Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2015, 03:44 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)

We have a copy and paste troll here. I think even that retard Blowme has realised.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
18-09-2015, 03:45 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)

You talked about allah let me add to that,Muhammad was a violent sexual pervert, who formed a false religion that has 1.4 billion followers today. Muslims who practice Islam have been prepared and are held in reserve at this hour to serve as God’s servants, instruments of war from His armory, to punish a disobedient world, and in particular, rebellious stiff-necked apostate Jews.

Pervert Muhammad married eleven or thirteen women. Historians sanitize this filth by jabbering about things like “needs of the tribe,” politics, compassion and “affairs of the heart.”

When he was 25, Muhammad married his wealthy employer, a 40-year-old merchant named (1) Khadijah. He was her gigolo; he used her wealth to dally in dreams and pretend he had been told things by God. When he was 40 he claimed to have been visited by the angel Gabriel who revealed to him a verse from the Qur’an, after which he claimed to be a prophet. He spent long hours “meditating” and “speculating” about the creation. He claimed a series of visions occurred while he was hanging out in caves and in the hills and ravines near Mecca.

After Khadijah died, Muhammad married (2) Sawda bint Zam’a, (3)Aisha and (4)Umm Salam. Aisha was six when she was betrothed to Muhammed; the marriage was consummated when she was nine or ten. In later years she slipped off to look for an allegedly “lost” wedding necklace, giving rise to claims she was up to mischief with some man. Not to worry; Muhammed got some verses written and out into the public mainstream bespeaking her innocence and condemning anyone who said otherwise as slanderers.

After killing her husband, during the Muslim war with Mecca, Muhammad married (5)Hafsa bint Umar when she was 20 (he was 56). Similarly, after she was widowed at the battle of Badr, Muhammed married (6)Zaynab bint Khuzayma.

When Abu Salamah died in battle, Muhammad married his widow, (7)Umm Salama Hin bitn Abi Umayya. In 626 (8)Raihanah bint Zaid was among those enslaved after the defeat of the Banu Quarayza tribe, and she became Muhammad’s concubine or wife.

Later, Muhammad married his cousin, (9)Zaynab bint Jahsh, after a lot of conflict related to her marriage and divorce with another man. Muhammad decided in favor of this marriage to break the taboo against incestuous marriages, by informing everyone the Qur’an indicated this marriage was a duty imposed on him by God.

After he took captives from a skirmish with the Banu Mustaliq, he married one named (10)Juwayriya bint al-Harith, which led to his new kinsmen being released from enslavement. Then he signed a peace treaty with his Meccan enemies, the Quraysh, and soon thereafter married the daughter of their leader, (11)Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, all for reconciling with his opponents of course.

Muhammad sent a proposal for marriage to (12)Ramlah bint Abi-Sufyan when he learned her husband had died. Then in 629, after the Battle of Khaybar, Muhammad freed (13)Safiyya bint Huyayy, a noblewoman of the defeated Jewish tribe Banu Nadir, and proposed marriage. She accepted, so he married her as part of reconciliation with the Jewish tribe and a gesture of goodwill.

If these women got into a cat fight about how Muhammad was treating them – in particular how much time or attention each received from him – he made up new rules that he claimed were revelations from God, to keep them in line. When he died, he left word behind that no one could marry them according to God. He kept these women in little apartments adjacent to the mosque at Medina, and visited them in rounds day and night.

This was in between his warmongering, whereby he built an estate and army, which put in motion military expeditions that have influence still today. The only thing that made Muhammad a “prophet” was his military successes. In a single decade he fought eight major battles, led 18 raids, and planned 38 military operations. He revolutionized Arabian warfare and mobilized an army motivated by an ideology of holy war (jihad) and martyrdom (shahada). This transmitted to the West during the wars between Muslims and Christians in Spain and France, and gave the whore Roman Catholic Church an ideological justification for the Crusades. But for his success as a military commander, Islam would not have gained momentum leading to 1.4 billion practitioners today, making it the second largest religion behind Christianity, and the conquest of the Byzantine and Persian empires by Arab armies would not have occurred. Muhammad transformed the armies of Arabia so his successors could use them to defeat the armies of Persia and Byzantium and establish the heartland of the empire of Islam.

