JESUSIDEOLOGY (manuscript, still in progress!)

                                            for the difference between Pauline ideology and Jesus ideology see a few pages later:  Pauline ideology - Jesus ideology)

The "Garden of Delights" by Hieronymus Bosch. For me, however, lusts have something to do with "satisfaction", but I can't see anything of that here. So let's call the picture "Garden of Paradise"!

Note: The blue numbers are clues. You can find them under No. 10 in www.michael-preuschoff.de or in https://basisreli.lima-city.de/notes.htm.

The reason for Jesus' death was that he had come across hair-raising criminal structures and that he had first lost in his commitment against these structures. In our time, too, there are criminal structures in the same "subject area" - of course somewhat differently. Will a solution be found today?

A. The criminal case of Jesus (170)

1 Most of our faith can be cleared out - it has nothing to do with the real Jesus. 

2  We have to see it very clearly: The basis of our traditional Christian faith is pagan religions and Buddhism.

3 What really remains, what is different? First of all: horrible situation of women 2000 years ago.

4 Jesus committed himself "against sin, against hypocrites and for love "

5 For this he was "taken out of the way"

6 Even the spirit of Jesus is removed with a work of art from a "Relotius editorial office": the New Testament.

a) The questions about WHO and WHY the New Testament was invented.

b) The role of the addict Paul in the falsification of Jesus in: Hyam Maccoby, "The Mythmaker" (Eng: 2007).

c) And so our Christianity today has nothing or almost nothing to do with the real Jesus!

d) But there is (hopefully always) a solution! 

B. The criminal case of "sexual abuse" - and a concept for a solution 

1 Young people in particular are highly moral beings!

2. As if there is a mafia that cunningly destroys the high morals of young people 

3 Genuine morality simply does not go together with senseless fears .

4. What can not only remain straight, but - decluttered and freed from distortions - can now really come into its own 

Epilogue 

APPENDIX 1: Religion and Fascism - and Outlook 

APPENDIX 2: Why this "alternative concept of faith" is just right for teaching children

***

And before reading, an urgent recommendation: You don't need to know the Bible to understand what I am writing here, but you should already be familiar with the incarnation of the sinner narrative in John's Gospel (at the beginning of ch.8) and the Susanna narrative in the appendix of the Book of Daniel of the Old Testament, i.e. in ch.13 (it is only found in Catholic Bibles, but you can also find it on the internet).

A. The criminal case of Jesus (170)

There is sexual abuse today, or in more general terms "abuse of sexuality", and there was that 2000 years ago too - and how! For at that time women and children were worth much less than they are today 134, not least because they were considered the property of the man or the father. And men and fathers could do anything they wanted with their "possessions" - of course they also thought of the value of their possessions, just as we don't do anything with our cars today because we think of the (resale) value. But "abuse of sexuality"? What's the problem if you don't hurt a woman or a child in the process? Internal injuries, i.e. injuries to the soul, were not thought of back then. Nor was there a MeToo movement yet. But this Jesus thought about it - and that was the new thing!

1. Most of our faith can be cleared out - it has nothing to do with the real Jesus 139.

When I travel, it is always important for me to find out what people in other countries and especially in other parts of the world think, especially about religion. And in some countries such conversations work very well because many people speak English very well. And small guesthouses or even rooms through accommodation portals are particularly suitable as accommodation here, because I have the impression that the hosts are often not only interested in the money they receive, but they virtually want such conversations.

I am thinking in particular of a conversation with such a host in the Tanja Torada area on the island of Sulawesi (or Celebes) - Tanja Torada is the area with unique funeral rites 164 where tourists are apparently also welcome. And since the population in this area of Indonesia is very mixed in terms of religion (half are Reformed, a quarter are Catholic, a quarter are Muslim and about 1 % are animists, i.e. people who adhere to the ancient nature religions), the following procedure is a good way to start a conversation: "I am a retired Catholic vocational school religion teacher and I am of course interested in what religion looks like in other countries, so may I ask you what religion you belong to and then, above all, why do you belong to this religion?"

So my host told me - and obviously with pleasure: "At first I was Christian, but at some point I took a closer look at this faith and found out that the stories and teachings of faith that are told there, all existed long ago in other earlier religions of the West and that they are therefore plagiarisms of these religions. I might as well stay with the old traditio­nal religion of my country. So I would call myself an animist."

And here were the connections with my studies! I still remember very clearly the lectures in the university in Innsbruck about 50 years ago. It is an old university, and the Catholic faculty is also still in the old buildings in the middle of the city. The main lectures took place in a hall from the Baroque period with large windows through which one could see the high mountains of the Nordkette in the near vicinity of Innsbruck - always full of snow in winter. And in the hall itself there was a lot of stucco and on the ceiling a large painting of the Assumption of Mary. So everything was very Catholic. But many things in the lecture on exegesis "New Testament" (i.e. biblical studies) were in principle fully Protestant. I was just amazed at what the professor told me, that German Protestant theologians - at that time for about 200 years - had found out in the Life of Jesus research 139 ("Leben-Jesu-Forschung") that the New Testament does not report about the real Jesus at all, but about a fantasy Jesus, and that the real Jesus is not known at all. So what we proclaim about Jesus today is not the real Jesus, but only the faith of the early church. But what, in my opinion, if that was not in the spirit of Jesus, that is, if it was false? So the proclamation of the faith of the early church is only an emergency solution? And as it is with a makeshift solution, it can only ever be a temporary one - until a better solution is found. But how can the right solution be found? There are really only two possibilities: By research or by chance. Or by both - as in this concept? Maybe you have to be Catholic again for that one?

So since then, somehow this realisation stuck in my head that we don't know the real Jesus at all - and I then tried in my classes in front of students any solutions that at least somewhat matched what I had heard in Innsbruck in this beautiful Madonna Hall. In any case, I was - at least unconsciously - always "on the lookout" for what really happened "2000 years ago", but I never expected that someone would find out - and that I would be the one to find out. Well, normal teachers may never have heard of the problem of "life-Jesus research" and "historical or historic Jesus" (in my lectures both were the same thing), because their education was rather narrow, but a pastor - and especially a Protestant pastor? In any case, I don't understand the other theologians that they don't feel the same way as I do. After all, I always became very alert when I heard something plausible here.

And after I one day came across the in all probability real Jesus, I can now also dare to call the Jesus we usually know from the New Testament a phantom constructed with malicious intent 138 and to try to set him right. The words of the phantom may be harsh, but I think they are the appropriate words and therefore appropriate.

2. One must see it clearly for once: The basis of our traditional Christian faith are pagan religions and Buddhism.

It is really so: On closer inspection our faith is an ingenious or even sophisticated "plagiarized religion" 171 - there are simply too many parallels to the anti­que religions from East Asia and Egypt to Rome, so that it is itself such a typical late antique (mystery) religion: Virgin Births 24, Sonships of God 23, Redeemer Function 146, Miracles 25, Crucifixions of the Gods 144, Raisings of the Dead and Resurrections 27, Ascensions 28, Three Kings Stories 140, Sacrificial Death Ideology 143, Communion Celebra­tions with Bread and Wine 26, and later the Trinity construct 141 and Mother of God worship 142 were also added - these are all the typical stories from the pagan mythologies, after all. What coincidences that all these wondrous up to sometimes "downright outlandish" stories are also told by Jesus or that they belong to Christian teachings. There are simp­ly not so many coincidences! Here therefore obviously completely con­sciously, by whom also always, a new "universal religion" was construc­ted. Only with the real Jesus this has - apart from the crucifixion 144, because for this there are good arguments - nothing or at least not much to do.

And then there is above all also the relationship with Buddhism!

In the book "Secrets about Jesus Christ" (2005) the Danish indologist Christian Lindtner, a Sanskrit researcher with professional knowledge of Sanskrit and Greek, describes how he found out that the New Testa­ment is to a large extent also a plagiarism of older Buddhist texts, see www.jesusisbuddha.com. The non-Buddhist myths and other "stories" he considers only "colorings" to make the Buddhist teachings more at­tractive for the western people and to disguise the Buddhist origin. So, according to him, there were Buddhist monks who wanted to proselytize the people of the West for the ideas of Buddhism, and so they construc­ted a Buddhism for the West. For this purpose, they invented a person whom they called Jesus, but who in reality is a hero from Buddhism. The Buddhist monks were not concerned with outward appearances as in these "mystery cult stories", but they were only concerned with brin­ging their Buddhist mindset to "the Western people". This would mean (according to Lindtner) that we Christians are basically Buddhists "with a Western coating".

So: Shouldn´t we finally say goodbye to such a religion?

So let us be so free for once and take the opponents of our faith seriously and accept their scientific findings! Let's also learn from the opponents - and eliminate (at least as a trial) everything in our faith that has obviously been taken over from other religions. Don't worry, something will remain!

The crucifixion of Jesus seems to have really happened - even according to the opponents of the faith - but that is actually nothing special, many were crucified at that time.

But what else?

There is now a story that is completely untypical for the usual religions, which always advocate high sexual morals and tend to demonise people who violate them, and which usually receives less attention: In the Gospel of John, i.e. the Gospel that was written the latest (around 100 AD), Jesus saves a woman caught in the act of adultery from being stoned to death. From the looks of it, Jesus even stands by this woman!

Theologians have now discovered that this story does not really fit into the Gospel of John and was only inserted into it later. However, the well-known philosopher and theologian Rupert Lay S.J. argued that this story is probably truer than the rest of John's Gospel 88 (and perhaps even than the entire New Testament). He did not give any further reasons for this. He only said that it is clearly not a "forgiveness story", because there is nothing about forgiveness in this story. Jesus does not condemn the woman, but he does not like what she did either, because he advises her not to do it again (she sees what comes of it!).

To get to the deeper meaning of the story, let's turn our gaze away from the woman and look at the condemning men! What kind of men are these who catch a woman in adultery, that is, having sex with a man who is not theirs, and who immediately run to the "cadi", knowing full well that the woman will then be executed? And besides, when does it ever happen that two men catch a woman in the act of adultery? It never happens, so to speak - so it all looks like a trap has been set for the woman and the whole "case" is a set-up from the start.

And here I guess I have to weave in something from my own experience: I once talked to a neighbour, a peasant from the Rhineland, who had "relations" with a gangster from the demimonde through one of his rented flats and who was also a little enlightened by him about the current "customs" in this milieu. And he clearly identified this story as a story of punishment from a demimonde 63, even at a different time and in a different culture. Everything just fits.

Perhaps another story in the Bible fits better for understanding this story of sin according to John 8, namely the story of the beautiful Susanna in the appendix of the Book of Daniel, which is somehow a more complete parallel story. Because from the story of the unknown sinner in John's Gospel we only learn that a woman is to be stoned and how Jesus saves her from it, in the Susanna story we also learn the background of "such a story". From this story we learn something very clear about the criminal structures of that time 89, namely how two elders wanted to blackmail a woman with the "two-witness procedure" 163.

The ancient Jews had a law according to which a woman caught in the act of adultery by at least two witnesses was punished by death. But when does such an accidental catch happen? It never happens, so to speak! That's why this law was probably never applied in the "external sense", but was probably only ever abused in an absolutely criminal way from the outset. So criminal men used it to blackmail, for example, an "unsuspecting chaste Susanna", "either you have sex with us or we'll make sure you come to court after the two-witness trial and be punished by death".

But why do men do this? It can only be that these unscrupulous men were savvy real professionals and belonged to a mafia criminal ring and that the main purpose was to blackmail women with the aim of recruiting them into prostitution. Blackmailing was a life-threatening business for the men as well (see below), and you don't get involved in something so dangerous just to have a sexual adventure. So there was always more at stake. Therefore, the two elders in the Susanna story certainly did not meet by chance and independently of each other just to see the beautiful Susanna, as it says in the biblical story, but rather the joint "flirting" with Susanna was a set-up from the start with a clear goal. After all, it was clear to them that with a decent (or "chaste") woman, they could only get what they wanted together. And in the case of this particularly beautiful woman, there was still a lot of money involved 130 once she got into the prostitution trade. And if the beautiful Susanna had given in to the blackmailing men, she would have proved in the eyes of others that she was a prostitute after all, and no one would have helped her to get out of it. Apart from the fact that she would not have been able to talk to anyone, no one would have believed her if she had told them what really happened.

The way it looks, these "professionals" were typical "pimps" or "protectors" from the demimonde, and such an "action" as Susanna's was therefore carried out from the outset according to a typical trick of the "trade" - with sophisticated "use" of the laws of the time.

But there was a catch for the prosecutors and witnesses, because there was a certain legal security, especially for the Jews. If it turned out that a defendant, in this case the woman, was in fact innocent and that the accusers and witnesses had given false testimony (against this false testimony there was the eighth commandment in the Ten Commandments, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour"), then they received the punishment that the accused would otherwise have received. So in the Susanna narrative, a young man ("Daniel") manages to convict the accusers or witnesses with a separate interrogation and so they are executed. But when does such a "mishap" happen for the "protectors"? After all, "one" also has one's "connections" in an "emergency", so that a bad end is finally averted. Moreover, such "protectors" are - of course only if it is worth it - always players, even if there is the risk of a death sentence according to the motto "Either we get this woman and we earn a lot of money, or that's it ...".

Of course, if the coup had been successful for the "protectors", the woman would not have been worn out in a cheap village brothel (where she might have ended up when she was old and burnt out), but would have been sold on for expensive money to some big foreign city. And good prostitutes were sometimes paid a lot in those days: If, for example, a normal Roman soldier received around 1000 sesterces a year, prostitutes cost up to 100,000 sesterces - if they were good, of course. And Jewish women were known to be good at "sex work", that is, they were "good".

The story of sin in John's Gospel is also clearly a story from the demimonde. It was not about the "recruitment" of a new prostitute, but about the punishment of an "unruly" prostitute. The woman had done something that did not suit her "protectors", perhaps she had once been a listener to Jesus' public speeches, who now wanted to get out of her "profession"? We don't know, because we learn nothing about the background. So for this, the "protectors" set up such a catch with such a prostitute, where only the woman was caught, but the man was prepared and could thus disappear quickly and undetected, and then she was stoned to death. The main purpose of this was to warn other women so that they could see how they would fare if they did not parry the way these unscrupulous men wanted them to, so that they would not even dare to be insubordinate and, for example, "run away" from their protectors from prostitution.

The original Jewish religion is the timeless enlightened religion par excellence 169 Jesus had encountered a blatant decay here.

Clearly, such an abuse, which this house builder Jesus had encountered, was actually not allowed to be at all in the Jewish religion! For the Jewish religion is the only religion that has values, especially concerning the position of women, which are absolutely positive and which no other religion has to offer!

However, the Jewish religion was originally not a religion at all, but a very enlightened and humane attitude to life, even in our modern sense. I refer you to the epilogue. Everything only became a typical religion when the attitude to life was forgotten or even suppressed, presumably because those who were soon in charge had more advantages that way (as happens in all religions at some point). In any case, the original Jewish religion 152 (or attitude to life) is the only religion (to use the term "religion" here anyway):

• which is about true monogamy 120. What is meant is the monogamy that is not forced, but that happens and is striven for completely voluntarily and with joy, and that is also not lived only after marriage, but the monogamy that is also really genuine, that there is only one sexual partner in the whole life (except in the case of widowhood). This means, then, that it is not only a matter of living in this monogamy, but also already of preparation through renunciation of drives before marriage. So it must be possible to make the morality of monogamy so attractive that it is also desirable for young people.

• And if this monogamy is really lived universally, then the vision of a harmony of people without fears 159 and in unclouded humanity is also realised, concretised by the paradisiacal utopia of nakedness. The story of paradise in the Bible can never be regarded as a historical event (nor can other early stories such as the story of creation 128). It was certainly never seen as "literal" by the authors who wrote it perhaps 3000 years ago, as it was taught to us in our children's religion classes and as some sects still see and teach it today. It is rather a story against prostitution in the fertility cults in honour of some deities that were common at the time the story was written (see p. 50) - such a fertility deity is thus behind snake 31. A "worship" through sexual intercourse naturally also means a violation of the utopia of true monogamy, and the consequence of this is "body parts concealment shame" ("BPCS" for short). This also means that the Adam and Eve narrative says that this shame will become superfluous as soon as the utopia of true monogamy is realised.

