I’ll see your Herman Cain, and raise you two Anita Hills

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Even if the gesture is sexual so what? What else man want from women? to play basket ball? Video games buddy? No think again.

In bars I often meet beautiful girls and ask, hi, let’s f**k I’ll pay. That’s the best pick up line by the way. Even from girls from upper class.

There are jerks that do more than that. My wife used to got SMS everyday with bullshit (romantic) nonsense. That’s harassment. Some husband doesn’t want to divorce his wife and it’s difficult for wife to get divorce in my country. That’s harassment. Hell that’s rape.

What is wrong to have consensual interest in women? I’ll tell you what’s wrong. Even if women want you, you won’t have her if she doesn’t know she is wanted. So saying that you want women may increase the chance you get picked and that hurt other males less competitive than you.

Those ugly feminazis are just mad no body ask them out.

That’s the real reason.

Why Women Dignity and Respecting Women are Prejudice?

Prostitution is prohibited under the pretext of maintaining “women’s dignity”. The truth is, prostitution is a very high paying job, not to mention one of the most enjoyable too. However, if prostitution is legal so will effectively polygamy, contract marriage, etc. The rich will just rent a lot and the rest don’t get any. That’s the real reason why prostitution is disallowed. It’s not because it’s a “too bad” job. It’s because it’s too good. Given choice, too many women would do it, too few will still want to get married.

Women trafficking are also very consensual. Women prefer the rich. It’s normal that women in poor countries want richer males in western countries. It’s not a bad decision. It’s the best possible decision anyone can make. It’s too obvious. Of course, that will be bad for women in western countries that do not like competition. So issues like “women dignity”, or “respecting women” are vague concept used to justify taking away women best choices.

Will increase in prostitution increase women trafficking?

This is my first answer. If you think it’s low quality please comment so I can fix it okay. I know I need citation. I will ask around in sceptic and get my citation.

Yes but nowhere like the way opponents of prostitution and women trafficking want us to believe.

Say government want to legalize commercialization of smart phones. Will import of smartphones increase? Yes. So what?

Will those whose job are being replaced by the oversea workers complain about it? Yes. Will they complain that their job is lost or will they complain that the foreign workers are underpaid? Both. In fact, it’s not politically correct to bitch about your own selfish interest. It’s far more politically correct to bitch that you actually care about others. So people tend to complain on something far difference than their real issue.

About many americans complain that job moved to China is already obivious. Just look at here. http://www.epi.org/publication/bp188/. In fact if I ask “Are there many american that complain about jobs moving to china?” I bet I’ll get downvote. Very well, I’ll ask anyway.

To be frank, all assumption I used is that humans max out profit and basic economic principle. Yes I am a libertarian. Yes I am sceptical on any laws against consensual acts.

Say government want to legalize commercialization of sex. Will import of sex worker increase. Most likely yes. That’s the whole point of criminalizing, namely to reduce demand. It’s basic economy. Criminalization is like taxing. It imposes penalty against a certain service. When government tax something government reduce both production and consumption. Taxing cigarette, for example, will reduce cigarette consumption. Taxing cars will reduce production of car. That’s basic economy 101.

Will those women who are being replaced by cheaper sex workers complain about it? Yes. In economic term, prostitute is a substitute service/product for wife/girl friend. Yap they directly compete like Xbox vs playstation. I know I need citation.

Will they complain that they can’t compete with cheaper sex workers or will they complain that somehow the trafficked women are oppressed? The latter. In fact, it’s politically incorrect and embarrassing to bitch about not being able to attract a mate. It’s far more politically correct to bitch that they actually care about those trafficked women.

Some background.

The reason why prostitution is prohibited is most likely not there to protect women that want to be prostitute. Think about it. Humans are selfish (do I need to cite for this?). How can we protect anyone from their own consent. C’mon. We’re sceptic here.

A much more plausible reason is to protect men. If prostitution is legal, women’s market price will go up, most males can’t afford it. In other word prostitution is prohibited to prevent competition.

Women trafficking are often consensual. Even those opposing it admitting it

Here just look at the Every year mainly women and children are frequently trafficked. People do not report cases of trafficking. Illiteracy rate is very high and trafficking is often consensual; even parents or husbands sell off their children/wives. We need them to make a complaint before we can take action, but the victims do not.

http://www.childreach.org.uk/our-work/bangladesh

Red queen from Matt Ridley says that women prefer the rich. Isn’t it natural that women from poorer countries want to immigrate here to find a mate?

