the claim about montheisms is not even plausible... to doubt maybe the accusation is true.

the following monotheism of moses admittedly used MALE verbs "he said, and he called" but also FEMALE pronoun to teach not really male.

that language where everything including items such as a window was male or female, the grammatical system needed to be chosen.

for this "door" thing called yahweh they used male except once to show not really male. this is taught by the female pronoun "you in female" in the jew hebrew bible. furthermore, despite male verbs, still even the male pronoun had the added letter that is usualy called the female addition "h for lady" so god is not male so the claim "literally patriarchal god therefore loathe women" is not even plausible. simply, god is a thing, a creature, i do not mean created, a being, a spirit not a male and as above the pronoun was female in book numbers. and in christianity god is a spirit while in islam god is "not body but perhaps a mysoginist."

we see by analysis that in the end the accusation meant to sway women away from christianity is not only false, because women were included in leadership both in action and in scripture but the claim is not even plausible because the so called "patriarchal father" was spirit not male. indeed even after his idea was published by vidal and even popular dawkins, it only served the "already gang" but failed to chase women away from christianity.

so for each goal we see: fail fail and fail, also false except for two as above.

ENDNOTES: 

islam obligated women to cover hair but the list of commandments in moses monotheism even among hundreds of command never even one to submit women to covering hair. even the hint, that a lady did cover her hair was traditionaly interpreted that her hair was showing and meant something else, so women were not even commanded to submit by covering hair... until talmud around five centuries after jesus. not before that in mishna nor earlier books.

both islam and jew admittedly have very few people in those two "religions"

because each generation the pagans masssacred many jews as described in book judges and later catholic inquisition spread and massacred many jews and even now when over ten million jews live around the world, those montheists do not submit to their OWN traditional laws ergo they are only ethnic jews by family not by religion

sleazy d.n.c.

 

Protesting racism should be targeting the authentic segregation not the stretched term.

strateguy632

Xper 7Age: 47

i recently saw a "question" as common here and on quora attaching "why" to an accusationary opinion, to use "association method" for a political rival, while pretending it is a question.... but here they had the option to publish in  blog, so no need for the pretending.

the proud d.n.c. legacy? never replaced?

topic, emphasize authentic racism. and reasons i hope biden will not try again as incumbent candidate for President. from 50 d.n.c. Senators and many dnc governors,  they can't find even one worthy to support?

are all those, recognized by even their own team, as "so awfully unbearable" they need biden with his ugly past... why can't he "retire in style" like Former president o'bama and the ending of the old board game called "life"? buy a nice beach front mansion to watch the evening sunset over the pacific, as long as he can, before sea rises to flood the coast?

several issues are relevant here.

1, asociation, 2, ugliness, 3 integrity 4, reputation.

the issue of association is used in ads for example famous actors, who are beloved, including decaprio and gomez seem to take sides on issues to attract public support, i see them as actors who can pretend any character whether they agree or not? but people associate their love for the actors with the topic. some even skip the actor part and think if he agrees it must be important but... they are actors !! is decaprio a graduate of "oxfford school of climate science" he is an actor and can be a character on either side (even better than farkel in the debate episode in series girl meets world.) the public associated whichever side, with him, a beloved actor and hopefully not, but possibly, with his characters....howard hughes the genius, and x-men leader etc.

similarly we have seen the harms of fascist regimes. the problem is that fascism has several elements and some are harmfull while others are harmless such as tradition. a traditional idea alone is harmless without the bad parts of fascism. the problem is again by association , anybody with any elements, even the good parts of fascism, can be called fascist without lying... and painted ugly like authentic fascist but only the bad parts warrant opposition and protest. not all elements, nor all combinations, nor anyone who they can "pin a fascist detail on" , and say it is true, warrants opposition. Still not worthy to oppose at all, and not by the ugly antifa methods.

this method has been used various ways in comedy and public dialog. put a name of r.n.c. politicians on the evil star wars sinister empire warship. to associate the political rival with evil if a =b , b=a? tell a story of a serial killer but put a pro bush rnc sign... this comedy is used to associate political enemies with evil. it is excused by comedy but used in this way.many of the questions here which could be .... use the same method, some more lengthily "not all trump supporters are bad but all bad support trump" as if that described trump? the trick is association and it is used because it works, especially in a plausible way i am not accusing everyone.