  The belief in God is of secondary importance. For a god was basically only constructed in order to have an authority for one's own people behind the idea of monogamy and to have an argument against the other gods that these little human cults supposedly had to be to worship. On the construction of God, see 137.

• The Jewish religion is above all the only religion in which the woman also has the right to the experience of orgasm 124. For real monogamy to really work, it is of course important that in sexual matters the woman also comes to her fulfilment, that is, that she also experiences orgasm. This does not mean orgasm, as the psychologist Wilhelm Reich sees it, which can be achieved with all kinds of technical tricks, but rather an orgasm that arises almost spontaneously out of the harmony or also out of the affinity of the souls of two people, i.e. only with the lightest of touches - in principle even fully clothed. (Note: This should also be a goal today, because according to information from the newspaper DIE WELT, at least two-thirds of all women never experience an orgasm!)

If that isn't a great religion that was invented back then against inhuman religions and that today would have what it takes to overcome all other religions, which in the end are often enough only cultivations of traumas suffered coupled with folklore and superstition (to which are then added business interests and power structures and the need for separation from others)! I have the impression, however, that even Jews usually have no idea about this.

The problem at the time of Jesus was that this Jewish "original religion" had obviously already been "buried" or at least largely forgotten in his time, so that no one from the authorities who were in charge at that time cared about it any more. The Jewish religion was largely frozen in cult - and sexual abuse 107 had almost become the norm. So this house builder or contractor Jesus (for "contractor" see next point) must have come across this and seen a glaring discrepancy between the claim and reality of the Jewish religion and tried to bring the original religion back to life. He must have gone down very well with his normal fellow human beings, but there must have been many others who had absolutely no interest in precisely that.

In any case, with my knowledge as a theologian and after 30 years of professional experience as a teacher, I have tried to combine the ideals of the old Jewish utopia into a positive concept in this work here, so that they are accessible to young people. Because young people still have ideals of such utopia and would like to live them if they only knew how.

And I think I'm not doing too badly here, see the second part of this issue! However, unfortunately, everything was not yet fully developed when I was a teacher.

4. Jesus committed himself "against sin, against hypocrites and for love".

We always assume that Joseph, i.e. the father of Jesus, was something like a carpenter, who in a workshop "in the back" carpentered some pieces of furniture together with his son, which Mary then sold "in the front of the store". But such an idyll might be a completely wrong conception of the activity of Jesus, which originated above all also due to a problematic translation of Martin Luther. In the Greek original the profession of Joseph is "tekton" (the word is contained in "architect"), and that means something like house builder or also building contractor. Since most houses at Luther's time were made of wood, Luther translated "tekton" as "carpenter", which then became "worker with wood" - up to carpenter. But this profession certainly does not reflect the reality of life of Joseph and Jesus, it was just a house builder family. In addition we must ask ourselves, for whom Josef and Jesus - and possibly still further relatives and perhaps also sons of Josef and/or brothers of Jesus - houses built and where. Let's keep in mind that cash was certainly scarce among ordinary people at that time, so they built their houses with the help of their neighbors. Only richer people could afford professional house builders, but such there were probably in Nazareth, so in the hometown of Joseph and Jesus, either not, or those who existed, had already all their houses. Therefore we must imagine under the building firm "Josef & sons" something like the Polish building groups, which existed still few years ago more or less officially with us and which renovated houses and dwellings for acceptable prices - or also equal whole houses everywhere in the country "pulled up". Accordingly, the customers of "Josef & Sons" may have been mainly nouveau riche throughout the country, for whom there was no neighborhood help, and these were, for example, the tax collectors or also tax collectors. This tax collection was a little different than today in our paper or electronic age, where everything can be controlled exactly: So a district (a village or an area) was tendered for the tax levy of a certain amount - and the person who then leased this district and paid the amount had to see how he got the money from the inhabitants plus the surcharge on which he himself lived. It was an advantage for the tenant if he came from the village itself and knew the financial circumstances of his fellow residents - and could "grab" accordingly where he knew there was something to get. We can imagine how popular such a tax collector was and why, therefore, there was no neighborly help for him in building a house. So the "construction company Josef & Sons" from another village came into play, which had nothing to do with the village problems.

Well, and at that time there was also some time after work and because it was too far home, the builders stayed on the spot, accommodated themselves somewhere and got their food somewhere. And then the prostitutes also came to earn something. How Jesus behaved here, we do not know, but he was certainly always a very correct person, and as such therefore also talked with the women about "more" 112, which is normally strictly forbidden to the women by the pimp mafia. Thereby he might have learned from the women, for example, how they had come to their "profession" by blackmail and how they were under the power of their "protectors", to whom they were also at the mercy. Prostitution, which was forbidden under the death penalty, was only carried out with "protectors", i.e. with pimps and with a half-world mafia 105, which buffered the power of the law - practically by bribing the guardians of the law with money or even with free sex (as is still the case today, my neighbor had also told me about this). The law enforcers were not so holy and innocent at that time ... And there was certainly a lot of prostitution at that time, because there were the many Roman soldiers who were not allowed to marry until they were 35 years old and who therefore "used" the services of prostitutes. Also, during the pilgrimages to Jerusalem with up to three million pilgrims, there were certainly sometimes not so pious pilgrims or otherwise frustrated husbands who found their way to the prostitutes. Yes, and what else was left for the prostitutes but to subordinate themselves to the mafia and to participate and pay for their protection?

And also the tax collectors might have told Jesus about their problems with "protectors", by whom also they were blackmailed, because it is actually not imaginable that there were only the Romans and the Jewish authorities, who demanded money, because with such a thing there are also always others, who want to "earn along" and who are then also "helpful", so that one can also actually exercise the lucrative occupation as a tax collector.

Artists often have a better instinct than theologians: a particularly poignant depiction of the "Fall of Jesus and the Sinner" 32 in the Gospel of John is the one by Lucas Cranach the Elder in the Franconian Gallery at Rosenberg Fortress (Kronach). If we look at the faces of the accusers on the left and consider the attractiveness of the woman, it seems that Cranach at least suspected the true background of this story. In any case, the accusers were not concerned with morality, but rather with the opposite of morality - and Jesus had seen through that. The woman (from the type of punishment, namely stoning, we can see that it was an unmarried woman, and that could only be a prostitute at that time, because married women were strangled) had probably not behaved according to what the men wanted in their immorality. So they had set a trap for her and now she was to be stoned to death, abusing the laws of that time 126 - also as a warning for other women in case they did not want "what" the men wanted. (Notably, here Jesus had put his hand on the sinner's, as if to reassure her: "Don't be afraid of those bastards - I'll knock you out!" Yes, this story of Jesus is certainly true - unlike many other stories about Jesus). <s.d. Susanna story at 33>

And why this story in particular is probably much more likely to be about the real Jesus than all the rest of John's Gospel, and the New Testament in general - see under 88.

What Jesus learned here, we would say today like an investigative journalist in the typical for a mafia "business fields" money and sex, and especially how women were blackmailed and exploited 121, must have made him extremely angry. His commitment against it ran then over a public denunciation (from which later sermons were made). And he obviously saw as culprits here not only the pimps and the "protectors", i.e. the direct "criminal rings" or also the demimonde mafia, but he also saw the further backers, namely the honorable authorities of society, i.e. the priests, the Pharisees and the scribes. Because all of them only organized a basically "empty cult" and invented and told pious stories about God. But when it came to the really important things that Jesus had encountered, they looked the other way and let everything go. And this inaction was certainly not purely accidental and completely unknowing for Jesus, but it was conscious for him, here was something like a more or less silent conspiracy with the perpetrators, so to speak the completion of the mafia. So Jesus had engaged himself against the mafia of his time, which was behind everything!

Yes, doesn't all this fit exactly with what is handed down from Jesus after all: "Against sin, against hypocrites, for love"?

And how it is like that: One single really solid evidence can throw all other theories - especially those about Jesus - completely over the heap in an unclear case. So I think I have come across the real Jesus.

5. For this he was cruelly "taken out of the way".

Now the problem was that Jesus was possibly very successful in his commitment "against sin etc." and that he was therefore also popular with his Jewish compatriots, who already recognised how he wanted to free them from the plague of the half-world mafia. But the latter, of course, also noticed this and, given his popularity, calculated that he could be dangerous to them. And in a skilful trial, the demimonde mafiosi might also have suffered the same fate as the accusers or false witnesses in the Susanna story?

In any case, the Mafiosi heard the grass grow, so to speak - and beat Jesus to the punch and took precautionary measures to get rid of him in the cruellest possible way (with the not uncommonly hard means in "this business"), as long as they still had the opportunity to do so and before he also officially started here and then possibly got away with it, and so it was their own "neck that was on the line".

In any case, the torture death of Jesus is explained very plausibly in this way.

Half-world mafia and "look-aways" or even "admitters": How it works with the mafia.

A mafia always has two parties of people in order to function:

The one who are the perpetrators. And these are the ones who lure girls from poor countries to rich countries under false promises, who rape them, sometimes also under the pretence of love, and who then send them into prostitution, i.e. sell them to brothels or rent them out. But we don't always have to look so far away, because this type of person also includes above all the Don Juans, i.e. those boys and men who have no qualms and inhibitions about deflowering virgins, especially if they explicitly want to do so.

And the others are the so-called well-behaved do-gooders who, by looking the other way and keeping their mouths shut, are the perfect instigators. So these are the ones who teach young people a pseudo-morality, and here it is the one of the BPCS (see p.9), and thus block all harmlessness, who leave the girls stupid and uninformed 119 as to what is wrong and what is right morality, who educate them to hostility towards the body and shamefulness - so that one day they will formally look for such perpetrators for their liberation.

So, dear reader, you who may also be an educator: Now you can think about which party you belong to ...

6. Even the spirit of Jesus is removed with a work of art from a "Relotius editorial office": the New Testament.

(Note: Claas Relotius, *1985 was a  German award-winning reporter and journalist, especially for SPIEGEL. He became known in 2018 because some of his wonderful reportages were completely or partly fictitious).

a) The questions about the WHO and the WHY of the invention of the New Testament.

But after the crucifixion of Jesus it turned out that Jesus' ideas had by no means died with it, after all he had been talking publicly for three years (or only two, as some think) about his experiences with the demimonde and possibly also about his plans to do something about them. And not only to people who lived in Palestine, but, so to speak, to people from the whole known world at that time, because pilgrims to Jerusalem from far away were often present at his speeches.

And at least some of these people now began to join together to continue in the spirit of Jesus, that is, of the Crucified One, after all, things did not look much different everywhere in the world. And because Jesus' ideas were also good and sometimes really revolutionary, these "followers of Jesus" could still become dangerous to the "plague of the demimonde mafia".

So how could they, as mafiosos, prevent this from becoming real?

It is now conceivable that one of the same mafia that had brought Jesus to the cross had the idea of infiltrating one of them, who was suitable for this, into the followers of Jesus according to the scam of "undercover investigators" 166 and then also turning their views inside out. (Of course, there could also be several "undercover investigators").

Either this Saul in particular, who later called himself "Paul" with refined modesty, i.e. the "little one", made himself available of his own accord, or he was chosen because he had always attracted attention through his previous speeches and through his outstanding intelligence and ambition.

And this Paul was above all given the task of somehow ensuring that at least the real concern of the real Jesus was forgotten. The procedure of forgetting was that of a "damnatio memoriae" 129, as the Romans called the official silencing of someone whose spirit one wanted to get rid of. And there are two possible steps for this forgetting: The first step is to upgrade this someone purely externally - if possible to a height that may no longer be questioned. In our case, he is "promoted" to Son of God with virgin birth and resurrection and ascension, etc. "promoted". But this upgrading is of course in reality a devaluation in the direction of unworldliness. And the second step, which is most related to the first: His cause is falsified with all kinds of possible and impossible disinformation. It is like a file that is to be deleted from a hard disk: You can't just "delete" it straight away, because then it's not really "gone", but you have to overwrite it with a new file - only then is it really deleted. So the "erasers" invented a very clever new biography of Jesus with a new teaching, which in some thoughts sounded similar to what Jesus wanted, so that superficial listeners would not suspect anything, but which was basically something completely different. In doing so, they very skilfully made use of various experts who constructed a completely new Jesus and brought him "among the people".

So we can say that the New Testament is either completely a work commissioned 162 by the demimonde mafia - or that at least the most important passages in the New Testament have their origin in the circles that were connected to the mafia. I think these are mainly the passages that are plagiarisms from the usual mystery cults or even the plagiarisms from Buddhist texts.

And Paul and his team (or "clique") did their job really well in the sense of their clients and so they developed the basis for a new doctrine 116 or also "constructed" the new Christian religion as we know it today. So among these experts were also Buddhist monks, simply because there is a special knowledge in it that only "professionals" who are at home in Buddhism can have. In addition, there were experts from the Jewish religion (these could only be hired scribes), because the New Testament also contains 60 references to the Old Testament - and that too is only possible with specialist knowledge. In contrast, no special expertise was needed to weave in "components" from the other pagan religions that were common at the time, such as the virgin birth and so on.

And here begins what is probably the greatest criminal case in the history of religions and perhaps even of humanity!

In any case, this circle of people who had managed the infiltration and falsification of the ideas of the followers of Jesus is exactly what we call a mafia today. And since this mafia had to do with sexual abuse (or also with the abuse of sexuality), in this case with prostitution, it is precisely an octopus in society that had infiltrated the Jewish society of that time, or a "demimonde mafia". You couldn't see it, but you could feel it because it was omnipresent - like a mafia.

I also wrote Christian Lindtner about this thesis, and he also found many things OK, he also accepted my assessment of Jesus, namely that he was the one who wanted to re-establish the original Jewish utopia. Only with the role of Saul or Paul (as he later called himself), whom I see here as the great opponent of Jesus, he did not agree. For I had seen not only Jesus but also Paul as a realistic person. In reality, Paul was also a construction from Buddhism: "You can trace Paulos back to Pûrnas in The Lotus sitra - the most eloquent of all disciples", Lindtner said.

However, I would like to stick to my version that Paul was indeed a realistic person. Whether Lindtner is right or whether I am right in my view of Paul, i.e. whether he existed or not, is not important in my opinion. What is important is the real Jesus (with his purpose), who was before Paul and has nothing to do with him. And in my opinion, this emerges more clearly in my version. See also what others think about Paul under note 125.

b) Paul's role in the corruption of Jesus in: Hyam Maccoby, "The Mythmaker" (2007).

It is not only the English-Jewish Talmud scholar at London's Leo Baeck College, Hyam Maccoby, who primarily assumes that Jesus' death on the cross as a "sacrifice on the cross deliberately sought by Jesus" is a construction of Paul's - and on the basis of this also everything that we consider Christian today, i.e. also the entire New Testament. Of course, Paul's co-workers may also have been involved. There has long been the suspicion that our faith is simply a better late-antique mystery cult, but now it is becoming obvious that it actually is and how everything is connected. The reason: Paul had grown up as a child and youth in Tarsus in Cilicia, and there was an impressive festive cult there in honour of the god Attis (and also Adonis), who had also experienced bloody martyrdom. And the young Saul must have liked it so much that he took the death of Jesus on the cross - corresponding to the cult around Attis - as the basis for a cult around Jesus. So when Lindtner says "Jesus is Buddha", Maccoby would say - to the point - "Jesus is Attis".

So this "addict" Paul created a new religion (or even this late antique mystery cult) as we know it today, which has nothing to do with the commitment of the real Jesus 161.

Pauline ideology - Jesus ideology (the term "ideology" 153 is used here neutrally in the sense of "doctrine of ideas").

A. Pauline ideology: The problem of "sexual abuse" is addressed indirectly.

1. God has given us moral commandments, but man is by nature weak and predisposed to sin. He therefore needs redemption so that he is not consigned to eternal damnation in hell after his death. Through his sacrificial death on the cross, Jesus 170 bought this redemption for us, so to speak, and thus made God merciful. 2.

2 This redemption obliges us to act morally here and now, also in sexuality. Therefore, in Paul's ideology there are sins in connection with sexuality and corresponding prohibitions. 3.