Muhammad came along at a time when Muslims were in a defensive mode, often fighting to survive, many living in poverty and oppression. Muhammad spent thirteen years building a spiritual platform; then the remaining ten years of his life as a leader in military mode, merging these notions – of spirituality and warfare – to establish the false religion known today as Islam. Supposedly when he started preaching, Muhammad was not violent. He is said to have been persecuted for preaching his religious ideas – known today as Islam – and denigrating the pagan religions of the Meccans. He went to Medina after receiving a “revelation” to fight the Meccans, which caused him to turn to warfare. His “revelation” coalesced with a group of feuding Arabs in Media who accepted him as their prophet, providing him with his first army. He then began to preach that if anyone gained a victory of the men of Jews, they should kill them. After some acts of violence where his men killed for him, he saw that he had power, and he became a cold blooded murderer of anyone Jewish or non-Muslim or otherwise categorized as his enemy. This led to the brand of terrorism that has the whole world in fear today. Millions of words have been written about Muhammad’s violence, with one example of these details found here: Most who claim to practice Islam today probably don’t even know these details. Being the descendents of Ishmael, however, it’s of little relevance to them why; they just know they have a deep enmity in their DNA against Jews and the arrogant Americans who support them.

Muhammad was a sexual pervert, appointed by God to have military prowess, to put in motion the Islam people. This prepared the world stage for the Last Days, so there would be a fierce people ready to afflict Israel, in God’s appointed time. There was nothing holy about Muhammad; he was intelligent and charismatic – attributes given him by God – and he had a role to prepare the Arab people for what God has planned in the last days. Anyone who worships him is worshiping a pedophile; Islam is a false religion, man-made, utterly unscriptural. He was a whoremonger and warmonger, the perfect unclean raven to prepare a people to give the Beast a barbaric vicious army for when he becomes king of the world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 03:47 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Thats your opinion,The idea of God being a delusion is promoted by Richard Dawkins, the world’s chief apostle for atheism.

Atheism is not a religion, it has no apostles.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Dawkins has been Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University since 1996. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins labels God and belief in God as “delusions.” Dawkins is a gifted writer, and his position at a leading university in the English-speaking world gives him great prestige in intellectual, cultural, and political circles. His atheism is fierce. The jacket of The God Delusion calls the God of the Old Testament “a sex-obsessed tyrant” and the deistic god of the 18th-century Enlightenment a “more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker.” Belief in God, says Dawkins, subverts science and knowledge, breeds ignorance, foments bigotry, and abuses children. All this happens for the simple reason that God is a delusion. Not only are “fundamentalists” unintelligent for “know[ing] they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book,” but even moderation in faith, says Dawkins, “fosters fanaticism.”




An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

I'm still not seeing the point where you show Dawkin's assertions are incorrect.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  There are plenty of intelligent answers to Dawkins’ contention that God is a delusion and to his crusade against all things religious. Dawkins firmly asserts that God is a delusion, but the Bible just as firmly states that God is not a delusion.

The Bible, a work of cobbled together fiction writer by people who already believed. So, what are the chances the people wrote the Bible would put in "Oh, by the way, this is all bullshit"?

You cannot really be that stupid. You cannot quote the Bible to prove the Bible dumbass. Facepalm

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Psalm 14:1–3, for example, says, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Fools who deny the existence of God are corrupt, and so are their deeds. Because their understanding is also corrupt, “they do not seek after God.” Note that the Bible and Dawkins are directly opposed to one another. Dawkins says there is no God and that people who believe in God do terrible things. The Bible says there is a God, and it is rather the people who deny God who do terrible things.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg

“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no Pasta.'"