in the instance i refer to i got "triggered" by the implication. the question claimed somewhat like all "evil wizards studied in slytherin " house in hogwarts, in harry potter world, "all racists support trump", not accusing all trump followers so your guard is down , but the implication: none remain on the dnc side??? what about biden himself and stennis in above picture. wasn't stennis dnc?

yes.

now ask yourself HOW this guy was not rejected by d.n.c. management from a second term attempt? as above he struggled for separation segregation and against equality for decades... he and d.n.c. had no qualms about being racist until today they call everyone else racist, " he bad racist, just dont remember our history."

but maybe that is all past? stennis is dead? but the idea continued, due to d.n.c. showing its policy, and later when then presidential primary candidate harris, correctly criticised biden for his own actions in addition to association carefully worded.... see picture.

bus and school policy too

she correctly emphasized his flaw not only association with the stain of dnc party both politicians and leadership. biden was given opportunity to deny and did deny part.

the ugliness grows as we see more details. in the phase called primary, the dnc voters showed their shocking ugliness... all their complaints about mysoginism were empty words as no female candidate got more than ten percent support gasp, if we naively believed their words then voters male like female would prefer a female, and especially the worthy harris who protested segregation guy. we know not to be that naive but if we had doubts it already happened dnc voters did not support the female candidates, almost no support, not even the good guy anti racist kamala!! instead who they preferred the one who DID the segrgation actions regarding bus and school. that is extremely ugly in several ways.

if we analyze further, the segregationist biden, not only by association but his own actions, as above, and not among the "all racists support trump" gang but opposed trump, he got the support... and then took the one who the voters rejected as running mate for v.p. that is ugly because they rejected her but he stabbed his support in the back taking their reject.

and harris herself, no problem getting power by teaming up joining the same bad guy she targeted the segregation guy, who she oppposed, if that is integrity what is moral high ground? supporting dnc would trample the ethics of integrity. it would praise the ugliness. look at the REPUTATION of dnc and biden and harris each... if i had any doubt these reputations would chase me away, if i wanted dnc to win, i would make a plan, SWAP out the ones with bad and ugly reputations but no alternative not even one of 50 dnc senators nor from yhe many dnc governors is worthy of support, all they can do is keep the bad reputation guy in position and hope they can distracted the public by making rnc look bad even by those association methods that i described. an objective strategy is find someone good and say why he is good and better but dnc is too ugly sleazy and pathetic to bother.

middle east mess

 when people hear about the suffering in palestine, i wonder if they are aware of the DIFFERENT  goals and groups of freedom fighters.

when people say " #freePalestine " i wonder WHICH goal they intended to support.
were they supporting the groups who want a muslim state there, in west bank such as hamas group and its allies, perhaps? or? or the groups fighting for a secular #palestine  state. which of them do they support? or either one as long as jews lose land and lives?
when they say "peace now" meaning isreal should give land, do they care to which? do they support even one of the goals?
with which should israel negotiate "land for peace"?
do they think if either one of those groups gets a state, the other will STOP fighting for their version?
i suspect more likely such supporters of "palestine" are not even aware of the differing groups above nor details.
the issue is not "sincere interest" instead  it is only an opportunity to dress their anti israel as pro palestine, not realy thinking about which group nor which goals. furthermore...

i doubt they are even aware or bothered to ask, to know that the arab governor in p.a. government (that exists) has been denying those arabs the "luxury of voting" for government, among other oppressions, for many years. in other words the arab governor prevented elections for many years, that is the AUTHENTIC apartheid preventing voting, it was by abbas the arab leader, but that is not what the supporters are trying to change nor complaining.
the issue is not truly "care" about those arabs voting no fuss about abbas. the only apartheid they complain is, is not that lack of voting, decided by the "duly elected" arab governor named abbas, indicating those arabs HAD the right to vote and israel did not prevent arab voting in the past.
instead when abbas term ENDED abbas prevented elections but that prevention is not the apartheid of no voting that those protesters or pro palestine  intend nor even care about... only they found an opportunity to dress their anti israel as pro palestine, to jab at jews whether accurate or not , without any interest in details.