3 However, according to experience, people - as I said - repeatedly violate the divine commandments. However, this breaking of the commandments is calculated into the "Pauline ideology" from the outset, because Paul must also have known that prohibitions with their associated irrational, i.e. senseless fears 132 have never really helped in matters of sexual morality. And so violating the prohibitions is part of the concept, so no one makes a real effort to look for suitable ways so that the commandments can really be obeyed.

4 At least those who believe in God and in the redemption of a better life after death through Jesus can be sure of God's mercy and forgiveness, which Jesus earned for us through his sacrifice on the cross. In any case, the mediation of forgiveness with the prospect of a better world after death (which one may or may not believe in) is a patent business model in Pauline ideology 125.

Pauline ideology is primarily about a community 123 (or also - more blatantly - a club membership) in which all this is believed, and in which miracles are prayed for so that everything will be better, especially in morality.

B. Jesus ideology: The problem of "sexual abuse" is directly addressed!

Jesus' concern is not a typical afterlife religion, but the original Jewish attitude to life for the here and now. Jesus assumed that every human being is by nature benevolent and therefore also highly moral 115. But this moral attitude is usually deliberately or negligently destroyed, in his time mainly by blackmail (today more by manipulation 119 so that girls in particular imagine that they do this voluntarily) towards a sham morality or also substitute morality 127 instead of a reasonable real morality. Jesus' goal here was to be a fulfilled human being, and this is best achieved when the obstacles to a genuine morality in the relationship between the sexes are removed. For us today, this would mean no longer manipulating young people with compulsions and fears and false signposts, but giving them proper information about real and false morality with the hostility to the body typical of this false morality and about the advantages of real morality without hostility to the body. In this way, this can then become so attractive that it is even lived very gladly and that there is, so to speak, a pronounced joy in the <divine> commandments.

We can perhaps say that Paul's ideology is about a therapy, that people can live with the abuse of sexuality, while the prophylaxis would correspond to the spirit of Jesus, that life without such sins is so exciting and attractive that they do not happen in the first place. Whether people believe in God in the process or not, whether they have the right religion or not, or even whether they have none at all, is not so important. The main thing is that the joy of being human without sin 109 in a concrete life is there, because this is in the sense of Jesus and is HIS goal in general - and for all people!

It is also irrelevant how Paul came to his new "task" after he, as Maccoby writes, had been "rebuffed" by the Pharisees. He had probably applied to them as a disciple, but they simply did not want him because they did not consider him suitable.

In the Acts of the Apostles it is reported how Saul, who was initially a persecutor of the followers of Jesus, converted because he allegedly had the famous Damascus experience, in which the Risen Lord appeared to him.

It is true, however, that this Paul had never stopped persecuting the followers of Jesus or "making them harmless", he had only changed the method and now only continued the extermination of the real Jesus with other means: The Damascus experience with the conversion was therefore only a feint, there were no neutral witnesses for it either. However, he did not succeed in deceiving everyone, especially the Christians in Jerusalem under the leadership of James, the brother of Jesus, never thought much of Paul. In any case, by faking the Damascus experience and by pretending to have a vision of the resurrected Jesus with the corresponding revelations 167, and by feigning loyalty to the line of Jesus' followers, he managed to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak: to suck up to many old-believing Jesus followers and to gain their credibility and then to foist his view of Jesus on them as the only correct view of Jesus.

Paul was thus, so to speak, a forerunner of the Chancellery spy Günter Guillaume (1927 - 1995), who was in reality always a GDR agent (1956 - 1974), and who had joined the SPD as a faked GDR refugee and who finally succeeded perfectly, through his organisational talent and through his feigned loyalty to the line of the SPD, to win the trust even of the party leadership and also of the then Chancellor Willy Brandt and even to become his right-hand man.

But if something like that with Guillaume had been all! Paulus was also a forerunner of the reporter and journalist Claas Relotius, who, until his "unmasking" in 2018, wrote wonderful reportages from all over the world for the German magazine SPIEGEL and for other journals, which were so first-class that he even received many awards. But these reports were very often partly or even completely fictitious, or he had interviewed people and written about them who did not even exist or changed the statements of real people. The question naturally arises why Relotius remained undiscovered for so long. I think that Jörg Thadeusz, former moderator of journalism awards and juror of the German Reporters' Prize, has found a plausible reason: "In the selection process for journalism awards, a certain world view is "fixed". A prize is awarded to anyone who "confirms this image as splendidly as possible with a palatable story". So whether Paul had understood what people wanted better than Jesus, the house builder from Nazareth, and that he had therefore provided them with a "more palatable theology" than Jesus? And couldn't that still be the case today? (Note: In my experience, however, young people who still have "everything" ahead of them think differently - they are still amenable to a high utopia!)

In any case, Günter Guillaume and Claas Relotius did no real harm in their work as agents and journalists respectively, they couldn't do much. Paul was quite different! He turned Jesus' revolutionary commitment to a new human being, no longer determined by criminals and the wayward, into a basically pale and, at least in contrast to what Jesus had in mind, comparatively lightweight late antique mystery religion, through which, in the end, essentially everything remained the same - except for the new title "Gospel of Jesus Christ". Paul's great coup was first of all that he reinterpreted Jesus' death on the cross in his fight against the demimonde mafia into a bloody sacrificial event chosen rather voluntarily by Jesus, i.e. into a sacrificial death, as he also knew it from the god Attis in his homeland of Tarsus and Cilicia.

And so Paul and his "team" (or his accomplices) 150  constructed the "Christ", i.e. an image of Jesus, exactly as the clients wanted. Of course, they did not do it stupidly, and so they incorporated memories of the real Jesus into this Christ, as far as they still existed orally or possibly in writing "among the people". Perhaps there was also a real competition to see who could successfully launch the craziest stories into the faith of the Jesus followers? In doing so, they probably did not arouse suspicion, or only barely, because they replaced possible concrete confrontations with the demimonde mafia, which were still roughly remembered, with rather general phrases "against evil", which sounded like the real Jesus, but no longer hurt anyone and above all did not disturb the goings-on of the demimonde mafia in any way.

And this is where the Danish Sanskrit researcher Lindtner comes in with his findings that the New Testament is largely a plagiarism from older Buddhist texts. These texts, together with the references to the Jewish Bible, were then the basis for a completely new view of Jesus, which was edited by a "Relotius editorial team", in which this Paul was, so to speak, the "general contractor" or at least the idea generator, according to all the rules of the art. The followers of the real Jesus at that time did not know much about him, they had perhaps heard him once in his speeches in a synagogue or in the desert, but otherwise they had heard nothing or hardly anything about him, as is probably no longer the case today. For today, the media are always on hand to report more and more about someone who somehow attracts attention. And so the opponents of Jesus were able to spread a false story about Jesus.

The dates when the ritings were not written as propaganda FOR Jesus, but as a clever work of disinformation about Jesus, at least about the real Jesus. And so not only was Jesus made a son of God (according to a well-known late antique pattern, i.e. by a virgin birth with writings were written probably correspond to many of the dates that theologians of today have found out, except that these wa divine father), but his disciples were also made the authors, who of course were also eyewitnesses. In this way, the writings were then also made venerable enough so that they were considered true and no one dared to doubt them any more. But Jesus was not a son of God (or at best a child of God, as we are all children of God), and the writings of the New Testament were not written by disciples of Jesus, as already mentioned. Usually this pseudo-epigraphy that the writers of the Gospels were disciples of Jesus, i.e. eyewitnesses, is always justified in some "pious" way, but I think this pretence is just another clever trick of the mafia.

So that's about who wrote the New Testament, and also about what the real Jesus wanted. So he was concerned with a truly revolutionary approach at the time, but the influential circles did not go along with it and turned the tables before it was too late for them, analogous to the Susanna story. And Jesus' cause was perfectly defused by turning it into a relatively harmless mystery religion, which was quite typical at the time.

In any case, the mafia gradually succeeded in erasing the memory of the real Jesus as far as possible and thus also perfectly defused his involvement, so to speak - a mafia is simply a conscienceless association 154.

However, I would like to address here the possible question of whether Paul or Saul and the other authors of the sacred writings of our Christian faith were really as abysmally malicious as it first appears here. It is also possible that only the commissioners were really malicious and successfully harnessed Saul and the corresponding specialists of the Buddhist and Jewish religions to their carts with beautiful and very humane-sounding reasons 130. They could have persuaded them that Jesus' ideas were still very half-baked and short-sighted and crude and would cause unnecessary conflicts among good citizens and therefore had to be revised and put on a more sophisticated and civilised level. And we must also bear in mind that there are always two people involved in a deception, namely those who deceive and those who want to be deceived - because they don't really know what didn't go so well in their lives and don't want to have anything more to do with it. In this respect, the traditional religions always have an "easy game"131. Thus, Paul in particular, who was also a religious genius in a certain sense, was able to fully develop with his "new interpretation" with great commitment. But he was still unfortunately a deceiver, and so were the authors of the Gospels. And last but not least, we also have Paul to thank for the hostility towards women and the body and the anti-Semitism in our Christian faith to this day. Jesus also has commandments, but they serve more in the sense of "rules for a reasonable and successful life", not to restrict people, but to help them develop fully - although you have to know them from a young age so that you can set yourself up accordingly.

And here I would like to justify why I do not refer to the New Testament, or only very little, and prefer other sources: The writings of the New Testament do not seem reliable to me. They are all constructed in the sense of Paul and the Mafia and "purified" of what was still known of the real Jesus and what did not suit the authors. And where this cleansing was not possible because an event was simply too well known, there was at least a reinterpretation. However, see also note 159.

c) And so our Christianity today has nothing or almost nothing to do with the real Jesus!

Instead of restoring the original Jewish values, as Jesus obviously wanted, Christians created a new religion that has (almost) nothing to do with his intention.

Not only opponents of the faith claim that the stories about Jesus in the New Testament have no historical basis, but probably most theologians also widely doubt that the real Jesus is the historical basis of the New Testament. This means that according to them at least most of what we are told in the New Testament is more or less freely invented or taken over from other religions or is also a deliberate falsification 149 of a concrete Jesus who had actually once lived and worked. Thus, theologians have also long since found out more in addition to the text on page 5 on the subject of "late antique mystery cult":

• The Jesus of the New Testament has nothing or almost nothing to do with the real Jesus who once lived. Theologians therefore distinguish between the "Christ of the New Testament", i.e. the "Christ of the proclamation (or also the Greek kerygma)", and the "historical Jesus" 67. And so these critical theologians: "We know next to nothing about the historical Jesus". In any case, the Gospels are not biographies of Jesus 158. Christian "fundamentalists", however, still take them (or even the New Testament) literally.

• The teaching of Jesus' self-sacrifice for the purpose of atoning humanity was certainly not in the mind of the real Jesus. Thus there was never a Lord's Supper with the well-known words of institution.

• At most 5% of all Jesus' words in the New Testament are real Jesus' words (at least according to the Protestant New Testament scholar Gerd Lüdemann). On the "confusion" in the early church, see 151.

• No one knows who wrote the New Testament, in any case the authors of the Gospels were not disciples of Jesus by whose name they are known. We are dealing here with a pseudoepigraphy, that is, a falsification of the names. Also, no one knows how these writings came to be accepted by the Jesus churches that existed soon after Jesus' death.

• At the time of Jesus, one could be a good Jew with or without belief in the afterlife. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the real Jesus was not concerned with an afterlife belief, but with a better here and now.

• Basically, the real founder of our faith is Paul, who joined the Christians only a few years after Jesus' death and who was rather indifferent to the real Jesus in his teaching. Therefore, we are not actually "Christians" (if we let "Christ" be the name for Jesus), but Paulists, i.e. not Jesuits, because what constitutes our religion is the teaching of Paul.

• The background of the current Christian ideology is mainly Greek philosophy, but Jesus had nothing to do with it, he was a Jew.

• Many similarities with the older Buddhism are unmistakable.

At least the large churches with their theological faculties, including those at state universities, are now aware of all this.

Viewed soberly, Christianity as we know it today is therefore a syncretism or a "mishmash of beliefs" from the contents of the Jewish religion, Buddhism and the pagan religion of Jesus' time.

d) But there is (hopefully always) a solution

So the memory of the real Jesus' involvement should be eliminated at all costs; his damnatio memoriae has also succeeded extremely well, at least so far. But I think it is like in every criminal case: those who want to cover all traces and eliminate all circumstantial evidence that points to the real course of events cannot be that perfect. They always miss something or it is never possible to eliminate everything perfectly. So this Rhenish farmer, my neighbour, put me on the track to see the story of sin according to John 8 differently. Last but not least, I seem to have reached the peak of contempt for women at that time 134, because women did not count for much in other respects either.

Perhaps, however, there were also faithful followers of the real Jesus among the authors of the New Testament at that time who, although they did not get their way, nevertheless wove passages into the texts that pointed to the real Jesus so that later followers could find him out? We also know such "procedures" from our own times: in the Chinese Cultural Revolution, for example, all ancient cultural assets had to be destroyed. Resourceful and sophisticated "destroyers" have now covered invaluable stelae with Confucius inscriptions with stucco and painted Mao quotations on them. And Mao quotations were not allowed to be destroyed. This saved the Confucius steles, because later generations could easily remove the stucco. And so it is with ancient texts: We just have to recognise and find the right clues and traces and interpret them correctly. Clues to what is not right and not true here are, for example, the unrealistic miracle stories. I am also thinking of such things as Paul's Damascus experience and the revelations 167 by the supposedly resurrected Jesus to him. And a clue for me as to what is right and true and also what is special about Jesus is also the story of how he recognises the real background of the intended stoning of the "sinful woman" and saves her from stoning by his courageous intervention. Yes, we don't know anything like that or anything comparably concrete from any other founder of a religion, neither from Buddha nor from Mohammed. For me, this is almost certain proof that we are on the hot track of the real Jesus 122.

Of course, one can say if that is all, if there is nothing more to Jesus? I think whoever talks like this has not understood what "genius" is. "Genius" is not developing and proclaiming some great and highly spiritual ideas about God and man, but when something is wrong or sick, finding the right "acupuncture point" for it and applying it there. I compare the problem to when something difficult is wrong with a car or a computer. It's not about getting excited about the big idea of the car or the computer and drumming out grandiose phrases about the best cars, but finding the specific fault and fixing it. But that may require craftsmanship and manual labour rather than significant academic research and knowledge, and you also have to be willing to get under a car and get dirty sometimes. And such craftsmanship, in my opinion, applies fully to Jesus, who had found such a crucial point and tried to solve it. And he was not only concerned with a banal renunciation of impulse, i.e. not doing something, but with the advantages of general correctness. Let's imagine that everyone abides by the divine commandments with absolute certainty. That is, no one has to be afraid any more that someone else will violate them - and what a security and freedom that means! A very big role is played by a high sexual morality 160 - I hope I have plausibly explained the advantages of this here.

Jesus has now been prevented from solving it - so we must continue right here, and of course in a way that fits our time. For the problem that Jesus encountered has still not been solved!

B. The criminal case of "sexual abuse" and a solution concept

I really don't want to be a Savonarola (penitential preacher in Florence 1452 -1498) and therefore not accuse anyone of anything from his past, I am only concerned that not everything negative is repeated again and again, although this could often be changed very easily. And I now think that the most important thing here is that we should simply take a closer look sometimes at why "something negative" is happening and how it could be done differently and better.

So let's take a look!

When adults sexually abuse young people, it is generally understood to be criminal and those who "perpetrate" such abuse are now also punished, at least when the abuse becomes obvious. But when adults instruct young people to abuse each other, this is now considered normal and even good "modern pedagogy" that is also supported by allegedly serious science (see naturalistic fallacy 17). However, I consider some of this to be downright criminal and downright pseudoscience. At least it is clear manipulation as long as young people are not offered an alternative that is presented at least as attractively as what I see as a manual for mutual abuse. And whoever could offer such an alternative, but does not do so, for example because he does not see himself responsible, although the opportunity for mediation would already be there, is he not also a criminal? For theft there is the saying "the fence is just as bad as the fence" - doesn't this saying somehow also apply here to those who, by doing nothing, ultimately make abuse possible? In my experience as a teacher, young people are certainly open to an alternative, see p. 47.