In fact, look at wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_in_women

(b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;

The law specifically prohibit women trafficking DESPITE consent. That’s because the lawmakers knew that most of those women consent and that trafficking MAYBE consensual. Isn’t that strange how they said that women consent is irrelevant?

I mean if people care about me if people claim about wanting to help me the first thing that’s relevant is my consent right? They said women’s consent is irrelevant. Do you think they care about women’s interest?

Okay, I need more sources to decide how many women trafficked actually consent.

I know 5 of the most beautiful girls in my high school are in western world. No they are not trafficked, but desire to move and “find rich white guys” is not that far fetch. Seriously guys. I have a niece that explicitly told me he only wanted to date white guys.

We know many women in poor countries MAY (with very high probability actually) want: 1. Richer males (richer whites) 2. Money (Men and women want money, everybody want money).

To say this can’t be consensual is just insane.

Humans max out their own interest. I am a businessman, I hired employees, I was screwed by fraudster, if there is any thing I know how to predict what people would do is their selfish interest. Mutually consensual means mutually beneficial. Obviously.

Prostitution is prohibited for the same reason polygamy is prohibited. To protect men that can’t pay rather than women. You can read Matt Ridley’s book, the red queen, for more info on this. You can read more discussion here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/krdd8/why_is_polygamy_illegal/ You can also read Get rich bang bitch http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/38264

If you want source, just look at here Far from being laws to protect women, anti polygamy statutes may really do more to protect (less desirable) men” – Matt Ridley – The Red Queen .

Matt ridley is a prominent evolutionary psychologist. It’s already mainstream science.

Also economic theory is based on the assumption that humans’ max out their profit. To see that a lot of women protest against women trafficking, despite consent from the trafficked women because they care about the trafficked women is preposterous. Again, extra ordinary claim require evidences. If you want to show me that humans actually care about others so much in this case, you need to show me.

A lot of male admit that they can’t compete with more desirable male and argue that it’s the reason why we should keep polygamy illegal. Just look at here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/krdd8/why_is_polygamy_illegal/. Yea it’s sugar coated with ideas that polygamy is not compatible with democracy yada yada yada… But you’ll see the same.

It’s natural to expect that prohibition of prostitution is based on the same thing.

What about women trafficking? It’s the same thing. Women trafficking is there to protect, oh well, women. However, it’s not there to protect trafficked women. Women trafficking is there to protect women in rich countries from having to compete with cheaper and prettier women from poorer countries.

In other word, even if all trafficked women are happy having sex with richer guys, I would bet that many women would still oppose this so called women trafficking. They have enough huge motive to prohibit trafficking irrelevant of consent.

It’s the same reason I know why MANY males have huge motive to prohibit prostitution and polygamy irrelevant of consent. It’s the same reason why racist anti immigration want to prohibit immigration irrelevant of the consent of the immigrants.

There are true motives, there are justification. The latter can be anything. The motives most easily explained away from selfishness is obviously the most correct. Humans, after all are very selfish.

The majority of so called trafficking is VERY consensual. I mean it’s very obvious. One can more easily argue that marriage is less consensual than trafficking and prostitution.

After all, why would anyone allow government to be the pimp of their sexual relationship with no force whatsoever. Why would any rich male want to bet half his assets for a woman? And why would most women choose to be the only one for poorer males than sharing a richer males?

Imagine if all kind of marriage and all kind of commercialized sexual relationship is legal. Would anyone still get married? How much?

Many culture have restriction against sex outside marriage. Society actually prohibit prostitution and yet women do it anyway. That’s how much many women want to be prostitute.

Does legalizing prostitution increase women trafficking? Again, this is another vague language that’s hard to answer. Imagine if prostitution is legal. Imagine if women trafficking include consensual women trafficking. The legal definition actually DOES include consensual women trafficking. I do not think anyone can use “But the women agree” argument to defense against women trafficking.

Of course it does. When things are legal, then more people would want to do it.

So yes more will want to do it. However, it’s no where as what those anti freedom people want us to believe.

