Some things are almost too strange to tell. But the Bible contains some of them all the same.
First, man and women were made for paradisal union so well that God was pleased. Some garden trees have something paradisal about them too.
Second, calling on the Lord came into being only long afterwards, after man and woman hade been driven out of Paradise and Cain had killed Abel [Genesis 4:26].
And what does this suggest? Nothing to some. However, "When God created man male and female, he made him in the likeness of God and blessed them." [Gen 5:1-2] It plainly says a woman is not to be ridiculed, for one thing, and calling on the Lord is something secondary in such a perspective.
When someone says "Profound women outdo Jesus," ask for evidence. There are many sorts of evidence. First-hand evidence could be fine, statistical evidence may be even better, and secondary sources may serve somewhat too. Bible sayings are secondary evidence at best, and that is what you get here. Ask, "How can a woman outdo Jesus?" One answer is, "She has the power to do so." The gospels contains clear statements that support that idea, such as:
The outflanking is not to be martyrised by his teachings. Seeing is believing . . . Ask God to create a stone so big and heavy that he cannot lift it. Can he do it? Do you believe that? Wooly talk of faith may look good, but what happened after Jesus prayed to his Father one day, ""My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done. [Matthew 26:42]." Why didn't his Papa take two goats to "do the trick", as instituted in the Law and thereby spare Jesus? You don't know that, do you? [Leviticus 16]
Anything should be possible for the woman with much faith, for a praying woman (and man), and so on, Jesus of later-written gospels implied. Does all this mean that when the halting plea of Jesus went unanswered, a good woman's plea or prayer and saving sex will not? No, if she is called to outdo Jesus on his word [John 14:12] it should not mean that - and there you have it. I would be wary of what to believe in, and take time enough to study the chief sources too, since forgeries were not uncommon in old times [Textual Bible criticism].
About "liquour and women" as part of the best man can do, according to king Solomon and others: The dynasty-killing Solomon is backed up by Jesus as the wisest there was - although he erred too much for reconciliation with Yahweh.
As for Biblical saving sex: "Seeing is believing" - "Trusting too much to others is the ruin of many."
There are good reasons to assess that playful children can become good guys, they have it in them. Those who get half-hypnotised or indoctrinated, on the other hand, may seem more or less doomed to collective gloom for example in a motorised society, or an estranging cult.
If we find no kind, competent gurudeva, it is still feasible to practice yoga and higher yoga (meditation and so on), up to a level, according to Gautama Buddha, who "points the way" a lot.
King David committed adultery and had killed the husband of the wife he got to. It could be wise to avoid such a man and not adore him where today's jurisprudence says someone found guilty of such charges must be put away for a long time and not get his sins absolved by magical hyssop (!). [Hyssop use in the Bible]
Women don't have souls; they are souls, in case.
Conformity is not always a hindrance of good and sane development and accomplishments,, but if it hinders you from being truly the one you are, find out what you can do about it. For example a genuine Christian may not have an inkling about what Jesus of the gospels decreed, and still be reckoned among the blessed ones, shows Acts 15, where the four requirements of non-Jewish believers were made plain - and no special words of Jesus went into it. The apostles who spread the early church, were they not real followers in your eyes?
It stands out from Christianity's first, founding decree - the Apostolic Decree in Acts 15, that eating blood sausage and blood pudding and wrangled poultry is about as bad as adultery.
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . . You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things." [The Apostolic Decree from c. 50 CE, in Acts 15:19-29, confirmed in Acts 21:25]
Where that is the divine ordination - replacing the whole Law of Jews - there could be more black puddings, and blood sausages to confess than you might have any accurate count of.
Anyone who calls himself or herself a true Jewish follower of Jesus is called to outdo Jesus (Matthew 15:24; John 14:12). Jesus says his teachings, Kingdom and salvations are for Jews only - Gentiles would be excluded. (Matthew 15:24; (Vermes 2005; 2010:37, 41). That is what the renowned Jesus scholar Geza Vermes (1924–2013) sums up, in short. Jesus as a Jew among other Jews did not reach out to non-Jews and was much different from the canonised ideas of "Christ of faith" applied to him long after he was executed. The apostles of Jesus were ordered not to seek to persuade non-Jews.Further, Jesus' message, which was directed towards Jews alone, was centred on the Law of Moses. He addressed his message to 'the house of Israel' alone and expressly forbade his disciples to approach non-Jews. (Vermes 2010:37; 41)
Deification of Jesus came by steps among non-Jews all the same: The Jesus of the first three gospels was a healer and a teacher. In the Acts of the Apostles he was a prophet, Lord and Messiah. . . . Finally, the Gospel of John written between 100 and 110 CE, . . . turned him into a supernatural being, the eternal Word of God, a stranger from heaven. (Vermes 2010:38; 39).
Knowing this, is there any need to end up as a martyr through his many screw-up teachings for Jews only (cf. Matthew 5, where you find many of the kind) or said miracle-powers that fail to come through?
However, non-Jews are free to disregard all the teachings of Jesus after the Apostolic deal was done. At last it could be good to know for the vast majority of house-owners who call him "Lord, Lord" without doing the bad things he says. (Matthew 5), for they will not hear any "I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (cf. Matthew 7:21 and 23). Does it apply to common, non-Jewish Christians or not? That is a good question.
An easy, pleasant life may have its downsides; one had better bulwark against them.
It is wise not to get fooled by "topdog barking" and the like that wants you to renounce so that others can profit from your various losses. So try to keep all your Human Rights functioning for you and yours.
Transcendental Meditation, TM, slows biological aging. It means you look younger, and your organism is younger that of most others your age - by many years. How much depends on how long one has been meditating. There is statistics on it. [TM slows aging]
One can also go for healthy libido flows, for according to psychodynamic theory, your health co-depends on the zest (libido) outlets you have. Add to your life flow or life work some rejuvenating practices - including artistic outlets like cooking and kind humour, and the odds are you get better off - may keep your health better and live some years longer than you otherwise could have. [Life stages and outcomes]
It is easy to be taken in by glorified accounts an lovely garden settings furnished by nature. Check well, before you enter, that the cloister of your heart is really a good place to accommodate to for years without a good mate. Many monks and nuns of Self-Realization Fellowship have been gruellingly disappointed. For example, in a few years around 2002, one third of them left. One hardly knows from facades and brochures that try to look good and worthy, what lies behind. Did the monks and nuns who left SRF, learn too late that the founder-guru in his time advocated dictatorship? I hardly think so. But now they do, some of them.
It is good to have more than an inkling of what human life calls through its phases, and what an SRF monastic setting denies of it, or has to offer.
Columbus was dining with many Spanish nobles when one of them said: "Sir Christopher, even if your lordship had not discovered the Indies, there would have been, here in Spain . . . one who would have started a similar adventure with the same result."
Columbus did not respond to these words but asked for a whole egg to be brought to him. He placed it on the table and said: "My lords, I will lay a wager with any of you that you are unable to make this egg stand on its end like I will do without any kind of help or aid."
They all tried without success and when the egg returned to Columbus, he tapped it gently on the table, breaking it slightly. And with this, the egg stood on its end. All those present were confounded and understood what he meant: that once the feat has been done, many could imitate it.
In one case the egg could be a giant needle's eye to allow rich Jews (only) to pass easily into heaven on the word of Jesus. Is it good to have scriptural back-up, or is it not? It depends on which scripture it is, and how well it applies too.