1. Young people in particular are highly moral beings!

The problem with this point is above all that there is a supposedly assured general knowledge about the sexual morals of young people, i.e. what young people of today are like and what they want. But in a one-on-one conversation (if that is ever possible) everything is quite different - at least as far as possible! As I write this, I am on a trip to South America and quickly come into contact with other people in a way that is difficult or impossible at home in Germany. For example, in Lima with a lovely girl from northern Germany, a high school graduate who was just on a trip around the world. And as it happens, we also came up with "my topic". Based on my religion class's concern of true monogamy, I had just told him my ideas of an attractive libido renunciation and also intertwined my index and middle finger to suggest how "he and she" could also be together - only with skin contact and without penetration, because penetration was not even possible in this situation. I brushed aside the (young-girlishly-innocent-anxious) misgivings with which the girl began with the words "whoever forbids everything only achieves that everything is done in the end" 157 - and I had the impression that something had "clicked" with the girl in my mind. Somehow something like a liberation seemed to have happened to the girl, because in the picture (which she was spontaneously and obviously willing to take) she doesn't look at all rejecting and annoyed, rather the opposite, at least in my opinion ... After such an experience I would certainly like to be a teacher again! And there is also a whole range of possibilities of pleasure in one's own body and that of the other apart from penetration and satisfaction that one can tell the young people about. You can also encourage them to experience the beauties of nature and culture together. Some people would like to convince me that I am an illusionist 155 because everything is completely different with young people today - but such an encounter as with this school-leaver once again strengthens my conviction that "in such things" nothing is different today, we are only facing a typical "spiral of silence" phenomenon (according to the pollster Noelle-Neumann). And when I think how well I could refer to the "Jewish original religion" "in these things" today!

2. As if there is a mafia that cunningly destroys the high morals of young people.

I am now familiar with the book by Petra Reski (born 1958) about the Mafia in Italy ("Mafia. Von Paten, Pizzerien und falschen Priestern") and how the arms of this Italian Mafia reach everywhere like those of an octopus, including us. There is also an article in the WELT of 28.5.2019 "Russian Mafia is omnipresent in the West" by Julia Smirnova on how the Russian Mafia has infiltrated and dominates us. But basically everything here is deeply mysterious to me, such as how the mafia works, how it is run, how it manages to keep recruiting new fellow members. Is it run according to a hierarchical system, i.e. a system like that of the Catholic Church, in which a leader is at the top and all the others work towards this top as if in a grandiose wheelwork and are, however, also led by it? Or is it run like a wasp state in which everyone - without any special guidance - does his or her job and thus contributes to the general good - and in crisis situations also takes up arms and fights to avert a danger to the "state" without any special prompting? I have no desire or interest here to make myself a specialist on the Mafia and to delve deeper into the subject of the "Mafia here today", especially since I don't know whether that would be of any use at all. But mafia or no mafia, we see effects that are as if there is a mafia that rules us! See a rather fancy conspiracy theory in the next box - it is of course free poetry! It is only meant to encourage us to do moral education differently:

Fictitious Conversation Upper Devil - Half-World Upper Mafioso

Upper Mafioso: I don't know what we should do, people are simply too moralistic, they are only looking for the partner for great love, they don't want anything else. That's why there are no women for prostitution and no clients who need their services. The prostitution business simply doesn't work any more.

Upper Devil: So it all looks like it is true that man was created by God (whether by God or by nature is not the issue here) good and therefore also highly moral.

But surely there must be a way to upset this great morality of mankind in order to boost our business? Dear Mr. Chief Devil, you always know what to do in such matters!

You must first of all strengthen the people in the awareness that they are very moral. And then you must lead them to a pseudo-morality, that is, that precisely the harmless and the innocent, which somehow has to do with sexuality, is forbidden to them or otherwise made bad. For those who forbid everything, even what is actually harmless and innocent, are most certain to end up with everything being done away with 157. It is like blocking all the valves in a steam boiler, which is the surest way to achieve a boiler explosion at some point.

And how is all this to be put into practice?

It's quite simple: young people in particular have great moral potential. And you have to see to it that this high potential is more or less senselessly squandered by investing it in the wrong object 147, that is, in something actually completely harmless and innocent, and is then no longer there for the right morality.

I see, so in addition then the BPCS ("body parts concealment shame")!

And with it, body hostility and uptightness. All this looks very moralistic and people defend it fanatically. But all this has no real moral nutritional value. And so we end up with senseless fears, and these are absolutely essential for our strategy of evil!

And why should senseless fears be so beneficial for us?

Actually, young people only want to do harmless things, they want to see how others look naked and they want to show themselves naked to others. And of course they also want to have fun when they jump naked from the edge of a swimming pool into the water together - so they only want to do completely innocent and almost paradisiacal things. And these have to be ruined for them by prohibitions and fears and feelings of disgust.

I am also aware that fears of nudity are useless for real morality; in any case, I don't know anyone who started having sex because they enjoyed nudity. And I know many ...

The old farmer's rule applies here too: Senseless fears 132 on the one hand are always power and domination on the other! Young people in particular have an energy for life and want to do something, after all the opposite sex is also interesting for them and they also want to get to know a life partner and find out who is suitable.

I see, and if the innocent and the paradisiacal are considered immoral for getting to know someone, then thanks to the fears of that there is also a blockage, so they don't do that and then they automatically do the not so innocent and not so paradisiacal once it fits.

Exactly! And so they automatically start having sexual intercourse right away, because it has to happen one day anyway. What else can they do? And if they then also succeed in convincing them that they naturally have to test who is the right one, then we have them where we want them: The great love with body and soul with the one single partner is gone, it no longer exists!

In this way, even the pious people who educate young people to a morality whose basis is BPCS/body parts hiding shame and fear, also become directly our stooges! Perfect!

And because many do not find a final partner so quickly because they are not lucky or because sex with different partners also becomes an adventure for them and is fun, quite soon there is also prostitution and everything that belongs to your business!

Thanks for the tip! So now my mafia-like co-workers only have to make sure that this also works, that the young people get feelings of disgust, fear and shame before nudity and thus do not enjoy it! That will probably be easy because it looks so moral. The fact that it's all just an illusory morality is then no longer even realised.

These feelings of disgust and shame young people have about sexuality also have another advantage for you: Experience shows that what is burdened with such negative feelings before puberty becomes particularly interesting and fascinating during puberty and especially during a first infatuation.

This means that there is then also another push towards sex - Mr. Upper Devil, you are really great!

And those who are still sceptical and want to say something against it, and these are mainly children and old men, are easily muzzled. Children are told to wait and see when they get older, and old men are simply accused of being horny because they only want to see naked women and girls.

I understand, very soon no one dares to say anything.

There's another advantage: even those who don't believe in God and have a different religion join in, because everyone wants to be moral, at least at first and then always at least outwardly, so that it looks as if they are moral. And finally, the ban on nudity also becomes public law and it is punishable whoever violates it.

But no one can control sex behind closed doors with whomever anyway, so they can't ban it either, especially since it is still part of the right to sexual self-determination today.

So once again: You simply have to manage to drive young people away from the harmless, and then they will run into the arms of the not-so-harmless on their own! And then "sexual self-determination" is the magic word you can use to justify everything you do and everything you want to get people to do! And soon no one will dare to say anything against it here either.

But the religions like the Christian, especially the Catholic, can still ruin the business with their moral sermons?

Oh, not them, where have their moral sermons ever led to more morality? Besides, I have instructed my sub-devils to infiltrate all religions worldwide, including the Catholic religion, and to destroy them from within. And they have also done their diabolical job perfectly: that is why there is no serious scientific research in any religion on how young people can live a genuine sexual morality with joy and a sense of honour. This suits the religions very well, because after all, they all profit when people sin and then feel sinful and bad and need comfort and forgiveness and the hope that everything will be better after death!

There's something to that, our business is also their business, so they have the greatest interest that nothing changes here.

And remember, sex is only the beginning. There are other things that come along easily, I'm thinking especially of the drug business.

You mean, once people get a taste for it, how great it all is, which is actually forbidden?

And this again and again: you must at all costs prevent young people from learning about the alternative of "having fun with morals and abstaining from urges" 155 and then having personal experiences of how wonderful it is. Because personal experiences are still much more intense than any babble, and they spoil your business in the long run, because then they prefer to make them!

So we have to see to it that violations of the BPCS/body parts hiding shame are not only considered disgusting and indecent, but are also made out to be a sin in religious education.

I'm telling you, with BPCS education instead of real morality, you can mess up people's whole sexual morality beautifully! And everything looks sooooo moral to the outside world!

We pretend to be so enlightened today, but the issue is never tackled in this way:

Genuine sexual morality and the bogus (sexual) morality of "body parts hiding shame" (or BPCS, see p. 9!).

First of all, what is "real (sexual) morality" anyway, and that is what we are talking about here? I think this has to be clarified first of all, so that we don't take some superficial moral-looking fuss for morality and then shoot the powder for it - and it doesn't help at all. One problem is that everyone probably has different ideas of what morality and what is moral - and we will probably hardly be able to agree here. To make a long story short: In any case, I have the same attitude here as the major religions, that humans are monogamous and that sex therefore belongs in marriage. While there is a lot of alleged scientific research today that we humans are not predisposed to monogamy, all this research overlooks the problem of CTVS. We probably need BPCS because monogamy is our natural predisposition and that we - quite simply - do not live it properly. When we stand at a monkey enclosure in a zoo, for example, we can often observe how the dominant male has sex with different females. The animals are not ashamed in their behaviour, that is surely a sign that the sexuality they practise there corresponds to their natural disposition. If we humans were to live this animal sexuality, we would feel ashamed - and that is a sign that the animal sexuality is not ours. Because if it were ours, we would not be ashamed either - like the animals. The fact that some people engage in such sexuality publicly, for example in the porn business, has nothing to do with it, because of course anything goes with violence or for money. And it is also easy to see that not only the major religions, but actually all religions talk about monogamy, but that it still doesn't really work. For the religions forget that commandments and prohibitions and laws are not enough, but that they always include "know-how", i.e. how an intended goal can be realised in practice. But there is no scientific research on the goal of monogamy, which suggests that the religions do not really want it at all, but only want the uncertainty in moral matters and the ultimately bad conscience of people because they have not behaved according to the commandments, so if they have done something wrong. This is also understandable, because religions live from the often painful failure of many people with monogamy - and their "business model" is now once the comfort and the promise that it will be better once, namely after death, if they only believe correctly. So: humans are obviously predisposed to monogamy, which means that they only have one sexual partner for life - except in the case of widowhood. And if that's not the case in our everyday lives, then that means it's the way it's meant to be.

In any case, we can now say what genuine sexual morality is: "What serves this genuine monogamy 120 and thus the purpose of monogamy, namely childbearing and the joy of the spouses, is moral, and what does not serve this is simply not moral." It's that simple once you have a firm point!

Anyone who has read the text even superficially up to this point will have noticed that I don't think much of BPCS (body parts concealment shame, see p. 9) as a moral value. But isn't it irresponsible to try to motivate young girls in particular to enjoy nudity?

Here is a conversation with the mother of a pupil: Many years ago, at a parent-teacher conference, she asked me about the aim of my religious education. I replied, rather flippantly: "The girls are all schizophrenic somehow. She: "???" Me: "Well, they are panic-stricken about the harmless and paradisiacal, where they could also pick up a useful knowledge of human nature and inspire men who want to be all right with a beautiful morality, namely "naked on the beach". But the problematic, namely sex with all too often questionable partners, which sometimes also causes them lifelong trauma, that's what they want and do." "And," said the mother, "what do you want to do now?" Me: "That the girls each do the other." The mother: "If you can do that, you are good!"

If this conversation with a mother is not a high motivation for me, maybe even the motivation par excellence - then I would have to be really abnormal now! And I also think that "openness" can even be more harmless than a more or less sophisticated "disguise". It also depends on how a woman or girl prepares the openness and what she or he wants to achieve. If she or he reminds a man that he once said that a woman could rely on his self-control, then that already influences a man's behaviour. And in my experience, we can rely on the fact that young people who are interested in real morals are already very circumspect about possible openness. Besides, how small-minded do we actually imagine God to be, that a morality that is in His sense can only work with products from the textile industry?

But isn't BPCS the cornerstone of human sexual morality?

Here is a quote from the biography of a prostitute ( Karin Freiwald, "Venusdienst - meine Jahre als Hure", p. 34f), which I came across through a tip from a friend, because the book was at least initially on the internet:

"On a website (www.basisreligion.de) (note: this is a website of mine!) I recently found an argumentation on the subject of bimbos, which very aptly describes the roots of a certain behavioural imprint: "However, before we turn up our noses at such a supposedly immoral girl, we should make ourselves aware of who is actually immoral here. How has such a girl fared in the past? Has she not been taught a slave morality with all kinds of taboos and fears since childhood, thus encouraging her stupidity and naivety? Wasn't he always made to believe that BPCS was the epitome of all morality, and wasn't this sending him in the wrong direction and making him quite curious for more?""

Dear reader, you can imagine that I am very proud that a prostitute, i.e. a woman who should know, has confirmed me in my view that body part hiding shame is only a sham morality and may well be counterproductive to a real morality 145! Yes, how do we come to impose sexual shame as morality on girls in particular, when there is no proof whatsoever of the "moral nutritional value" of BPCS?

And how far this has something to do with girls sometimes slipping into prostitution like this "Venus servant" is not being researched either. There are certainly a few individual initiatives here, but in general they are obviously so little thought through and superficial (I am thinking here of the "No sex before marriage" campaign coming from the USA) that they only confirm my thesis: Genuine monogamy 120 is obviously not really wanted in the end, even by those who are so committed here. (Front pages of "Venusdienst ...": https://basisreli.lima-city.de/prost1.jpg and https://basisreli.lima-city.de/prost2.jpg)

And that it is always only "bad boys" who seduce girls into sex, I can't see that either. Inspired by Ortega y Gasset, who says in the book "On Love" described in more detail later that it is at least usually not the men who start having sex, I once went through the cases of "first times" that were reported to me in this way. And of the twelve cases I learned about, only three were blamed on men or boys, in nine cases the girls were clearly the ones who took the initiative and thus started the ball rolling! (Note: In not all cases sex had taken place, in three cases the boys had even refused because they did not want to have sex with a virgin, but the girls' will was there).

And then, in modern sexual sciences, it is precisely spontaneous orgasm without penetration that is not an issue; in any case, testing it would make much more sense than testing penetration!

So what would be "real morality" or would lead to real morality?

Let's take a closer look at what happens there, what I described in the conversation with the mother: A girl, a virgin, starts having sex with a man simply "to get it over with". The man is often not looked at closely at all, it is enough that he is perhaps nice, perhaps can talk and dance well, is reasonably good-looking and perhaps they are all after him - all rather superficial qualities. He hasn't achieved anything in life so far, and whether he has a sense of responsibility doesn't really matter. At least it doesn't matter.

And since the granting of sexual intercourse and especially the first one is something like a gift to the man or a reward, he is given a gift or rewarded, so to speak, for NOTHING. And of course he notices this and it leads to a corresponding attitude or a pronounced imprint - as with all living beings, i.e. "imprinting through reward" - and some men make such experiences their hobby. And hand on heart: Do the girls even want such a partner for life? Probably not. So why do they go along with men being moulded in this way, because surely no men are superficial and irresponsible by nature, especially not towards women?

And how can girls imprint another kind of man - again according to the method of "imprinting through reward"?

Not with sex experiences, of course, but with paradise experiences! So with which men can a woman really be free and open, who has fun with paradisiacal nudity, who protects her "in the process" and also otherwise, with whom can a woman really be a man? - But beware, men are very good at pretending here, that is, they are only freeloaders and thus do not want to sow but only to reap <and who then often also portray as bad and insult those who advertise and promote conscious morality wherever possible>. Or also: they want to enjoy all the benefits, but do nothing to ensure that the world of paradise experiences actually happens. And these are also men who are not looking for adventure, but are simply looking for a good girl as a life partner. And how can a woman find out whether the joy of paradise is only an illusion or whether it really belongs to the essence of a person? First of all, it's important to ask yourself whether your boyfriend is really like that or whether he's just doing it to please you. If he is really like that, then he will not only seek togetherness in private (because that is not an art, "one" likes to do that), but he will always generally try to prove himself as a real "protector and cavalier" of girls and women. It is unfortunately the case that girls and women can hardly live and experience "natural womanhood" anywhere on their own; in this sense, it simply makes sense if "male beings" are always present - as neutral protectors and cavaliers, so to speak. So has a friend had such a story (in the sense of "past") behind him and proved himself? Do others also tell something like this about him? After all, he can fool one, but can he fool everyone else? One could also arrange a situation where one can recognise this ... And if he is happy to participate, then perhaps this would be a sign that he himself is "genuine" and also his morals - and that his behaviour is therefore honest ...