It’s like asking if government stop tariff against import goods will there be more import goods? If government make iPhone legal, will there be more iPhone? Yes. It’s the way it should be.

What do we mean by different 5 books?

In theory none. They are the exact same thing. At least they claim to be the exact same thing.

I found it difficult to differentiate between difference in “interpretation” and difference within the “torah it self”, namely the first 5 books (it’s 5 not 6, unless you count joshua’s book as torah too). The difference is not clear cut. In a sense, the torah itself is exactly the same.

Even when the ancient scrolls are slightly different septuagint/masoretic/and dead sea scrolls, christians would claim that the their torah is the same, namely one of those version is “the right” version and that’s the original one (whatever that is) and that the hebrew version (original) is the correct one. Christians would claim that they did their best to translate the torah to be as close as the original as possible and that “their” torah is the exact same thing with jewish torah.

However, if I put differences in interpretation well, it does cover “a lot more”. After all, interpretation of Torah rather than Torah itself that matters more.

Some obvious differences:

1. I could also add that the verses and number differs but the verses are not part of the original right?
2. I’ve heard the title is different. Christians name those first 5 books based on the theme, namely genesis, exodus, levitichus, numbers, and deuteronomy. Again title is not part of the book, so it’s not really a difference in the books itself.
3. Christians first 5 books are in english. Again most christians are aware that they have a translation and I am not sure this count as real “differences” between 5 books.

Most christians agree that their english version is a translation of the torah rather than the real torah. Some like King James only version may think that the english translation is divine but well, they’re not majority.

1. Some actual differences in the torah due to actual different sources. This is more of a difference between what people think is the original rather than differences between Jewish and Christian tradition. Sample is Deuteronomy 32:8-9 where christians translation sometimes use the dead sea scroll and septuagint that use children of God rather than children of Israel. It’s a very important verse because it decide whether YHWH is the God of all universe or a mere God of a small nomadic (not to mention genocidal) tribe. More info about that is http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf
2. Actual vagueness in the Torah itself give a certain leeway in translation and interpretation. The word elohim, for example, is a homonym that can be (correctly?) translated as God or angels or power. Okay, maybe I am wrong here. But that as far as most christians go when it comes to understanding torah given our language limitation. English translation tend to hide the controversy. Christians, are more “open” to the idea of anthropomorphic God. In fact, the idea that God incarnates at least once is the central theme of christianity. You can see discussion here: https://sites.google.com/site/yahwehelohiym/the-messengers/jacob-wrestles-with-a-man and http://www.mayfieldsalisbury.org/files/SermonSunday17thOctober.pdf. And if He did it once chance is it’s not the only time. Most christians believe that God is among the 3 men that Abraham saw. Jews do not like that interpretation. Christians are somewhat confused. Atheists like that most because they want to show how absurd the whole thing is. Most christians do not know that elohym is homonym. Most christians do not even read the bible let alone dig into what’s behind the english translation. If the translation says Jacob wrestle with God, then God it is for most christians.

Some background on #2
Most christians learn Torah through their native language translation instead of hebrew.
English speaking christians only have 2 words to describe God. YHWH (I don’t know the vowel, I don’t want to know), Adonai is translated as Lord. El and Elohim is translated as God. Lord in english is not even a word for God. Landlords, for example, are typically not divine. In south east Asia the word God is translated as Allah and the word Lord becomes Tuhan, which is cognate with non divine lord, “Tuan”.
While aware of Jewish’ tradition of hiding God’s only personal name from ever being uttered out of respect, christians are not familiar with the “extra mile” approach Jews go through. Jehovah witness are christians’ sects that want to make YHWH name famous again.

I can go on explaining how the first 5 books are interpreted differently by christians. However, that seems to be beyond the question that simply ask the difference between christians’ torah and jewish torah, which is none.

Difference between Torah in Christianity and Torah in Judaism

In theory none. They are the exact same thing. At least they claim to be the exact same thing.