most of the supporters do not really want the arabs there to have those arab elections. for them the only aparthrid WORTH mentioning is to jab at jews who did not make the above decision.
thecword apartheid DID refer to voting but not the mentioned problem if votinv, only to jab at jews whether accurate or not.
worse than the oft mentioned apartheid is
when they see a picture of an arab child bleeding, i do not doubt they feel compassion and anger, but do they bother to ask the details what happened the moments before? did israel shoot or someone else? and uf israel shot what caused israel to shoot? or did they find an opportunity to dress their anti israel in a new name regardless of details?
i DARE the supporters to OPENLY choose one of the goals from among the 3 options above, abbas verse other in election? pro secular palestine or pro muslim palestine... and then those supporters will find themselves either arguing with themselves about the goal , or find themselves agreeeing "no difference as long as jews lose land and more lives as above".
the monthly stats, are presented that it does not seem "fair" that less jews died each month, their desire is a disguise that they want to see more....  not any real compassion but the disguised wish for the opposite of compassion. prove me wrong? in actions?

reasons the niqab does NOT cover enough

 reasons the niqab does NOT cover enough

for outsiders i must specify: this is an academic analysis, and despite the differences from western culture, seem absurd , it is not to mock, but simply academic. sadly it is necessary due to a VERY problematic tradition that was not famous enough, only an obscure website published it for me to see in passing , when reading about something else.
BURKA
what is a burka
within the culture it is known but outsiders often think of both burka and niqab, when they hear either niqab or burka, but they are different.
despite both are like long tents that hide the shape of women's body, still they differ.
the garment named Burka covers the whole face, even both eyes, so they see out through a tight net "mesh window" but hides even the eyes. a hint to distinguish names is the letter b of burqa is same as letter b in word both, to help remember it covered both eyes.
some leaders teach this is obligation however that does not accurately represent the traditional interpretation in books. it is a new custom outside of islam.
if the tradition in books would be famous and applied then a lady should have options albeit limited, to choose from, as i will show.
tradition specified cover one eye so covering both with burqa is not truly obligation despite often taught as obligation.
NIQAB
what is a niqab?
The garment named niqab covers her face but not her eyes. Some muslim experts have said "niqab is more accurate," because a veil that covers hair, in quran section also covered neck therefore logicly must hang over face. so this interpretation of quran , the obligation is in quran not only sharia, has been taught , must cover face as obligation. however, for her to see,  an exception was made to "cover one eye" so she can see. since revealing one eye sufficed for this necessity, therefore a niqab revealing both eyes is not sufficient it doesn't not cover enough because, it does NOT cover the entire face, and tradition specified one eye.
this would be relevant indoors, if a visitor came for example "Muslim women do not cover their hair at home with their own children, a son can see his mother's neck and hair". in other words, a hijab and niqab is not worn at home, unless a man visited.
for this reason men outside family, even friends who meet away from home, if men, he is not invited. in the instance when a visitor outside family, is invited, for them cover hair. for example a child reported, ("son of hamas" book) that when cops came to arrest his father,  his ma went to cover her head hair, this story preserved the custom that for outsiders cover hair and that in home she had shown her hair, not as sinners but despite very religious still with family not veiled when with children, unless someone outside their family visits. in that instance they were not invited nor expected.
in contrast to the extremist orthodox jews a women must cover her hair at least with a wig or a large cap, even indoors, the result of that traditional law, prevented even husband cannot see it except a bit of time when alone in their room.
in theory a law targeting either religion for oppression such as an anti-religious decree would outlaw religious garments in the same way as someone without a gun license can't have a gun even in home.
the home would be searched for weapons and equaly if targeting the religious garb for persecution. similarly taliban in Afghanistan had beard police, as police they were authorised to raid homes and check if husband obeyed the beard tradition to grow a beard. those who shaved would be punished by beard police, until the taliban lost control. then the story became known to westerners and the beard became optional some chose to grow, but others chose to waste time shaving, but that is not the topic here. it just demonstrates that something forbidden is forbidden even at home. the beard police idea of taliban was undoubtedly persecution by preventing choice in the home. similarly if a law would target the religious it would forbid even in the home, where a woman's hair showed, until the police came for persecution, which they cannot keep out in contrast to not inviting outsider men as above.
then she would cover her hair as above, in hijab which does not hang over face or niqab or burqa, then a law targeting religion would persecute the wearer indoors same as the beard police of taliban.
in contrast, safety laws such as no ski mask in a bank include no burka nor niqab, because included in ski mask, not targeting the religious style but due to inclusion in a ski mask law in response to  criminal use, by criminals to avoid identification by witnesses and cameras. i wonder if ski masks should be permitted in streets? however that is not the topic here. the point is, covering both eyes with mesh is academicly not truly obligation because tradition specified one eye, so teaching burka as obligation is false and does not accurately represent traditional interpretation of quran as above it is an addition outside of islamic tradition. still the exception for seeing was specified "one eye" so showing both is not justified, so not only must men restrain themselves from seeing her two eyes until after marrying her, even she must cover one eye only showing one, the other eye, because allowing men to see both, i mean not her sons as above, is not justifiable unless she would renounce islam.