And what morals are our young people still being brought up to today? Not to such a morality, but only - if at all - to a pseudo or substitute morality, namely that of sexual shame, i.e. that they always need at least underwear, so that in any case the genitals and, in the case of girls, also the nipples are not visible to others - and certainly not to those of the opposite sex.

However, this pseudo-morality or substitute morality can be changed to a real morality!

3. Real morality simply does not go together with senseless fears.

When most people hear of sexual morality, they (unfortunately) immediately associate it with some kind of fear, and especially with senseless fears, and fears are something negative. Yet the principle of good advertising applies precisely to a sensible attitude to high sexual morals: "Never negative, always positive!" The senseless (or irrational) fears include first and foremost the fears of a "divine punishment" for non-moral behaviour, be it here and now by some misfortune or only after death by stewing in the fires of hell. Such fears are (of course) senseless and generally do not lead to real morality, but at best to a pseudo-morality and thus also to the opposite, not least one then very often throws the whole religion overboard. And since, according to the theologians, this should not happen because church taxpayers would then be lost, they maintain the thesis that a "good Christian" will be forgiven for everything anyway through Christ's atonement, if only he has the right faith. Or - depending on the denomination - he can buy his freedom from punishment - in the past with indulgences and today with good works (whatever they are). Basically a stuffy huckster theology!

I have now come across an interesting train of thought on the subject of "what doesn't go together" in the book "What Money Can't Buy" (by Michael J. Sandel, New York and Berlin), that sometimes the prospect of reward with money has a rather negative effect on an idealistic attitude. Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel uses the example of a survey of the inhabitants of the village of Wolfenschiessen (2100 inhabitants/central Switzerland). It was a question of setting up a final storage site for radioactive waste, and the subsoil of the village would have been ideal for this. When an appeal was made to the public spirit of the inhabitants, because the waste had to be stored somewhere and the storage would also be absolutely safe for the inhabitants, 51% of the inhabitants agreed. "Obviously, their sense of civic duty outweighed their concerns about the risks. Then the economists sweetened the imposition: Suppose the parliament proposed to build the nuclear repository in your community and offered to compensate all residents with an annual compensation payment - would you agree? Result: Support weakened, not strengthened. The financial incentive halved the approval rate from 51 to 25 percent. The money offered reduced the willingness of citizens to accept the repository. Even more: when the economists increased the amount, the rate remained unchanged. Residents even stood firm when they were offered the equivalent of $8700 a year - more than the average monthly income. Similar, though less dramatic, responses to financial offers have occurred in other places where the resident population opposed nuclear repositories." (p.143f) Conclusion: the feeling for the common good and a financial reward do not go together, the offer of a financial reward destroys the feeling for the common good.

And I think it's the same with "our topic": fear of punishment and genuine moral behaviour simply don't go together either, something positive - and moral behaviour is something positive after all - cannot be achieved with a negative attitude - and fears and of course irrational fears are now something negative. This may work at first with some people, especially young people, who have a very firm faith and who (still) take everything they are told at face value in terms of pious stories. But such an attitude cannot be relied on, at least, because in the case of a strong "temptation" - and the temptation today is generally that everyone else doubts whether sex only belongs in marriage - then doubts always arise as to whether these pious stories are not just fairy tales that need not be taken seriously. Besides, there is supposed to be God's forgiveness anyway. However, after the "deed", new fears arise because one has a bad conscience because one has disappointed God. So such fears and good moral behaviour basically have little or nothing to do with each other. Linking morality (and especially sexual morality) with fear of punishment does not provide a reliable foundation for ethical action. Moreover, such a linkage is even counterproductive and thus also fatal for any genuine morality, because the values that should stand behind a morality are not cultivated with it. Morality has much more to do with an ethical attitude, with a sense of honour and dignity, with a sense of aesthetics and beauty and standard, with information and intelligence and wisdom and joie de vivre - and all that then also gives a sense of real security. With a fear of punishment, all this is only ruined and not at all promoted (as perhaps some small-minded people think). I now assume that the better and firmer and more insightful the rules of a high morality are, the more is possible, the freer and more human man becomes. Suddenly things become possible 159 that are usually considered impossible today.

Note on our times: A fear of punishment is generally no longer taught to young people. But "nothing" is also "nothing", because that leaves the field to others who then teach young people a morality in their sense. Something positive must now also be added. I hope to have shown in my work that morality can be taught not only through fears, but also through the "joy of morality". And that is very possible today, when one can finally talk about "everything" - even to children. In other words, you don't have to tell them the wrong thing first!

4. Which can not only remain straight, but - cleared out and freed from falsifications - can now really come into its own.

So I am deeply convinced that a worldview according to the real Jesus should have a completely different dynamic than the one according to the ideas of the "addict" Paul.

A friend sometimes mocks me for having a virgin's tic. But then the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset (1883 - 1955) also had one (and not only him). This Spanish philosopher summed up how much the most personal dreams and decisions of virgin girls in particular have a political dimension: "That's life: surprising and full of paths never imagined. Who would have believed that something as intangible and elusive as the air formations 136 that young girls ponder in chaste chambers would leave deeper marks on the centuries than the steel of the god of war 165. On the touching fabrics of secret girl fantasies depends to a great extent the reality of the coming century!" ("On Love", Stuttgart 1954, p. 24)

In plain language, this means that the way chaste girls choose their first sex partner or marriage partner not only shapes men, but shapes history in general! This is exactly what I am saying when I recommend that girls should not choose just any partner, especially for their first intimacy, primarily for the reason "to have it over with", because they are most likely to "reward" a wrong person by doing so, but the one with a truly human, i.e. also ethical level - and that can only be the spouse.

And our religion, which until now has been shaped by Paul, what would it look like if it were now shaped by Jesus? This much is clear: it should no longer be a religion in the classical sense, i.e. with priests and a sacrificial cult; it should rather be something like an attitude to life, the basis of which is a genuine ethic and which is also not seen as a compulsion, but rather as a liberation from constraints and also from fears.

And what about the festivals? Do they have to be abolished, as is the case with Jehovah's Witnesses? Not at all! Because festivals are part of the life of living people in all cultures! So Christmas can of course remain and Advent before it, because Jesus will be born at some point. First of all, even in the Gospel of Matthew there is still the version that Joseph was the father of Jesus, and secondly, the virginity and the Mother of God is a mythology from pagan antiquity that no longer concerns us today. And the next feast or rather day of remembrance: Good Friday. It can stay anyway, because Jesus was really tortured and crucified. Easter, the feast of Jesus' resurrection, is a different matter, especially since this feast, as it is understood, clearly belongs to Pauline ideology. But it could become a celebration that the cause of Jesus did not end with Good Friday, but that it is actually successfully implemented in the reality of our lives. That is really a reason to celebrate! In this sense, it could then also continue with the feast of Pentecost, where it is no longer a deity called "Holy Spirit" that is celebrated, but that we are now filled with "holy spirit" to act ethically and wisely in life.

And the celebrations in a person's life, especially a young person? Baptism can of course remain, but the passages that belong to Pauline ideology would have to be omitted because they have to do with faith. On the other hand, it would belong to the Jesus ideology that the baptised are older, as was sometimes the case in the early church, and are stark naked at the same time (as a sign that they have overcome the underwear sham morality and now want to live a morality out of genuine "holy spirit" - bikini and swimming trunks are in principle underwear). With communion, on the other hand, where Jesus supposedly gives us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink, a new interpretation is not possible, because here it is only about faith and that is clearly Pauline ideology. It does not fit with the real Jesus, who never made such a supper and did not want us to make such a thing. But instead - and this goes much better with the girls' white dresses - instead of First Communion 48, we could have a refresher course in baptism! How about the girls and boys repeating their baptism naked in a swimming pool or other suitable body of water with their chosen carers - and of course a few parents too - this time not with the rite of pouring water over them, but with the fun and joy of being in the flesh and with water in the foreground? That is, when they really celebrate their humanity and a conscious morality, which of course they were taught beforehand in a lesson and which they now really want! And when this "baptism" is over, the girls and boys put on their clothes again, the boys additionally a white sash, and the parents and friends who are waiting in front of the swimming pool with the cars (or maybe were there in the swimming pool) drive them to the church. And there they are welcomed with the ringing of bells and parade "in chaotic order" through the church to the front amidst the roar of the organ. Here, perhaps, a little speech by the church leader and the prayer of blessing from the early Christian Confirmation 168 would fit. Yes, that would be just the thing here, especially since it is obviously also much more perfect Jesus ideology, because it is not about the preservation of a faith here, but about the resolution of an intelligent ethical life. The leader then begins the common feast, prepared by the parents to serve themselves according to their origin and culture, with the breaking of bread as in the Emmaus narrative - that would probably be more of a rite in the sense of the real Jesus than this "transformation story"! Perhaps something like a family feeling would also emerge. And once again: Of course, this only works with really knowing children!

Intention and prayer of blessing for an intelligent ethical life

It is striking that the following early Christian text 86 is obviously about something completely different from what we see today in the sacrament of Confirmation 168, of which this prayer of blessing is a part. From the context (Justin dial. 87,5 <Mg PG 6 683/684 A>) it is quite clear that at that time it was not about an affirmation of faith in whomsoever or whatever (there was no such thing as a profession of faith at all), but about the certainty of a moral attitude and the ability to live this attitude also intelligently and creatively. If that is not true emancipation! Nor is there any mention of a vow on the part of the blessed. Thus this prayer of blessing still seems to belong to the Jesus ideology and not to the Pauline ideology - so it fits perfectly into the concept of a successful human being presented here!

"Holy Spirit (or also best possible wisdom of life) come upon you and the power of the Most High keep you from sins (i.e. from mistakes in your human relations)!

Most high eternal God! Who hast granted these Thy children to be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit, we beseech Thee: Pour out upon them Your sevenfold Spirit:

• The Spirit of wisdom and understanding. So that you may be able to distinguish the good from the bad, the sensible from the stupid, the truly moral from the pseudo-moral, the problematic from the unproblematic.

• The spirit of the right decision and perseverance. That you make the right decisions for you, not to do the problematic and to do the unproblematic, and that you persevere.

• The spirit of knowledge and humility. That you recognise which ideas and teachings are good and useful and so you don't run after wrong ideas and teachings. And that you are always aware that you don't know everything and that you don't have a complete overview and that you are therefore always open to meaningful new things.

• The spirit of the fear of God. That in everything the commandments of God or even the rules of paradise are valid for you under all circumstances."

And now for each Blessed One individually:

"I signify you with the sign of the cross, that is, the sign of the one who, up to and with his death, committed himself to the realisation of love, and to whom you should hereby commit yourself."

For more on this, see notes 103.

And the result of a true-to-life pedagogy with meaningful information and without false fears is shown a few years later:

Vision of a Girl 165, who has arrived in the 3rd millennium: "Wisdom and joy of life instead of sham emancipation".

"Aren't we a mendacious society when it comes to sexual morality? Nudity in public is frowned upon, is even a punishable offence, and yet, if you do it right, it can be totally harmless fun and a sign of real emancipation! But sex with different partners is accepted, it is considered normal and a sign of emancipation, we even get instructions for it in school! Yet it often brings enough lifelong trauma and it is also laughed at girls who believe everything here and allow themselves to be tricked into it and thus join in - you only have to google "blonde jokes". The so-called proof of love is also out of the question for me, it's all just a sign of stupidity. Even if many say that "that", i.e. penetration without marriage or even without a marriage certificate 80, is something women should have behind them as a sign of their maturity and adulthood - I don't have to have anything behind me, I really don't need that, and I'm not horny either. And besides, just look up "auction" and "virginity" on google and see what prices some girls offer their virginity for on the internet, i.e. what it's worth! And most girls throw something so precious away like a dirty rag. But with money or without is out of the question for me, I'm not a naive and stupid slut etc. who lets herself be talked into any nonsense, such as that sex with someone else or with anyone other than the right husband is a sign of special emancipation. And I don't have a slave mentality either! In the times of slavery, female slaves were always used by their owners as sex slaves, and when their youthful charm was over at some point, they were put together with male slaves to provide the owners with slave offspring as child-bearing machines. So what countless women and girls were forced to do as slaves in earlier times, girls today do exactly the same thing voluntarily, there seems to be something like a slave mentality in them. But not in me! Because for me it's all abuse of sexuality 107, in the past they talked about sin, but this is (continued p. 41)

Praise to the fixed rules of the game (i.e. if sexual intercourse belongs in marriage): Not everything, not nothing! This first makes possible the experience of the intoxication of nakedness, the intoxication of being human, the intoxication of freedom, yes, also the intoxication of real emancipation! Here: Couple playing ball (not lovers, but simply two "different" young people!) in the market fountain in Varberg / southern Sweden. Sculptures by Bror Marklund

A nice experience about these sculptures: When I had it new, I showed it to two nice girls in a "simple class" who were just sitting at the table in front of the desk, and asked them for their opinion. And spontaneously one of the girls, a Greek woman, said: "But that's beautiful! To me, that means: that came so spontaneously that it suggests the depth of that girl's heart. So this is what most probably all healthy girls want first. Let's grant and enable them!

To the illustration: Surely one mark that a (sex) science 117 is proper would be that the problem of BPCS is not swept under the carpet, but tackled and solved!

Until not long ago, children were not allowed to know anything about sexual intercourse. Because this knowledge was considered to be absolutely harmful early sexualisation 41 that would rob children of their childlike innocence and eventually tempt them to try out what they knew. So taboo about everything related to sexuality! The less the children know about it, the better for them!

But you have to tell the children something so that they don't behave too stupidly and, through naïve ignorance, attract and incite some paedophiles to take advantage of them.

So they were told about the BPCS and that violating the BPCS is even a sin. Since even a child is a highly moral being, this naturally went down very well with the children, so they were ashamed to be naked, because they did not want to commit a sin. Besides, what's between the legs was considered disgusting anyway.

So there was (and still is) uptightness and hostility to life, but no real morality. And the consequence when the children get older: It is in our nature that the opposite sex is highly interesting or will become so at some point.

And something has to be done about it! After all, it can't be reasonable to marry someone you've never really seen "before" 18 and want to stay with him or her for the rest of your life. And since showing and seeing, which in itself is completely harmless, is considered something bad if you do it right, and is also a sin, it is out of the question. After all, one has learned and internalised the moral norms and does not want to violate them. Yes, what else is there but sexual intercourse, because that has to be done one day anyway, because that is the only way to have children. So you do it - and at the same time you can try out with whom it is really fun, who is the right one, and so on. But with that, in any case, education for BPCS has not achieved the morality of real monogamy 120 ...

And what about today? Today, even eight-year-olds, i.e. children at the age when they learn about the basics of our faith in preparation for First Communion, know what sex is, so today they could be told about "the right morals" 48. But nothing like that, once it's in there, it's in there 113. Since, however, the BPCS is already somewhat questionable today, nothing is told about morals, at least nothing so that the children know what it's about. So the "moral nutritional value" of education for BPCS 118 is not questioned. It is talked around (I have here a "Companion to First Communion and Confirmation" from December 2018 in which exactly this happens). That is why the uptightness and hostility towards the body remains, that the young people cannot deal sensibly with their bodies and that they still consider the joy of nudity to be something immoral and are downright afraid of it and deeply shy away from it.

And when the young people then plunge into sexual experiences and thus deviate from the goal of monogamy, the "spiritual authorities" shrug their shoulders and say that this is just the problem of our human weak flesh (or original sin), against which nothing can be done: "Let the young people go to confession!"