1. Most christians learn Torah through their native language translation instead of hebrew.
2. English speaking christians only have 2 words to describe God. YHWH (I don’t know the vowel, I don’t want to know), Adonai is translated as Lord. El and Elohim is translated as God. Lord in english is not even a word for God. Landlords, for example, are typically not divine. In south east Asia the word God is translated as Allah and the word Lord becomes Tuhan, which is cognate with non divine lord, “Tuan”.
3. While aware of Jewish’ tradition of hiding God’s only personal name from ever being uttered out of respect, christians are not familiar with the “extra mile” approach Jews go through. Jehovah witness are christians’ sects that want to make YHWH name famous again.
4. Some actual differences in the torah due to actual different sources. This is more of a difference between what people think is the original rather than differences between Jewish and Christian tradition. Sample is Deuteronomy 32:8-9 where christians translation sometimes use the dead sea scroll and septuagint that use children of God rather than children of Israel. It’s a very important verse because it decide whether YHWH is the God of all universe or a mere God of a small nomadic tribe.
5. Actual vagueness in the Torah itself give a certain leeway in translation and interpretation. The word elohim, for example, is a homonym that can be (correctly?) translated as God or angels or power. Okay, maybe I am wrong here. But that as far as most christians go when it comes to understanding torah given our language limitation. English translation tend to hide the controversy. Christians, are more “open” to the idea of anthropomorphic God. In fact, the idea that God incarnates at least once is the central theme of christianity. You can see discussion here: https://sites.google.com/site/yahwehelohiym/the-messengers/jacob-wrestles-with-a-man and http://www.mayfieldsalisbury.org/files/SermonSunday17thOctober.pdf. Most christians believe that God is among the 3 men that Abraham saw. Jews do not like that interpretation. Christians are somewhat confused. Atheists like that most because they want to show how absurd the whole thing is. Most christians do not know that elohym is homonym. Most christians do not even read the bible let alone dig into what’s behind the english translation. If the translation says Jacob wrestle with God, then God it is for most christians.
6. Theological differences. Christian do not think torah is that important. They think Jesus sort of cancel that out or something like that. Most christians will not say, Jesus cancel the torah though. So a lot of twisted logic shows up here. Jesus himself said that not one iota of Torah would go away till the earth and sky goes away.
7. Christians do not think Moses is that important. Deuteronomy 34:10 doesn’t apply. So “Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,”. To christians this doesn’t apply to Jesus because Jesus is not just mere prophet. Most christians believe that Jesus is God and that faith is what often define christianity. Note that deists, arians, unitarianism are also branch of christianity that don’t believe Jesus is God. I am not familiar with messianic jews. Curiously the muslim also claimed that Deuteronomy 34:10 doesn’t apply because Muhammad is not Israelites.
8. Neither jews or christians practice politically incorrect aspect of Torah. They both have a different reasons. Christians think that an eye for an eye means literally that but somehow got canceled by new testaments. Jews seems to think that an eye for an eye and stoning people to death means something far more humane like monetary compensation (plus massage?).
9. Christians do not have oral torah. I am not sure whether christians will still believe written torah is inerrant if they saw the oral part. It’s as if in, if you think splitting the sea is crazy enough.
10. Many christians believe that torah is inerrant, somehow. That despite many differences between septuagint, masoretic, and dead sea scrolls and despite the fact that all the best bible expert in the word cannot figure out which version is the correct ones.

Does legalizing prostitution lead to an increase in human trafficking?

Yes but nowhere like the way opponents of prostitution and women trafficking want us to believe.

Some background.

Why? The reason why prostitution is prohibited is not there to protect women. Think about it. If prostitution is legal, what would stop Bill Gates from hiring a harem?

Prostitution is prohibited for the same reason polygamy is prohibited. To protect men that can’t pay rather than women. You can read Matt Ridley’s book for more info on this. You can read more discussion here http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/krdd8/why_is_polygamy_illegal/ You can also read Get rich bang bitch http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/38264

A lot of male admit that they can’t compete with more desirable male and argue that it’s the reason why we should keep polygamy illegal. Prostitution is the same thing.

Criminalization of prostitution cause huge chilling effect on so many other consensual acts. Men, cannot effectively support his girl friend outside marriage due to anti prostitution law. Well, some may argue that you can. You can’t pay her cash but you can pay her rent, etc. But who knows how the law goes?

What about women trafficking? It’s the same thing. Women trafficking is there to protect, oh well, women. However, it’s not there to protect trafficked women. Women trafficking is there to protect women in rich countries from having to compete with cheaper and prettier women from poorer countries.