religious clothing

 

external does not show inside, only behavior

we often notice those who Cover their hair because they are different than most.
is Religious clothing an indication of loyalty to religion?
we easily notice ladies who wrap their hair and necks, why are only muslim showing such loyalty to religion? why not Christian? well other religions did not obligate which clothing to wear.
they can choose to wear jeans to church or a dress it is freedom to choose and never limited what to cover, except one place had a problem so there for that time, instructed be like their contemporary society.
even if a guy wears a cross he could be like the guy in fast and furious. that is not an indication of loyalty but still the lack of religious dressing is not "violating" the holy book nor lack of loyalty because new testament never limited "only dress like a nun" in a shapeless tent dress.
and those who do dress by sharia are often wishing they did not need to, only their culture EXPECTED it, and even must say they want it, even if did not. if they were allowed to choose, then some, who wanted to obey, would , but many only say they want due to pressure from other people or dress obediently but complain, so externally not really show real feelings.
instead they should notice that THIS difference REALLY indicates which religion is more controlling by preventing personal choices.

when to break up

 

When to Break up.
disclaimer: "each Relationship is unique" and can differ from these ideas, which are not the only reasons to separate, just common reasons.

WARNING this content is considere explicit despite schools teach "sex ed" and should read it 

a, If either partner is younger than 18, high school age, and read this, if one pushes or pressures you to do "it" i recommend break up, to separate from anyone who thinks "consent about sex, at that age is consent." obviously i recommend submit to law, not say "we are both minors" nor plan we wont get caught, such pressuring is a reason to separate, i mean end the relationship. certainly not risk one adult with under age because even if say consent , still same as if not consented.

i suggest for these examples using screening. tell your lover we will not do "it" until 18 birthday. based on their response, do screening.  the partner might leave you, showing wanted it then, so as above, that breakup would be mutual.  the loss is worth it despite feeling a crush, and feeling rejected still better not to be with that type than submit. especially if considered option, better to self satisfy than to risk.
if not leave,  the remaining option is either stay to argue, to pressure you, in which case you succeeded at screening them and you should dump them. or will agree so no sex. either way, if feel urges only do self satisfy.
in my opinion, if your religion says dont masturbate, still make an exception and masturbate even if committed to other parts, because this is just a harmless exception.

b, a common reason to break up is arguments especially angry arguments, some can reconnect after arguments, however if one showed anger for the other "saying  a different opinion" in words ( i dont mean  annoying action) , i recommend leaving the angry one, especially adults, should separate because cannot communicate. especially when just talking about opinions. Communication is critical but that is a later topic.

when should adults break up?
a, defining expectations is very important if you do not define "casual" it can lead to arguments and accusations. the couple must speak openly and honestly, to understand expectations for example
if casual means not exclusive, then only if both specified and agreed, but if only one wants exclusive meaning only you 2, (because casual means not dating but yes exclusive) that is when you/they should break up their "boyfriend and girlfriend" relationship, to separate, because one wants and desires exclusive but the other doesn't.
more common reasons:
b, If one or both partners don't feel a "strong emotional connection" it is common to end the relationship.
c, if adults dont feel feelings of intimacy, it is common to separate.
d, if the relationship is for "enjoyment" or companionship but later one partner changed the purpose, separation is common.
e, if one feels annoyed, Communication is important,  so speak up about the annoying behavior. if not speaking up, the other won't know , so will be continuing to annoy more, which you don't want.
f, if couples experience frequent misunderstandings, that indicated broken communication so that must be fixed to avoid breakup. so this summarised  common reasons to breakup. other reasons can also justify ending a relationship 

shorter STORY of jesus the students and apostles

 for more background i summarize about from his life with times emphasized.

birth when and where?