Of course, the "spiritual masters" do not think that the failure of high morals is due to the system. The described procedure of education for BPCS is a complete distortion of what is not morality (or even a pseudo-morality) and what is real morality. So we can say that the education for BPCS looks very moral, but is largely or even completely counterproductive 145 for the goal of a morality of real monogamy.

This concept is now about the church coming back to the village and that the morality of genuine monogamy is explicitly wanted! So the aim is that our children learn not to do what belongs in marriage (i.e. sexual intercourse) before marriage or with anyone other than their spouse, but to do what can be a harmless and even paradisiacal pleasure, if only they do it properly.

At the same time, they can also learn very well - by dancing at a high level - to recognise who suits them. And if someone doesn't fit, it's no problem to say "bye" and "goodbye", it was nothing!

And what about the BPCS? Quite simply, the BPCS, quite apart from the fact that it only provides a deceptive security, is a substitute morality that we need because we do not live the strict monogamy that suits us. (In the story of the fall of man in the Bible 128 it is a curse for this reason). As soon as we live or want to live strict monogamy, we will see that the problem of BPCS dissolves into nothing.

What if the adults object? Tip to young people: Don't make a thing of it! Because we must always bear in mind that they have never experienced anything like this and cannot even imagine that it is possible and how beautiful a morality of true monogamy 120 is and how good it is to live it, if only one is informed accordingly ...

Final remark on this picture: I "of course" don't want "something like that" to be put into reality immediately - or do I? In any case, young people should at least think about it and discuss it with each other!

_________

Continued from p. 38:

Word out of fashion today. For me, at any rate, this sex without marriage is rather typical of a slave. Actually, what I'm saying here is all clear to my girlfriends too, but why do they start having sex anyway? Who has manipulated 110 them in such a way that they seem to care so little about their honour and dignity and standards?

In any case, I want to live a real marriage and a real love in my life. I am guided by nature, and because nature has arranged it in such a way that children can 'arise' from penetration, for me penetration belongs in marriage. Incidentally, the Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset said that sexual intercourse with the background of genuine love is particularly fulfilling if it is allowed or even supposed to 'materialise' in a child. And if sex is to be had, then I don't want rabbit hops, but a real celebration!

But if I am also against sex before marriage, then I am only against sexual abuse, which is often enough connected with it, and I am therefore by no means also body-oppressive! To do nothing at all and above all to be against everything that is connected with sexuality is simply unrealistic and that is not possible at all! Because whoever is against everything at first will one day be caught off guard by reality and will end up doing everything 157. I simply want to take a sensible middle course: Not to suppress the gender difference, but to cultivate it. So I am quite open, for example, to paradisiacal nudity 101 - also and especially in the presence of genuinely moral men, where this is therefore possible and not misunderstood. For our usual fear of nudity, i.e. BPCS, is after all only an indication of our insecurity in matters of sexual morality, it prevents a normality between the sexes and does not help at all for a genuine morality and, as a typical irrational fear, is only an instrument of domination (above all of the religions!) and a typical damage to civilisation that prevents real emancipation. Moreover, it is also a sign of mental illness. How I would love to take part in such a naked cycling day, for example, if it were somewhere accessible to me (https://basisreli.lima-city.de/radler/radlerinnen.htm). Surely that is a sign of successful emancipation! Of course, you have to make sure that you are not misunderstood, that's part of emancipation. And I would even practise driving hands-free beforehand, so that at least now and then I could stretch up my arms and spread my fingers to make the V-sign against the bourgeois, i.e. the victory sign! Of course, you have to be able to talk about all this, and I think I can talk because I simply have good arguments. And if you can't talk sense here, fuck you!

But that's not all! I also know that two-thirds of all women never experience an orgasm 81 in their lives - and I don't want to be one of those into whom the man just sticks his dick and then pulls it out again like into a slave and I don't get anything out of it and only feel boredom or even reluctance. So I want to experience orgasm and not with just any man and sometimes with hide-and-seek and cheating and lying and hypocrisy, but with my husband and whenever we both feel like it! Yes, what burns inside you when you are really in love? Nothing burns "inside", all that burns is only the outside. So the inside is out of the question under no circumstances, that has time until marriage! And I also know that the orgasmic experience is only possible with the touch of the outside and without penetration 80, i.e. without any groping and only with light skin contact, simply by feeling very comfortable with a man without fear, poodle naked, and by letting myself really fall with him. Nature has even given us girls the great chance to test without penetration: Because all the nerve cells 72 that are responsible for a woman's orgasm are on the surface of her genitals anyway, i.e. penetration is not necessary at all for her to test it. What doesn't happen without penetration doesn't happen with penetration. In addition, women are very afraid, especially the first time, whether what they are doing without marriage is right. I have also heard that a quarter of all girls have such bad experiences the first time that they are fed up with sex. And this fear prevents women from being really relaxed, which is an absolute prerequisite for the experience of orgasm. Fear is simply deadly for the orgasm! Many also suffer a trauma with such a missed "first time", which they will never really get rid of again in their lives. The only ones who benefit from this are the religions with their promises of comfort and forgiveness, for which they receive enough church tax, and the psychiatrists with their treatments. That's why they don't do anything to make us girls smarter. But all that doesn't have to be! And because the orgasm doesn't work with everyone, it makes sense to test exactly that and only that and not also the penetration before marriage. I think that's also my right, yes, the right of a modern and truly emancipated woman - and how else am I supposed to find out whether at least the physical ideal has ever been fulfilled in me?

There is a beautiful story here from the Italian Renaissance about how I imagine my "first time". And I think that a woman or a girl can only come out of herself like this bride if she knows that everything she is doing is good and right, and if she also receives the congratulations of her parents and relatives and friends and the blessing of the church 148 - and for that you don't even have to be particularly religious or devout. And if a partner really loves you, then it is also important that you don't just let sexual intercourse happen, but that you take part in it with joy from the very beginning, so that it becomes a real celebration. It can never be like that with premarital sex, because there is always something in the back of her mind, whether what she is doing is right - everyone can talk as they like. At best, it becomes an impulse reaction or a stupid argument that women are emancipated and grown-up, but never a real celebration.

And anyway, if premarital intercourse is a good experience and you want it again and again, what if your partner then says "goodbye" and dumps you? Or if it's a bad experience and you're fed up with it, why did you start it in the first place? And how does a woman deal with the next partner who maybe really loves her but with whom she wants to be more careful? Do you then say "no" to him, when you had previously said "yes" to an unsuitable guy and wasted your virginity on him? Or how many does a woman want to try out, at what number is she a slut or a whore? That's why for me: I don't want to do things by halves, if, then properly! I want to experience my sexuality to the full! Like in this story:

ON THE NATURE OF WOMEN by Giovanni Sercambi

In the city of Pisa, Italy, there once lived a rich young man from San Casciano named Ranieri, whose lust was sometimes greater than his intellect. As he was not married and his relatives were pressing him to take a wife, he asked, "Whom will you give me?" They replied, "Whichever one you want and whichever one we can get for you."

"Since you want it that way," Ranieri answered, "I am satisfied. But this I tell you: If I find out that she is not a virgin, I will send her home and have nothing more to do with her."

The relatives replied that he should do the same as everyone else, but they would find him a virgin. They asked around and finally found a pretty girl named Brida, daughter of Jacopa delli Orlandi, who had remained in her mother's care after her father's death. She was beautiful and of splendid stature. When they were introduced, he agreed and so did she.

The marriage was arranged and, after he had brought her home, the wedding was celebrated in the Pisan manner. In the evening, in bed, Ranieri swung himself on top of her in youthful manner to fulfil his marital duties. Brida, who was lying under him, came towards him so spontaneously that Ranieri fell off her. Affected, he said to himself: This is no virgin, yet she moves as well as I would not have thought possible. Without saying a word about it, he rested for the rest of the night. But when the same thing happened again the next evening, Ranieri said to himself: 'Well, if Brida goes to see her mother, she needn't come back for my sake.

When the day arrived when the young wives were supposed to go to their parents' house, Ranieri told Brida and her mother that Brida need never come to his house again, and that she should not dare to enter his house again, because he would kill her. Brida's mother and her relatives couldn't make sense of it all and did everything they could to find out why Ranieri didn't want his wife back, not without first asking Brida what it meant. But Brida replied that she had no idea and was deadly sad. To the mediators sent to hear from Ranieri why he did not want his wife back, he replied: "Because she was promised to me as a virgin and I think she knows more about the matter than a whore." The women, relatives of his and Brida's, returned to the bride's mother, concerned, and told her everything.

The mother, knowing her daughter untouched, exclaimed, "Alas for me wretch! He does not want her back because he has understood nothing." Then the women said: "Let's go to the Madonna Bambacaia, she will certainly know what to do. "Let's go!" urged the mother. So they went to Madonna Bambacaia and told her everything.

Madonna Bambacaia listened to the story and asked for the husband's name and told the women to go with God. As soon as they left, she sent for a duckling and put it under a basket in her room. Then she sent for Ranieri. When he arrived, she offered him a place next to hers, stirred the water in a bowl with a little stick and ordered him to lift the basket under which the duck was. As soon as the duck heard the splashing of the water, it instantly plunged into the bowl.

"Well," Madonna Bambacaia turned to Ranieri, "how is it that this duckling found the water without anyone's help and plunged in?"

"It is in the nature of ducks," Ranieri replied, "that as soon as they notice the water they immediately plunge in, even without ever having seen it before."

To this Madonna Bambacaia said, "You see, just as a duck, a bird without a mind, by nature plunges into the water without ever having known it before, so the woman, without ever having tasted the man before, moves the moment she feels him."

Ranieri laughed at this conclusion. "O Madonna Bambacaia, why did you say that?" "Because I heard," Madonna Bambacaia replied, "that you do not want your wife back, but I advise you: do not worry and take her back, because you got her as a virgin. There she was good, be not thou the cause of her going bad."

Ashamed, Ranieri took Brida back to himself, and from that hour they gave themselves up to their pleasure without suspicion.

Notes: This story was taken from a GDR book from the 1970s. Unfortunately, I no longer have the book and so cannot give the source.

Of course, this Ranieri is a real macho man, he takes everything for himself, but his wife is supposed to be a virgin. But that's not what this is about, it's about whether a girl in particular also needs to learn sexuality in order not to be uptight and also otherwise hostile to the body. And the quintessence of the story is that a healthy girl never ever needs such learning - if the right situation is there, she can "do it all" by nature, so to speak!

What is important is that everything is "all right" for the girl, that the context is simply right - and this is completely different after a wedding than when a girl "tries" to be "in" beforehand. And this is where the "exercises" with nudity fit in, with which additional preparation takes place: If a girl feels really good with her partner - what could go wrong after an official marriage?

Yes, moreover: Who is more uptight? Isn't it rather the girls and women who think they have to have all kinds of sex experiences first - with whomever?

And the idea of having fun with nudity beforehand also speaks for the concept I represent. For those who are open here and have no problems will later throw themselves with skin and hair into the now really positive adventure of love - yes, if everything is alright! And that can certainly be seen much better in a state of openness!

But on with the vision of the girl who has arrived in the 3rd millennium:

And once I know that the orgasm with a man is there, then the fear of the possible pain during the deflowering is also completely superfluous, because precisely this pain namely becomes the ultimate kick on the wedding night. Sure, this night can also be a few or more nights later, but definitely after the wedding. On the other hand, testing the penetration before the wedding is pure nonsense, because every dick fits into every pussy anyway, so women can't see anything special with it. Yes, getting involved in this "penetration test" really doesn't require any intelligence, because even the dumbest blonde can do it. After all, women throw away their good cards of virginity without any sensible countervalue. My mother gave me the hot tip for my search for the right man: 'Keep your legs together and God in front of you! So I'm also open to such skin contact experiences - up to and including a mutual full-body massage 21, because all this is not least fun and also healthy for me, and because it is definitely part of getting to know each other and is also a sign of real wisdom! And something about the massage: The crawl of a dog can serve as a point of reference: You don't touch a dog everywhere!

It also happens that I spend the night with a man who is not suitable for marriage - and also naked, but then without the typical skin contact experiences. Of course, not only for me but also for the man is the renunciation of sexual urges quite a stressful experience. But the fact is that in a great stress the body produces an anti-stress hormone, i.e. adrenaline, noradrenaline and dopamine, and this is like a drug both in its chemical structure and in its effect. The human body is, if you get it right, its own drug supplier. So it is possible to drug oneself by consciously seeking stress, in this case the stress of abstaining from sexual urges - and it is completely free of charge and completely natural!

And the men who are all right will also understand me in my caution and think it's great how I try to walk a sensible middle course. And those who don't understand me here should leave me alone.

And anyway, it's not for nothing that nature has linked the pleasure of sexual intercourse and the possibility of fertility. That means that sexual intercourse belongs in a family where children can be conceived. We are usually in favour of a life according to nature - but here we think that we have to out-price nature with pills and condoms - I'd rather stick to nature!

This way I can live with the renunciation of sexual urges, above all it opens up many new possibilities for self-realisation without the bad taste 160! What kind of frustrated old people are they, who always equate sexual abstinence with torment and repression and who do not allow us young people any paradisiacal pleasures?

Author's note: Anyone who thinks all this is unrealistic and impossible should ask themselves whether it's because they've never experienced it themselves, and whether it's because they simply didn't know any better?

Epilogue

Despite all my efforts to express myself in a comprehensible way, I still have the impression that some readers don't know what I want. Hence this epilogue!

Perhaps an incident from the end of my school career fits here, which in my opinion says a lot about the young people of today:

My teaching licence was withdrawn by the Bishop of Aachen because I did not represent the teachings of the Church and because the pupils had to be protected from me (!!!). And my headmaster didn't let me into any classes from then on - I was given another job as long as my retirement was not yet here. And somehow I got to know that in one class there were rumours that there was some MeToo story (today you would say that). That there were dogmatic reasons was beyond their imagination, because I always tried to put the morals of the church into practice in their lives. - So I approached the boss who was just passing by: "You see, this is now being told....!" And he: "In which class - where?" And he immediately went with me to the class in question - the normal lesson was cancelled for them for the time being ... He explained to the class the background to the withdrawal of the teacher's licence, that there were problems with the dogmas of the church, etc. One pupil then rose a little limp and said: "But what if we want him ....?" (I was gobsmacked, I had never seen young people like that before ...) And the boss replied: "No, that wouldn't work, there was an agreement with the Catholic Church and not only with the etc.". And then the pupil again: "All right. But when I look around, we have four groups in this class: the Catholics, the Protestants, the Baptists and the Muslims. All right, the Catholics can leave the room, but for the others he can continue with the lessons ..." I was even more gobsmacked - and I think the boss was also very surprised, to say the least, because he had probably never heard anything like that about me and about my teaching. He had probably thought from what he had heard about me so far that I was very unworldly, at least as far as the young people of today are concerned, but now this ... (And if I imagine that there had also been Jewish pupils there, for whom this pupil would also have been speaking, then it would have been clear to me how one can bring together even religions that don't want to have anything to do with each other! By the way: Before I was active in the diocese of Aachen, I was also active in the archdiocese of Cologne - and for this archdiocese I still have a teaching licence, and it is still valid!)

And here I would like to show another picture by Lucas Cranach the Elder - apart from the one on p. 12. I came across the picture because I was at the famous Cranach exhibition in Düsseldorf to see what else this painter, who was a friend of Martin Luther by the way, had painted and what he had thought. Lucas Cranach was a humanist and as such he had ideal ideas about man. These ideals also included the idea that morality and nudity belong together, that perhaps true morality is only possible if it is combined with nudity (of course, only where it fits). A very fine example of this combination is the portrayal of the Roman citizen Lucretia, even if her fate was a sad one. She had been raped and suffered so much from this terrible experience, which she herself was innocent of, but which she no longer wanted to live with - that she killed herself. She was therefore considered by the Romans to be the epitome of morality. And it was in this sense that Lucas Cranach the Elder painted her.

I know I'm repeating myself, at least in part: According to the Bible, the fear of nakedness is the result of a curse, and in the language of modern psychology we can call it an indication of collective trauma. The cause of both is because we humans do not live the sexuality that is appropriate for us, and that is strictly monogamous. That is why I am committed to it.