In other word, even if all trafficked women are happy having sex with richer guys, I would bet that many women would still oppose this so called women trafficking. They have enough huge motive to prohibit trafficking irrelevant of consent. It’s the same reason I know why MANY males have huge motive to prohibit prostitution and polygamy irrelevant of consent. It’s the same reason why I believe robbers have huge motive to well grab your money, irrelevant of whether God or you like it or not.

There are true motives, there are justification. The latter can be anything. The motives most easily explained away from selfishness is obviously the most correct. Humans, after all are very selfish.

The majority of so called trafficking is VERY consensual. I mean it’s very obvious. One can more easily argue that marriage is less consensual than trafficking and prostitution.

After all, why would anyone allow government to be the pimp of their sexual relationship with no force whatsoever. Why would any rich male want to bet half his assets for a woman? And why would most women choose to be the only one for poorer males than sharing a richer males?

Imagine if all kind of marriage and all kind of commercialized sexual relationship is legal. Would anyone still get married? How much?

Many culture have restriction against sex outside marriage. Society actually prohibit prostitution and yet women do it anyway. That’s how much many women want to be prostitute.

In Afganistan women can’t even work outside marriage. If you don’t count marriage in Afganistan as forced marriage -> forced sex -> rape, I don’t know what is.

If a robber says you can’t leave until you pay, we will all agree that the paying is not consensual. In most cultures, government effectively say you can’t have sex outside marriage. Even in US, you can’t easily support your mate outside marriage.

Does legalizing prostitution increase women trafficking? Again, this is another vague language that’s hard to answer. Imagine if prostitution is legal. Imagine if women trafficking include consensual women trafficking. Of course it does. When things are legal, then more people would want to do it. When it’s illegal, women have to pay a lot for pimps. When things are legal they get more. All the money that used to go to the pimp will go to them.

So yes more will want to do it. However, it’s no where as what those anti freedom people want us to believe.

It’s like asking if government stop tariff against import goods will there be more import goods? If government make iPhone legal, will there be more iPhone? Yes. It’s the way it should be.

Cyrus the Messiah?

The answer to how this could be lies in our understanding of the term “His anointed” (Isaiah 44:28). Notice the entire context of this prophecy:

Thus says the LORD, your redeemer, . . . “I am the LORD, . . . who confirms the word of His servant, and performs the counsel of His messengers; who says to Jerusalem, ‘You shall be inhabited,’ to the cities of Judah, ‘You shall be built,’ and I will raise up her waste places; who says to the deep, ‘Be dry! And I will dry up your rivers’; who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd, and he shall perform all My pleasure, even saying to Jerusalem, “You shall be built,” and to the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.”‘

Thus says the LORD to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have held—to subdue nations before him and loose the armor of kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut: ‘I will go before you and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the gates of bronze and cut the bars of iron. I will give you the treasures of darkness and hidden riches of secret places. . . . I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways; He shall build My city and let My exiles go free, not for price nor reward,’ says the LORD of hosts. (Isaiah 44:24, 26–45:3, 13)

It should immediately be apparent that God’s use of “His anointed” is not as restricted as commonly assumed. The Hebrew word is mashiah, which has come down to us as “messiah” and translated as christos in Greek. Because we now use this term exclusively for Jesus Christ, the Messiah, many have failed to realize the breadth of its meaning.

Read more: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/187/Cyrus-Gods-Anointed.htm#ixzz1bwlcvoIQ

The problem is http://bible.cc/isaiah/44-28.htm tend to translate messiah there as shepherd. The actual masoretic texts are mashiah. Looks like the septuagint translate that as a more familiar term, christ, as it Jesus Christ.

Can we believe in God without faith?

My idea is if it’s possible, I want to be able to believe in God without needing faith. Are there evidences?

For example, the story of Sadrach Mesach and Abednego is a major story. Are there Babylonian records corroborating that stories? Why God wants us to have faith anyway? I know political leaders want us to have faith so they can trick us more easily. But why would God? Can’t the almighty convince humans of his existence in a more convincing way?

My family has been worshiping the same God with what jews worship for at least 3 generations. In fact, missionaries actually say that “above emperor”/heaven emperor, the supreme God that really really ancient Chinese worship, is actually the same God with Christian God, and hence jewish ones.