During the time of king herod [mat. 2.1, the book said when because history recorded. herod died 4bc so at latest 4 bc almanac and britannica, now called 2023 so +3 (3,2,1+2023) =2026 years ago] during the empire of caesar Augustus [luke 2.1 between 31 bc and 14 ad] jesus was born in bethlehem [mat. 2.1] in judea [the gospel said the name of land then was judea and israel see [mat. 2.1 and 2.20 see for yourself there greek "israel"].

how did people become disciples of jesus? summary of chapters 1 to 4 briefly.

in the 15 year of Tiberius [luke 3.1, called 29 a.d.] jesus was about thirty years old [luke 3.23 yes the source said "about" and even if not, still estimating is common when using whole numbers 3 as a whole number or 50 or 30 etc. as a group], that is when and where,  at bet ani [bethany] on the other [east] side of the  jorden river. two disciples of john [baptist] heard their teacher say about jesus "is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world", so they accepted and followed jesus. one called his brother, simon son of john who jesus named peter. jesus found philip and invited/said "follow me", so philip called nathaneal and both came to jesus. [briefly summarizing john 1.29 to 1.47]. jesus said about his body [j2.21 as a symbol parabel like many of his parables] destroy this temple and i will raise it again in 3 days. 

note: jesus planned to die here and other sources see john 19 first jesus was silent 19.9 but later said he agreed that expected to die [j19.10-11 for the plan, explaining he could save himself] and j18.11 "put away your sword etc. and more.

jesus taught that anyone who believes in Son of god has eternal life and will not perish but saved [from perishing after death matching jeremiah as above saved from sin]. anyone who does not believe, then this disbelief condemned them [even without any other sin, j3] he taught that God is spirit and claimed about himself "i am messiah christ." [j4.24 to 26].

note: this briefly summarised four chapters 1 to 4 selecting issues for this generation's ignorance. more is in source if have more time to read and to respond to other ignorances.

chapter 3, students and apostles

matthew listed, [mat. 10.1-6] "his" 11 classmates who jesus SENT [j4.38] "sent to israelites not gentiles" [mat. 10.5-6] a distinction that some try to blur gentiles are israelites but jesus distinguished, here. also elsewhere first to the jew matched this. matthew named each one including himself "matthew the tax collector" showing jesus did not reject rich and powerful nor sinners. since matthew was the disciple and author we know this part was written by a personal witness in the generation of jesus disciples not by someone later and same the disciple wrote as preserved john 21.24.

in galilee, at the time of "the jewish feast of tabernacles" , jesus sent some students, go to feast but he stayed in galilee [7.3-9]. during the feast of dedication in "jerusalem" jesus was in the temple, he taught [again] i give eternal life and save from perishing. none can take them from me.

[other translations added "man" but not in original. even satan and sin and renounce is too late to change, as specified here defining gift]. 

he claimed "i and the father are one" [not polytheism nor three. when jews said, in john 19.7 he deserved to die by jew law it was because they heard him say this. some spread ignorance "jesus never said i am god" some mean "in our book quran jesus never said" but in a different book that "even" quran said is good and light, he did say about himself. others mean "i never read him say that" which is not a lie but they CAN read john 19 and john 10.30-33.]

near passover, just before the passover feast, john wrote, "jesus knew the time to leave this world" 13.1 and recorded jesus his teachers words, that he personaly heard [j21.24+j13.33] "i will be with you only a short time" he knew he would die for the plan.

shorter story of jesus part two

more background around death, in a shorter story.

if it seems long? still actually 80 words here about legs, summarized 176 words so shorter. the first section about crucify seemed long? it summarized 374 words in around 165 words so shorter by less than half both times. Part 2 also summarized the bringing to the cross, summarizing 1480 words in only 450 words, less than 1/3 and a thousand less words to read to save you time.

The soldiers found that Jesus was already dead, so they only broke the legs of the robbers but did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear. blood and water flowed out. The man who saw [SAW but not a century later] it has given testimony [19.35]. These things happened and fulfilled scriptures: “Not one of his bones will be broken,” and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.” later they buried jesus.

part 2, less important but relevant: how did they get him on a cross? who were this they? did he even claim he could save himself? was he arrested publicly?

STORY: "when Tiberius [luke 3.1] was emperor caesar, and when the governor was Pilate, near the kidron valley [j18.1-36 summarized here very briefly], judas led roman soldiers, holding torches and lanterns."

note: this indicated night and indicated many jews loved jesus, how? the need to arrest at night among trees, so many loved jesus so much that the leaders expected a public protest even riot if they saw their beloved jesus get arrested=that was the NEED to arrest in the trees at night with torches. if "everyone all jews hated jesus" as i heard some ignorance and some external "dogma canon" that differed from the book, then no need to go with lanterns, simply grab in public. the story was with lanterns.