Well, that's how it stayed - but this incident gave me a lot of courage to come. Because I think the direction I've taken is the right one. So I now dare to print the photos of the couple playing ball (see p. 38) and the picture of Lucretia (see this page) - and to explicitly recommend "such practice".

And of course there were more experiences - I'm thinking of some conversations with young people between door and door ... For example, when a schoolgirl told me how much she regretted having started having sex, because she had explicitly wanted to. I hinted at the interlacing of the fingers of both hands, as described on page 25 above in the conversation with this globetrotting German school-leaver, and asked her if it wouldn't have been just as good. "Well, of course", was her wistful reply, "but nobody says it like that ...".

So I continue to think that someone has to say it, because if everything is always forbidden or even just made bad, then the only thing that will be achieved is that everything will always be done in the end. (What a scoop this argument is at the right moment only became clear to me some time after the conversation with the school-leaver). Basically, young people only want to "see and show", i.e. something completely harmless, understandable and legitimate. And now more than 17 years have passed since I left school, and I haven't stopped at what I said back then. I would say that I only came up with the best information and thoughts after I left active service - also, for example, through conversations with young people on the Way of St James pilgrimage in Spain. Yes, where else can you talk so freely, especially with girls - unless see above?

So I think that with the work I am doing now, I could reach the young people much better and even change something in them. I also think that the church would now have real difficulties in revoking my teaching licence, because what I have just come up with on the subject of "Jesus" is actually the solution to all the unanswered questions that I know from my theology studies. I think I would have good cards, at least much better than back then!

In any case, something has to be done here, especially because the young people in today's school classes are mixed from all kinds of cultures and religions. If religious education is not responsible here, or at least it should be!

Although I have not been in the ministry for many years, I still have contact with young people from time to time and also talk to them about the issues raised. My impression is that I am quite right in what I have written here. And so it could also be that my recommendations as an old religion teacher to young people are not only not wrong, but are even very gladly heard. So:

• Discuss with each other - certainly in religion or ethics lessons!

• Above all, talk about whether and where you can and want to deal with each other so openly, i.e. also naked, as described here.

• Of course, changing clothes and showering together after sports lessons would be a very good idea. You could take the stand that in a time when all possible and impossible sexual abnormalities are considered normal and must even be respected as sexual self-realisation of a person, it is allowed to strive for the great love with the only partner again. And the rational prerequisite for this is overcoming feelings of disgust, shame and inhibition. (And if the boys have an erection because everything is so unfamiliar at first, the girls should encourage them: "It's nice how normal you are, the important thing is how well you can control yourself!)

• And if you do that and a sports teacher or a headmaster wants to forbid it, then let them do it, you don't have to stick to it because this prohibition is against higher morals. Let them call the police. And then present this brochure to them. Let's see what happens! It won't be much, because you have the better cards here! - Good luck!

If what I am talking about may sound a bit strange to some ("What does all this have to do with religion?"), thanks to the reflection on the original Jewish religion and on the historical Jewish Jesus, I can refer to the basic concern of the Jewish religion. And in it there is also the paradise narrative, which on the one hand is a story against cultic prostitution, that is, against sex with a partner other than one's own spouse. I can refer here to an excellent study by the Protestant Czech theologian Jan Heller on the name "Eve": This name is in fact the derivation from the goddess names Hebe or Hepatu (the root word is the same, even the sounds p and b fit, because if you rub them with your lips, f or v and w come out - we also know this from Spanish, Barcelona is spoken Warßelona), to whose cult such prostitution belonged. And the skill of the authors of the paradise narrative was that they degraded such a goddess to a human woman, i.e. to the "human Eve" - and what belonged to the cult of the goddess was now seen as something bad. On the other hand, there is talk of nakedness, which I see here as a vision of how clothing becomes superfluous in a godly world - only where it fits, of course. In addition to this, there is a very special view of human beings in the original Jewish religion, namely that the human being is not simply a being with male or female "appendages", but a sexual being through and through, who lives and above all wants to live either his particular manhood or also his particular womanhood.

The presentation of fertility rites is the theme of the sun temple in Konarak / India 31. Here we can see, that with the serpent in the Adam-and-Eve-story of the bible is meant in the pre-biblical-cultures not the devil but a fertility deity, who is worshipped by intercourse with a cultural prostitute.

So I orientated myself on the utopia of the early Jewish religion on being human: "Woman's right to orgasm with real monogamy and without problems with nudity" - and made this the basis of a pedagogical concept that is, in my opinion, suitable for practice. The problem is always the implementation of a utopia in the reality of life, including today.

APPENDIX 1: RELIGION AND FASCISM - AND OUTLOOK

But at some point, the original great idea of the Jewish religion fell behind, perhaps because some problems arose, like our present-day corona pandemic, which required some measures that then took on a life of their own? And so traditions came about that made the original concerns forgotten, even when the "problems" were over? And traditions very often (or perhaps always?) also mean betrayal?

I came across the book "Heavenly Sex" by the Jewish-German-American sex therapist Ruth Westheimer (and also Jonathan Mark) (1995 New York University Press/ Bertelsmann 1996). And very quickly, while reading it, I discovered that it gave me what I thought was a good insight into the tradition of the Jewish religion, here into the practice of interpersonal life, which I would hardly have had otherwise. And in the process I have come across quite problematic things ...

Ruth Westheimer writes about a Jewish wedding: "That is why the bride wears white ... However promiscuous the bride may have been before marriage, the wedding purifies her, she wears white as the colour of purity, as fresh as newly fallen snow. A wedding can put back together all that seemed broken, such as a disreputable past, it can heal old wounds.... " (p. 125f) Of course, this is - at least at first glance - a great attitude towards those who (for whatever reason) have not always kept the commandments of a high sexual morality and yet eventually "convert" to the "right way".

However, on closer inspection, I think that this great attitude also makes the Jewish theologians lazy and empathetic towards traumatic experiences of young people and also towards the original concern of their religion. They no longer care about the original basic concern of a morality of true monogamy, everything is forgiven anyway, nothing matters anyway.... So also the passage on p. 48 from Ruth Westheimer's practical experience: "When an Orthodox girl sits in my practice and tells me that something bad has happened to her, I tell her from the depths of my Jewish tradition: 'What happened is terrible, just terrible, it should never happen to someone like you in the first place. How sad that you had to have this bad experience. But you have to go on living. We want to make sure that when the memory or thought of it comes up, you redeem it with good thoughts. Remember Miriam, who after crossing the Red Sea, went out with her tambourine and danced when all seemed hopeless. Think of the Sabbath candles ..."

Of course, it is quite true that someone has to go on living no matter what. But an attitude forces itself on me here: "You are nothing, the big idea is everything." And that makes me, as a German, prick up my ears, because associations from our unspeakable recent history come up very quickly - and from two ideologies at once: "You are nothing, your nation, your national community or even the working class or the party are everything..." Well, with the Jews it is not the party, but the Jewish community, religion or even God. But in any case it is not the individual. Therefore, isn't this attitude that Ruth Westheimer has, and which seems to be the Jewish attitude in the first place, somehow fascistoid?

I will quote the well-known Jesuit and philosopher Rupert Lay ("Die Macht der Moral", Econ, 1991, p. 44f): "Quite a few people wrongly assume that with the end of open political fascism they have given up its patterns of interaction, its values. Thus, fascism is a historical episode. Neither in political nor in economic, neither in trade union nor in family institutions can fascism be recognised. This is a mistake. Fascism still exists among and within all of us. Every person who lives in a closed life-world because he or she believes that he or she is in possession of truth and of eternally valid moral categories that also bind others, is disposed to be fascist. Every institution is disposed to be fascist, since its endogenous purposes aim exclusively at its self-preservation and expansion beyond the output, thus making it the highest good to be protected (political, cultural, ecclesial <note: religious/church>, economic) for itself. While fascism has learned to hide behind thousands of masks, it is an important concern of any Open Morality to unmask it." So here I am trying to unmask the fascism of the Jewish religion.... And it's true, there is an indifference to the traumatic experiences of a girl....

However, when I look at other religions, including our own, it's no better there either, it's more noticeable in a religion other than our own. In a similar way, the "sins" are "wiped away" in Catholic confession and covered up with great ceremonies and sometimes also with intoxicating, magnificent works of art in architecture, painting and music - actually, I have nothing against this, but they must be an expression of the joy of life and not of repression: So the therapist or the confessor learns about the "mishaps of life" (and I think it's the same thing here, that woman had made a mistake here in her love partner), but neither with the Jews nor with the Catholics does anyone get the idea that there is a pedagogical problem here, that is, that young people are not being adequately prepared for the "pitfalls of life" and that they are therefore not really able to avoid them and, above all, to cope with them. And instead of the church or the synagogue finally starting to develop a sensible sexual morality for the young people so that such "mishaps" do not happen, they leave it to a commercial enterprise (here in Germany "BRAVO", a youth magazine or website) and meanwhile also sociologists and pedagogues who are far removed from the faith, who of course convey their areligious attitude to the young people accordingly. This eventually leads to young people asking themselves what the point of religion is, and that they at least largely detach themselves from the principles of religion. What remains are perhaps only external forms and a faith that can rather be described as "superstition decorated with folklore"). And the theologians and rabbis shrug their shoulders and don't feel responsible and are inactive ("nothing can be done") and promise salvation after death. What do you think of that, dear reader?

From the point of view of "fascistoid", one can also take a look at the ritual circumcision of male babies. I quote here - also from the book "Heavenly Sex" (p. 27): "Rabbi Nachman of Breslau ... taught ... that circumcision consisted of two different acts. In the first, the orla, the flesh covering the 'crown' of the penis, is removed. Then the krum, the membrane underneath the skin, is peeled off until the flesh of the crown becomes visible. Rabbi Nachman explains that the orla symbolises evil, which must be completely removed. The krum is seen as a link between the orla and the flesh, referring to the fact that good is sometimes mixed with evil. Peeling off the krum symbolises that the good must be separated from the evil. The sexual instinct and act is capable of the highest dignity - the creation of life. Yet the same penis and the same act can set off a chain reaction of pain and lead to death. It is this dialectic that underlies the history of the Jewish attitude to sex."

My take on this: One can, of course, positively justify and eventually even glorify everything. But the bottom line - at least for us Europeans - is that circumcision remains a barbaric and today largely completely unnecessary act, and then on innocent little boys. So we can say: in the case of the boys, forced recruitment through circumcision, and in the case of the girls, stupidity, ignorance and lack of concept, so that they finally also want such a "falling out of love" and thus slip into an "in-human" ideology, in this case that of the Jewish religion. Is the Jewish religion, as it appears today, and presumably not only today, a fascist ideology? (But it really doesn't have to be!).

And from this point of view, once again to the liberation of slaves and female slaves in Jewish history: Was it ever intended that girls were no longer sex slaves or prostitutes before marriage? Did that ever really change? And did the freed slaves really become emancipated and sovereign people? Was emancipation and sovereignty, at least a real one from the depths of the human person, ever intended for the Jews? Perhaps that was once, at the very beginning, the basic idea and goal of the "Jewish original religion" of some gifted people, but that was a long time ago. In any case, I imagine truly emancipated and sovereign girls more like the girl on page 38!

And I think that's where you can get back to, especially today! In the end, was this perhaps also a concern of the real Jesus? So Jesus was not only against the abuse of sexuality, but also against "fascism", "fascism" here, however, not as a political system, but as a timeless anti-human philosophy of power? So was Jesus - by our standards today - more of a revolutionary moralist and philosopher and was his sorting into a religious box a clever diversion from his concern and thus its perfect defusing?

If a return to the origin here were not a common task of Jews and Christians! And the circumcision of boys, a particularly problematic "child of tradition" could then also be overcome at the same time! Although it is punishable by excommunication among the Jews, as I read in Westheimer/Mark, it should finally be seen not as a divine commandment but as an outdated Stone Age custom that does not belong to the "basic inventory" of the Jewish religion. And there is no punishment from anyone for changing such a custom! (And another thing about "tradition": The American edition of the book by Westheimer/Mark is called "Heavenly Sex: Sex and the Jewish Tradition". So the invocation of tradition is not just incidental-incidental, it is the common practice in the Jewish religion - and precisely not the original concern of this religion....)

Here is something about an experiment: American researchers once conducted an experiment on how to bring together hostile groups ("hostile" are not exactly Jews and Christians, but it could be better): For this purpose, they organised tent camps of two such hostile groups of boys, of course at a proper distance - with respective "imperfections" in both camps, for example a non-functioning water pipe. But the "imperfections" could be solved, but only if the hostile groups of boys worked together. And lo and behold, it worked and the groups became closer in other ways too!

Don't we somehow "also have such a problem" here, which Jews and Christians could also solve each for themselves, but much better both together? So in this work "The Criminal Case of Jesus" I have developed a concept for this - for the youth - and the youth is the future! There is the same concern here, a common task: from the Jews the beauty of the experience of sexuality and from the reform through Jesus the overcoming of abuse. So cooperation would be the ideal (and of course also with all reform-minded Christian denominations) - against manipulation by commercial companies etc.! "Being a Christian is certainly not possible for everyone, but everyone could be a follower of Jesus! This would also be a liberation from any ideology that has even remotely to do with "fascist". So the Jesus vision in its Jewish context? Maybe there is no other way, at least not in the long run? And it would not be a classical religion with faith in God and the cult of God, but an attitude to life made up of wisdom and the joy of living!

But how could it be otherwise? And I think that here the Jewish religion is very much my concern, especially since I see Christianity as a "Jewish sect", that is, that Jewish religion and Christian religion at least have the same concern, or at least should have the same concern.

In this context, I googled the meaning of the bar mitzvah (the rite by which Jewish boys become full members of the Jewish religion), because I assume that what I find here on the internet is written by Jews and thus also correctly reflects Jewish teaching. However, reading what I found reminded me very much of my thesis on the meaning of confirmatio, the Christian equivalent of bar mitzvah. In my thesis, I was very critical of the thesis I sometimes found in the literature that confirmatio is about faithfulness to the Catholic (or even Protestant) faith. For the spiritual gifts of Isaiah 11:2 point to ethical behaviour, the goal of which is a successful humanity par excellence (perhaps Isaiah even had the Jewish utopia mentioned in mind?). So I saw in the sense of faithfulness to the respective faith (which, by the way, is no longer emphasised today) a common decay of an initially good idea, that in the end it is no longer about the original meaning, but only about the preservation of a system. In any case, the assessing professor had praised this observation of mine in his assessment.

And when I now look at the meaning of the bar mitzvah on google, I have the impression that my criticism of our Christian rite is just as appropriate here. It's all about being a Jew - just as Westheimer and Mark write that this is the most important thing, and not about the individual. Yet it is actually clear: God is neither Jewish nor Catholic nor Protestant nor Muslim or anything else. And the religion that manages to lead young people to a successful humanity - that will win! 124 And it is in this sense that I see the original Judaism 152 that Jesus was also concerned with - and towards which we must move. And I am firmly convinced that if this succeeds, or even if we are already on the way there, then "Jesus-followers" (I would like to avoid the word "Christians") and Jews will understand each other quite differently and so anti-Semitism will also disappear like an evil spook. See "Jesus ... in the mirror of Jewish research" 133.

But this also includes a genuine sexual morality - and although this could be so attractive to young people that they would also want it - this is the crux of the matter. Because no one in the establishment wants that, because an unsuccessful genuine sexual morality is not only a great instrument of domination of the old in a society over the young, but also a very lucrative business model. And then, of course, you don't want to hurt those who live or have lived differently by pushing them towards a better model when it's too late. I'm really in a bad dilemma here. But at some point you have to start with the "better model"!

In any case, this is where I see the basic problem of the Jewish religion and also of the Christian religion, which then also has to do with the real Jesus. And if we want to follow Jesus, then it will only work if we are guided by the fact that our basis is also a Jewish one.

But I think it's a pity that I didn't know all the things I wrote in the booklet earlier - I suspected many things at that time and thought I had good arguments, but unfortunately I didn't know the best arguments yet, they came later. I know I'm repeating myself, but in any case, with the current concept, I would gladly be a teacher again today!

APPENDIX 2: WHY THIS "ALTERNATIVE FAITH CONCEPT" IS JUST RIGHT FOR TEACHING CHILDREN:

I think that in this booklet I have presented quite well and plausibly how it was with the real Jesus 2000 years ago. And if teachers or catechists don't want to know anything about this research and possible solutions, then the question naturally arises as to what else they tell young people when it comes to religion?