My understanding of game theory and evolutionary psychology shows that most of religious dogma has much more to do with humans’ political interests rather than any god. This is not very surprising. Even monotheists like us that believe in a God do not actually believe that zeus, amaterasu omikami, brahma, shiva, and the rest are God too.

To me, whether most religious dogma is God’s will or humans’ made, is no longer an open question. I am a co author of an e-book http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/38264. Well, perhaps if I were jewish I would think differently.

I am not surprised that we all have different doctrines and often kill each other for those doctrines. Yap, that include jews and Samaritan that fought over whether God should be worshipped in mount gerishim or sion. The doctrines where people would kill each other will also be politically significant such as who should be king.

However most Christian main doctrines can be easily explained away by normal game theory and evolutionary psychology pattern. And that’s the issue. Perhaps jews see something different. Something others do not see.

The question is, are all religious doctrines human made?

We, the “faithful” believe that 99% of “gods” are human made. Atheists believe that 100% of “gods” are human made. Which one is correct?

Atheists believe that 100% of religious dogma are made by humans. What about if there are 5 % divine origins out of those religions? What about if there is some secret truth that does lead us or even the whole human race to better outcomes? Actually that’s a topic of my next book.

Christians answers are often very narrow. You know the controversy of whether Isaiah talked about virgin or young girls? I’ve heard how jews have tried to point out the problem to Christian leaders but goes nowhere.

Then I’ve heard about jews. I’ve heard how you won nobel prizes after nobel prizes. Only the azkenazis ones are smart, the rest are “normal”. Still, smart is smart. Smarter than I am definitely. So maybe I should ask around jews what they know about God. After all, they are closer to the source. The result is even more confusing.

Some jews are effectively atheist. Reconstructionist jews are atheists right?

Some jews believe that baal actually have power too. One told me that God stop sending prophets but in return cancel out power of other gods too. That jew told me that the baal priests used to be able to truly bring fire but somehow God shut down their power. I thought there were no other gods at all?

Atheists of course point holes in Judaism as much as they point holes in Christianity. There is this issue that the original Judaism is henotheists rather than monotheists. I read http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+32%3A17%2CJudges+5%3A8&version=NIV and see, aha, actual claim of monotheism in the torah.

They sacrificed to false gods, which are not God—
gods they had not known,
gods that recently appeared,
gods your ancestors did not fear.

But then other translation use the word Shedim (=demons) rather than false gods. http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/32-17.htm

This fits atheistic theory again. Religions evolved. At first God make threats and promises based on what’s verifiable. When people verify that the threats and claims are false, namely that those evil get prosper and those good died anyway, then claims become outside scientific realms. At first, jewish God is just like any other God. He can be seen, has feet and stuff. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ex%2024:9-10&version=ESV;

Then, due to lots of defeat Israel suffer, somehow God becomes invisible.

In fact, a chinese yin yang expert taught that the reason why Christians’ god is so popular is because he is invisible. I can destroy Zeus’s statue and that would disprove Zeus’ godhood. However, I can’t destroy Christians’ god because he can’t be seen.

C’mon. Adam. Is that all? Is the atheist correct? Is there a reason to believe otherwise? You’re a rabbi. You know.

Is the king of Cyrus the Christ?

http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-1.htm

“This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:

Thus saith the Lord to his anointed – This is a direct apostrophe to Cyrus, though it was uttered not less than one hundred and fifty years before Babylon was taken by him. The word ‘anointed’ is that which is usually rendered “Messiah” (משׁיח mâshı̂yach), and here is rendered by the Septuagint, Τῷ χριστῷ μου Κύρῳ Tō christō mou Kurō – ‘To Cyrus, my Christ,’ i. e, my anointed

Can you have both good career and good marriage?

For men, success at career lead to success at marriage. In fact, the more successful you are at your career and the more money you make, the more successful “marriages” (or mates or cohabitations) you can have and the more children you can beget. So yea, seek first wealth and all ways to multiply it and all will be added to you.

For women, yea you can only have one. So look at your self in the mirror. If you’re pretty, go marry (or cohabit or mate with) a sugar daddy. If you’re ugly, then pick a damn good career because that’s all you have.