"roman soldiers arrested jesus. soon, [jew] high priest questioned jesus [j18.19-28]. the roman governor questioned jesus [j18.28-36] who said "my kingdom is not this world" [meaning no threat to emperor tiberius.] The jew leaders "could not" kill sinners in john 18.31. the jew leaders wanted to kill him BECAUSE "because he claimed to be the son of god" [j19.7, preserving this 

detail, but "could not" kill him [j18.31].

NOTE: if believe gospel, jews did not kill jesus because they could not, but maybe denying this detail fits a certain mindset?

"again pilate questioned jesus who stayed silent [j19.9]. after another question, jesus agreed you can kill me, only for God's plan, but i could save myself [j19.11]". the choice was in pilate's power... he could free jesus or not. everyone waited for the governor order...

suspense?

no one could kill jesus unless governor decided and ordered soldiers.

"he gave the order to "soldiers" [j19.16] soldiers crucified jesus in john 19.23"

soldiers? 

only IF believe the book, but those inciting pogroms "stretched the truth a bit" not matching their own book. if anyone noticed the difference, still hatred was stronger than logic. i mean think about the situation: church leader said "we love jesus and the jews killed our jesus" and the crowd is angry! and one nerd said "sir, dont you mean romans? it even said here..." what would they do to such a nerd? and others less nerdy, who can sense the environment knew to be silent.

note: this summarized brifly [because must not delay the main part, defined in cor. and romans, so just summary of chapter 18.1 to 19.23 selecting and emphasizing the details based on what i saw about this generation. still in the source are more details. the continuation is the more important part in part one.

next chapter about birth of jesus less important for atonement so chapter 3.

alligator's circumcision

buy an alli-Gator, part gray
with a powerful pair of tails
if not, instead, i'll have my way
with many, shiny yellow scales

alligators with seven feet
if none have those, one that, whispers

for it I'll clean, my room so neat
if by its fangs, four short, whiskers

i'll wear flax, and itchy flannel
i will even, act so pleasant
you can change the T.V. channel
 give me please, this precious present

an alligator that can bark
and on each foot has six fit toes
i want to lead it to the park
and show it so, everyone knows

 -

the amputee victims say "we are happy" but who is happier?  a rhyme reveals:
In Europe, it's fact
they know: who will win
and happier if
have intact foreskin

cancel culture a new shock

 cancel culture a new shock

do you know about cooking live crabs or frogs? they could hop out but the heat gets raised gradualy. i found something shocking on one drive so first the background: we all heard of dropbox, to keep our files copied, off the home computer in case i spill cola on my laptop keybord. i found that microsoft imitated a similar service called one drive so what is relation to title? i am getting to that.

story: i entered one drive to see its various features and something annoyed me they "invite" feedback... so i clicked "concern" and u know which form?

the same form for reporting troll on facebook... now nobody would report themselves??? 

unless multiple personality disorder? angry guy wrote racist and the next day same guy has other personality so report his own?

the issue is partner and collaberation like a team editing a data spreadsheet... so think about it... first we report people on social media and now we will report coworkers to... microsoft!!! w.t.f. we see the next step: first move society to snitch on facebook for opinions... then the pot "slowly heats" more almost cant tell, who would notice, once we are in the habit of snitching on suspected bots and trolls and almost any criticism is included in racist or offensive... we hardly notice this as a problem snitching to the microsoft cops when sharing files.

the pure STORY of Jesus

 the shorter STORY about Jesus, "trending" a summary in demand.

introduction: I read many of THIS generations comments, okay only a few hundred, that indicate certain information is not Famous yet. people, even IF they wanted, do not have time to search among many chapters. so for this need in Response, i assembled GATHERED the parts of source, which their comments reminded me of, of which, to easily and quickly read and save your time, instead of searching many chapters. i attached them together into sentences, for easier reading. before the STORY, who really WROTE it and what is the INTERNAL story of the writing?

chapter one: who wrote? 