Do they continue to tell the traditional pious fairy tales or even tall tales or some trivialities according to the motto "good for everyone and bad for no one" - and leave out the tricky stuff altogether? Would one do the same in mathematics and physics and biology, first tell the children fairy tales, etc., and then either never tell the right things or at most later, when the children are older? Hardly - but this is the way it is done in religion - although it is precisely here that it should be about "the right thing", i.e. about the truth?

I ask you, dear readers, to understand me, who was a teacher at a secondary school. I remember the remark of a pupil when I tried to put our Christian faith on solid ground that was comprehensible to the pupils: "At first we didn't believe what we had been told at school, but then we were given such sophisticated reasons to believe it - and now you come and say that we were right with our doubts originally, no, now I'm sticking to it....". I think this "sometimes this way and then that way again" doesn't have to be, above all it is completely "intelligence-inefficient" for young people.

Why not do it right and sensibly? This is possible today, because children already receive the appropriate information in sex education, so that they know what is involved. Today, there is no need to tell children's fairy tales and beat around the bush; today, it is finally possible to speak plainly!

I would like to tell you about three experiences I have had:

1. during my theology studies at the Jesuit University in Frankfurt, I took part in an initiative "study and reality of life" by a committed Caritas worker, in order to come into closer contact with the reality of "normal people". Among other things, this staff member organised a holiday camp in a youth hostel in the Bavarian Forest, which I also took part in. I was the group leader of the 12-year-old boys. And as it happened, two boys, siblings, took off all their clothes during a hike at a reservoir built by my group in a stream - and when they noticed that I obviously didn't mind, they also wanted to be photographed. Of course, I had strong reservations afterwards and told everything to the leader and also gave her the film, but she just laughed and also showed my photos at the "re-reading event" in the run-up to Christmas - obviously to everyone's amusement. So it was all clear or not, because other boys had also asked me at that time whether nudity was possible at all and not a sin, because according to the story of the Fall of Man in the Bible, it was not allowed. I just said something flippantly and casually, which I was annoyed about later. After all, the boys had wanted to know something they couldn't handle, and I should have answered much more seriously. So the next year, at a similar camp, this time in Salzburg, I wanted to set up something similar - and this time talk about it sensibly with all my group. But as it happens, soon after the announcement to "my boys" I was surrounded quite excitedly by the group of 8-year-old girls: "Mr. P., we're coming with you, skinny dipping!" And I was in a panic, no, I couldn't do that, I would get into hot water if any parents misunderstood and went to a lawyer, etc., and I cancelled everything. In the meantime I know that I was completely wrong, because the girls wanted it and it was their holiday - and it was nothing bad that they wanted. And what I couldn't have discussed with them and also with the boys and how I could have explained to them a sexual morality that was not hostile to the body, they would all have been completely open! So I would have had to do something. However, I would have needed a suitable scripture in which everything would have been well explained pedagogically and theologically for critical parents and also for the children. But I didn't have that, something like that simply didn't exist (and still doesn't). I do hope that what I have written here is something like that!

2. Soon after my studies, a pastor friend of mine asked me to teach First Communion in his parish. I agreed and had the resolution from the start, however, that I did not want to lie to the children. I knew the thesis that you always have to bring something from the child's life world to children, but I doubted the correctness of this thesis. In my opinion, the only important thing is that the approach must be such that the children understand what it is about and that there is some tension and a goal, and the goal can also be in the future. After a few introductory words in class, I said that First Communion was all about being strengthened to preserve innocence (hence the girls' white dress) and to avoid sins. So what do they mean by "sins"? Then came the usual stories about "not quarrelling with the brothers and sisters", and so on. I asked them if it wasn't disproportionate that a son of God should come to earth and die on the cross because of such childish things. No, they agreed, that really wouldn't fit. Well, "then I'll read you a story about sins, where a girl had something broken in her life and after that she couldn't sleep properly any more". And I had a story about a girl who had an abortion, a bit melodramatic and crass, but I thought it was well written so that children would understand everything. Above all, they could see the connections 147 - and we could talk about it - and the children could become fit so that something like that wouldn't happen to them one day. And behold, the story went down excellently, of course at that time I still had to explain what the girl had now "done" with the boyfriend, because it was not common at that time for children to know "that". And of course I came up with the difference between abuse of sexuality and "use" in connection with love and partnership - in marriage, of course. And it was like I had opened a barrel! The things the children didn't want to know and told me themselves! I had the impression that they had always been waiting for an adult with whom they could really talk "about it all". And at the end of the lesson the question came: "Shall we talk again in the next lesson? The children obviously didn't have the impression at all that what I was doing was a lesson. One girl also told about a story her mother had given her to read, which was something like this. Obviously, the girl had told something at home and the mother had taken the opportunity to add to it. About parents: When two mothers (independently of each other) came to pick up their sons, I wanted to talk to theirs and explain my lessons to them, but they both waved me off: "Leave it, it's all right the way you do it" - the boys had obviously told something at home and the mothers just wanted to see what kind of a guy he is who does "such an alternative lesson" ...

3. And another "story": I "of course" also got into conversation with a tenant about my commitment as a religious teacher. And one day she doubted whether children would be interested in "something like that". Since my 10-year-old daughter was there, I put it to the test and said to her: "What you learn in religious education is often a fairy tale, the teachers generally try hard, but the problem is that much of what they tell is simply not true. Now I'll tell you a story about what was going on back then and what this Jesus wanted to change. And I told the story of the beautiful Susanne, how she was blackmailed by two men: 'Either you have sex with us or we'll report you that we caught you having sex with a young man, then you'll be stoned to death'." I had chosen this story because it is more suitable than the sin narrative according to John 8 for young people who have nothing (yet) to do with abuse, and for understanding it is enough that the listeners know what sexual intercourse is. I could assume that today. And besides, it is also an exciting crime story! (And I could come back to the parallels with the sin narrative in John 8 later). The girl also listened attentively, including my explanations of the laws of that time, and then said: "I'm lucky that I didn't live back then ....". This comment, which I really hadn't put into the girl's mouth, was fantastic. The girl had obviously built up a relationship to an ancient story completely on her own, if that's nothing! And I said to the visibly proud mother how intelligently her daughter had answered: "You see, the girl has fully understood the problem, and not only your daughter is so intelligent, all children are at least not stupid to begin with, they can also think logically here, your daughter has thought and reacted completely correctly and normally - and probably much better than most adults! Unfortunately, there was no further conversation because the family moved away (now and then I still send my texts to the mother).

But what meaningful things can't be built up against the background of these experiences in connection with the concept of the real Jesus! Today, young people, and especially girls, really don't need to be sent in the wrong direction with their high morals!

In any case, I think that especially with children in children's classes, such conversations are very possible today, there the children even heat each other up. And above all, the children still approach the subject in an unbiased way, because none of them has yet had any "experiences" that make them wistful, because they realise that they have done something wrong and could therefore miss out on something. Of course, the wrongdoing also affects the teachers, who could become aware of what could have been done differently in their youth if they had known better at the time. Above all, they could become very wistful now when they see how lively the children are when someone talks to them sensibly about it. But the teachers should have come to terms with their own past at some point ...

You might think that I'm hostile to the body, that today children would rather be taught about pills and condoms so that they can have their sexual experiences without fear. But I see it differently. Who is hostile to the body here? These "experiences with pills and condoms", which often also mean psychological injuries, occur primarily because young people are not given a sensible, body-affirming moral concept from childhood. Where, then, is a pedagogy shaped by a Christian attitude that young people accept their bodies, which expresses itself, for example, in the fact that they can and want to show them proudly - and the girls motivate the boys to be cavaliers and protectors in the process? There is a complete absence of this, or at best a cramped beating around the bush. And that's the only reason why one day there will have to be such really body-despising "instructions" for pills and condoms (which a commercial company started), so that the young people don't infect themselves with STDs while abusing each other and the girls don't get pregnant in the process. Somehow it is still like in the time of Jesus: psychological injuries in connection with sexuality are not of interest today either - but with the difference that today they may only happen among young people. But such experiences are never really good, and we recognise that hurts (or even traumas) are there by the need for (body parts hiding) shame. An attitude like that of this girl from page 38 onwards would always be far more contemporary and humane! That would be true emancipation and true joy in being a woman!

Here there is even the chance of a success check! When the children have understood what real morality is and what is only pseudo-morality (see p. 29), then they, and especially the girls, will be only too happy to try it out in practice. Teachers should therefore be prepared for this and consider beforehand how to deal with this urge of the children, which is definitely a sign of their health. As I said, you would now have a corresponding script.

And a few more comments:

• Of course, I wouldn't give children "such a booklet" either, but I think educators will know how to implement all this for children. And of course I have to write something more for the teachers (and especially about the background) than what they then use in class.

• Don't worry if the children are "open" to nudity too, because they are not stupid and already know where they can be open and with whom and where it is better not to be. But they would now no longer be fundamentally hostile to the body and instead be open to a reasonable knowledge of human nature.

• I used to have difficulty justifying my approach theologically, I just didn't realise that this common concept of faith I am criticising is a Pauline ideology and that Paul was a fraud. Today I can appeal to a Jesus ideology. The problem, of course, is that I am throwing 2000 years of Christian teaching overboard. But I think it has to happen sometime - and why not now?

• Of course, I will also give a copy of this letter to my pastor, not least because I want to tell him how I came to my attitude of talking to children of primary school age. That is also the age of first communion. And so this letter to you as the head of a primary school is also very appropriate for him. The aim is that nothing is taught in First Communion classes that is different from what is taught in school. I will also inform my "ecclesiastical superior".

And now something from a letter to the "ecclesiastical superior" that fits into this preface:

Yes, if not the church, who else would be responsible for such a task when it comes to real morality? I think, for example, that a shift of emphasis in "Christian teaching for young people" is quite possible, for example, in First Communion teaching away from eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ towards an ethic of genuine monogamy? Last but not least, the theology of the Lord's Supper has become theologically "not uncontroversial" (I am not the only one who has problems here), so what could be more obvious than to move it a little out of the foreground. On the other hand, it would really be appropriate to bring the concern of genuine monogamy back to the centre, something should really be done here - especially since all this is also directly connected to the problem of abuse. In the case of confirmation, there should be fewer problems in terms of doctrine, but there is no concept for genuine monogamy 120 does not exist here either.

And isn't it our religion that is responsible here? Abuse in whatever form is a sin 107 - and it is really not enough to simply be "against sin", as in a legal text, we also always need a concept of how a legal text is implemented in the reality of life, so that people can also live according to the laws. And so also here! But what the churches have been doing so far is not only often wrong and unsuitable, but also completely unattractive, especially for young people.

I would also like to point out that it can also be seen as criminal to send young people with their predisposition to high morals in the wrong direction of a pseudo-morality, so that they cannot live this high morality sensibly at all. If the media were to "get involved" in this, it would certainly be much worse for the churches than the diesel scandal was for Volkswagen. And we certainly can't blame it on the real Jesus. But something can be done here - especially today! And it is not only about preventing abuse, above all, a much more intensive and fulfilling life is possible 159 with a different ideology on sexuality!

Probably some believers would be against such a change, at least at first, but I think even more would be for it! Last but not least, it is probably the concern of all parents that their offspring will become victims of abuse, and I think they would be happy to have an institution that relieves them of their worries as far as possible here, and that they can therefore gladly entrust their offspring to this institution. And not only the Catholic parents would participate - other parents have the same worries and I think many of them would be there too. I imagine a kind of Christian youth consecration in which all parents and children could participate - regardless of church membership. This would be a real task for the church!

***

Briefly about me: I have roots in East and West Prussia on my father's side and in Silesia and Bohemia on my mother's side, I am a qualified theologian and before I retired I was a teacher of religious education at a vocational school. I have never been married, but I have a Vietnamese guest daughter whom I met by chance in Saigon in 1997 when she was 14. We corresponded for two years, during which I explained my concept to the girl and that she should discuss everything with her parents. At 16, the young Vietnamese girl then came to Germany and has been like my daughter ever since. Today she works for an electronics company in support for technical software (i.e. to help when production in a factory comes to a standstill because the software doesn't work) and is married - with two small daughters.

Before studying theology, I was a reserve officer and industrial clerk at an electronics company. I think that my time in the Bundeswehr explains very well my pedagogical commitment with the rather "unusual approaches" here. In reserve officer training, the special feature of the German military was taught, namely that the Germans lead according to order tactics 98, while the Allies lead according to command tactics. Command tactics means that actions are specified or "ordered" down to the last detail "from above", whereas in order tactics only one goal is specified and it is largely up to the person in charge to decide how to achieve this goal. This is another reason why the Germans were very successful for a long time against an enemy superiority. And I just see the specific goal or mission as "real monogamy" 120, leaving it up to me how this goal is achieved, the main thing is that it is achieved.

In remembrance

After a tragic illness, my friend Martin Deininger passed away much too early (2019). He had given me many suggestions - among other things, we thought about an alternative for first communion, as it would be plausible in a faith in the real Jesus today and also very attractive for many, and we were in absolute agreement, see page 36. And he also pointed out to me that I would have to write something about man's predisposition 8 to real monogamy, that this therefore also has to be learned like walking and speaking have to be learned, for which there is also a predisposition, but because of this man cannot do all this by himself by a long way. Above all, he also read the book by the Danish Sanskrit researcher Christian Lindtner and, as a theologian, which he also was, he agreed with me of his own accord that this was serious science, the way Lindtner proceeded, and that one can therefore rely on him for what he found out.

***

(to click on these also go to www.michael-preuschoff.de ):

1. this brochure here: https://basisreli.lima-city.de/kriminalfall.pdf

9. questions and answers on the subject: https://basisreli.lima-city.de/fragen.htm 10. the blue numbers are references: https://basisreli.lima-city.de/hinweise.htm 11. literature used: https://basisreli.lima-city.de/literatur.htm

7. draft of an interview: https://basisreli.lima-city.de/interview.htm

12. discussion page: https://basisreli.lima-city.de/diskussion.htm

3. a drastic but safe pedagogy on the subject (in this film the education for the alleged sexual self-determination of girls is exposed as perfidious manipulation to stupidity): https://basisreli.lima-city.de/kids.htm

E-mail: basistext@gmx.de / Last changes or corrections: June 2021

***

Back cover of the booklet:

I noticed some inconsistencies in our faith very early in my childhood and youth:

• in the Emmaus narrative, in which the risen Jesus supposedly appears to two disciples, he only breaks bread; there is no mention of a transformation of bread and wine into his flesh and blood, although that would be obvious here.

• in the early church the baptised were naked, but according to Paul the woman has to cover herself

• the traditional text of confirmation (lat. confirmatio 168, see p. 37 in this booklet) is about asking for spiritual gifts necessary for intelligent personal ethics, but in the official rite it is only about the confirmand confessing and keeping his faith

• again and again we hear about Jesus that he had something against religious worship and wanted intelligent ethical action, whereas in our Christian religion worship comes first, ethical action is rather an appendage, and not even a very intelligent one, especially as far as young people are concerned ...

How can these contradictions be explained?

Quite simply: one is Jesus ideology and the other is Pauline ideology, so one points to the real Jesus and the other to what Paul, who had cunningly crept into the young Jesus community through reports of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus with corresponding revelations 167, had made of it. The contempt for women and the anti-Semitism in our faith also originate from him - it is about time that all this was overcome!

In any case, the background of the contradictions is an outright criminal case in which the memory of the commitment of the real Jesus was to be erased, after it was still alive among his followers despite the crucifixion. But everything could not be erased so easily, because some things about Jesus were already too well known and were also practised in the young community. I don't think I am promising too much when this is about a thrilling criminal case with a demimonde mafia and with the blackmailing of girls and women into sexual abuse, with a judicial murder of "one" who in his time started to expose and spread this, and finally with lies and deceit and with the manipulation of young people into stupidity and blindness 119 with regard to important questions of life and with threats and fears and with a lot of power and business.

Of course, the main point here is to present a solution that brings joy to all involved and even downright fun and increased genuine humanity to those directly affected.