"Peter, son of john, saw, [john=j21.15 and 20] the disciple [=student], whom jesus loved, who is the disciple who testifies, [TESTIFIED but while alive recorded] to the story, and who wrote these things [j21.24]." 

note: the one who personnaly learned from jesus, testified and WROTE. part of bible was written by this disciple not by someone a century later. when we read "the new testament was written a hundred years after jesus" that refers to ASSEMBLING the older writings, that were written earlier some by this disciple who wrote it the same generation as jesus's disciples including the disciple named matthew who personnaly learnt from jesus [matthew 10.1-6 i will quote it here]. also included are later writings by paul around twenty years after the Roman soldiers crucified jesus [john 19.23 but nobody blames italians] see below.

STORY: "christ died for [pay debt of] our sins, [cor. 15.3] according to scripture [copied into book isaiah in chapter 53] people buried him with a stone cover, [cor. 15.4 and john 20.1] and on the third day, [cor. 15.4] God raised him from dead [romans 10.9].

"by this gospel [message] you are saved, [cor. 15.2], this as first importance [cor. 15.3]. anyone, [romans 10.11 fulfilling isaia 28] believe this in your heart, you will be saved" [romans 10.9 matching and fulfilling Jeremiah 31.33,34].

did any witnesses see him after death?

"after his death he appeared to [SEEN by] peter and the twelve, [many witnesses cor. 15.25-30 and john 20.1-21.23]. the word of faith is [romans 10.8] if you confess with your mouth jesus is master [kurios in source, used for master; or theo either one is master Lord and fulfilled this, see note soon] and believe the faith [jer. 31.33] you will be saved [jer. 31.34]."

this is first. if you accept this, short formula, even if deny everything else! from new testament or previous covenant, whether genesis or the description of god, you "entered the narrow bridge" as defined in the sources and prophecies. i believe anyone who has this core, every "type of the million conflicting denominations," share this core, so even if they ADD other errors as they claim about each other, still they got the gift and were saved. who can not make errors besides jesus himself?

chapter two: DEATH when and where?

we saw the internal prioritizing what the most important part is, as above, so we SHOULD skip to the important part first. 

how did they get him on a cross? who were this they? did he even claim he could save himself? was he arrested publicly? when and where?

STORY style, "when Tiberius [luke 3.1] was emperor caesar, and when the governor was Pilate, in the place named golgotha, [john=j19.17] soldiers crucified jesus, [j19.23] as ordered by Pilate [j19.16]. they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom. “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lottery who will get it.” This happened and fulfilled the scripture that said, “They divided my clothes among them, and cast lots for my garment.”

Jesus saw his mother nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son.” Jesus said, “I am thirsty.” A jar of wine vinegar was nearby, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus’ lips, and this fulfilled Scripture. Jesus said, “It is finished,” and  bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

after death many witnesses saw him as above.

note: if you remember when the dementors hurt sirius black even after the magic chased them away they showed his life floating out and up, so imagine that same except invisible.

more background later.

til Up v

and shorter summarizing 1480 words in 442 words 1/3 and 1000 less. "when Tiberius [luke 3.1] was emperor caesar, and when the governor was Pilate, near the kidron valley [j18.1-36 summarized here very briefly for getting to the crucifixion quicker], judas led roman soldiers, holding torches and lanterns."

note: this indicated night and indicated many jews loved jesus, how? the need to arrest at night among trees, so many loved jesus so much that the leaders expected a public protest even riot if they saw their beloved jesus get arrested=that was the NEED to arrest in the trees at night with torches. if "everyone all jews hated jesus" as i heard some ignorance and some external "dogma canon" that differed from the book, then no need to go with lanterns, simply grab in public. the story was with lanterns.

"roman soldiers arrested jesus. soon, [jew] high priest questioned jesus [j18.19-28]. the roman governor questioned jesus [j18.28-36] who said "my kingdom is not this world" [meaning no threat to emperor tiberius.] The jew leaders "could not" kill sinners in john 18.31. the jew leaders wanted to kill him BECAUSE "because he claimed to be the son of god" [j19.7, preserving this 

detail, but "could not" kill him [j18.31].

NOTE: if believe gospel, jews did not kill jesus because they could not, but maybe denying this detail fits a certain mindset?

"again pilate questioned jesus who stayed silent [j19.9]. after another question, jesus agreed you can kill me, only for God's plan, but i could save myself [j19.11]".

the choice was in pilate's power... he could free jesus or not. everyone waited for the governor order...

suspense?

no one could kill jesus unlesss governor decided and ordered soldiers.

"he gave the order to "soldiers" [j19.16] soldiers crucified jesus in john 19.23"

soldiers? 

only IF believe the book, but those inciting pogroms "stretched the truth a bit" not matching their own book. if anyone noticed the difference, still hatred was stronger than logic. i mean think about the situation: church leader said "we love jesus and the jews killed our jesus" and the crowd is angry! and one nerd said "sir, dont you mean romans? it even said here..." what would they do to such a nerd? and others less nerdy, who can sense the environment knew to be silent.

note: this summarized brifly [because must not delay the main part, defined in cor. and romans, so just summary of chapter 18.1 to 19.23 selecting and emphasizing the details based on what i saw about this generation. still in the source are more details for the future genration ignorance too.

now the most precious part which i will "purify." the details purified will be told now.

19.23 to 20.8. 

539 w 19

31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]

The Burial of Jesus

38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds.[e] 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

20 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”

3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. 8 Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. 9 (They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.) 10 Then the disciples went back to where they were staying.

Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene

11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.

13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”

Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”

16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”

She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).

17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.

426w 20

for more background i summarize about from his life with times emphasized.

birth when and where?

During the time of king herod [mat. 2.1, the book said when because history recorded. herod died 4bc so at latest 4 bc almanac and britannica, now called 2023 so +3 (3,2,1+2023) =2026 years ago] during the empire of caesar Augustus [luke 2.1 between 31 bc and 14 ad] jesus was born in bethlehem [mat. 2.1] in judea [the gospel said the name of land then was judea and israel see [mat. 2.1 and 2.20 see for yourself there greek "israel"].

how did people become disciples of jesus? summary of chapters 1 to 4 briefly.

in the 15 year of Tiberius [luke 3.1, called 29 a.d.] jesus was about thirty years old [luke 3.23 yes the source said "about" and even if not, still estimating is common when using whole numbers 3 as a whole number or 50 or 30 etc. as a group], that is when and where,  at bet ani [bethany] on the other [east] side of the  jorden river. two disciples of john [baptist] heard their teacher say about jesus "is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world", so they accepted and followed jesus. one called his brother, simon son of john who jesus named peter. jesus found philip and invited/said "follow me", so philip called nathaneal and both came to jesus. [briefly summarizing john 1.29 to 1.47]. jesus said about his body [j2.21 as a symbol parabel like many of his parables] destroy this temple and i will raise it again in 3 days. 

note: jesus planned to die here and other sources see john 19 first jesus was silent 19.9 but later said he agreed that expected to die [j19.10-11 for the plan, explaining he could save himself] and j18.11 "put away your sword etc. and more.

jesus taught that anyone who believes in Son of god has eternal life and will not perish but saved [from perishing after death matching jeremiah as above saved from sin]. anyone who does not believe, then this disbelief condemned them [even without any other sin, j3] he taught that God is spirit and claimed about himself "i am messiah christ." [j4.24 to 26].

note: this briefly summarised four chapters 1 to 4 selecting issues for this generation's ignorance. more is in source if have more time to read and to respond to other ignorances.

chapter 3, students and apostles

matthew listed, [mat. 10.1-6] "his" 11 classmates who jesus SENT [j4.38] "sent to israelites not gentiles" [mat. 10.5-6] a distinction that some try to blur gentiles are israelites but jesus distinguished, here. also elsewhere first to the jew matched this. matthew named each one including himself "matthew the tax collector" showing jesus did not reject rich and powerful nor sinners. since matthew was the disciple and author we know this part was written by a personal witness in the generation of jesus disciples not by someone later and same the disciple wrote as preserved john 21.24.

in galilee, at the time of "the jewish feast of tabernacles" , jesus sent some students, go to feast but he stayed in galilee [7.3-9]. during the feast of dedication in "jerusalem" jesus was in the temple, he taught [again] i give eternal life and save from perishing. none can take them from me.

[other translations added "man" but not in original. even satan and sin and renounce is too late to change, as specified here defining gift]. 

he claimed "i and the father are one" [not polytheism nor three. when jews said, in john 19.7 he deserved to die by jew law it was because they heard him say this. some spread ignorance "jesus never said i am god" some mean "in our book quran jesus never said" but in a different book that "even" quran said is good and light, he did say about himself. others mean "i never read him say that" which is not a lie but they CAN read john 19 and john 10.30-33.]

near passover, just before the passover feast, john wrote, "jesus knew the time to leave this world" 13.1 and recorded jesus his teachers words, that he personaly heard [j21.24+j13.33] "i will be with you only a short time" he knew he would die for the plan.