Have I convinced you of the truth behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster (may his noodlely appendage be upon you)? Of course not. Don't expect quoting your book of fairy tales to be at all convincing to those who don't already share your fair. It's nothing more than a big old Christian circle jerk, an empty platitude to make those who already believe feel better about themselves; it does fuck all to convince anybody else.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  God is not the delusion; atheism is.

Then you are almost as delusional, as every theist is an atheist to every god concept before or since, with the exception being the god/s they do believe in. Neither of us believe in Pele, the Hawaiian volcano god; we're both atheists in regards to belief in Pele.

Atheists simply don't make exceptions and treat all god claims equally, with disbelief; because none of them (yours included) have ever been able to meet their burden of proof.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  The apostle Paul declares that the reason people who deny God are able to gain and maintain such large followings, as Dawkins has, is that the human race in general is lost in sin and self-delusion.

Jedi Master Qui Gon Jin also said that the Force arises from midi-chlorians. Your point? Why should anyone else who isn't already a Christian give a flying fuck what he has to say?

How about you start with providing objective and independently verifiable objective evidence for 'sin', before you start to try using that to beat other people over the head with it? Drinking Beverage

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  People naturally seek after those whose rhetoric reflects their own self-delusion.

The irony of this statement is lost on you, I'm sure. Facepalm

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Those who deny God follow eagerly after Dawkins and his ilk because they share a common hatred for God (2 Timothy 4:3).

I don't hate any gods, they don't exist; I no more hate them than I hate Lord Sauron, Emperor Palpatine, or Megatron.

Their collective fan-basses on the other hand are full of people more than worthy of hater, derision, and contempt.

Like you, as you're clearly an incredulous idiot.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  The denial of God is the true delusion, a delusion that extends to the atheist’s view of humanity as “good,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Good and evil are a matter of perspective, circumstance, and context; morality is subjective, so drop off your moralizing at the door.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  A sober assessment of human beings recognizes that we lie, cheat, steal, lust, complain, envy, hate, and forget and that we are careless, ruthless, disrespectful, resentful, and loveless.

People can be assholes, that doesn't prove the existence of any god; let alone your particular interpretation of your invisible emotionally stunted pan-dimensional space wizard.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  We are all these things naturally from birth. This is what God means when He says, “There is no one who does good” (Psalm 14:3). We are so obviously sinful that it is silly to call human beings “good.”

'Sin' is an imaginary disease, created to sell people an imaginary cure.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Nobody teaches children to lie; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches teenage boys to lust; they do it naturally. Nobody teaches the employee to resent his boss or spread malicious gossip about the coworker with whom he is competing for a promotion; he does these things naturally. Nobody teaches the wife to unjustly criticize her husband or the husband to neglect his wife; both do these things naturally.

People being assholes still isn't evidence for the divine, unless it's also evidence for every religion who has ever claimed that their god/s are responsible for human nature. If human nature is proof of Yahweh, then it's also proof for Allah, Zeus, Odin, Marduk, and all other creation deities ever imagined before or since.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Yet in the sixth chapter of The God Delusion, entitled “The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?” Dawkins explains why human beings are good—based on nothing more than his own opinion—despite the fact that there is no God who can define what is “good.”

Actually, he cites studies and evidence; things you'd know if you actually read the book instead of copy-pasting bullshit somebody else wrote.

Plus, morality is subjective, so there is that.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Dawkins not only directly opposes the Bible’s teaching but he denies what is obvious to even the most casual observer of human nature and behavior.

Only the ignorant cite 'common sense' in place of real evidence. *slow clap*

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  The ninth chapter of The God Delusion is called “Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion.” In this chapter Dawkins replies to a question about clergy sexual abuse: “Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place” (page 317).

Yep. Getting sexually assaulted by a pedophile priest is terrible, as is the vast army of pedophile priest that was aided and abetted by the Catholic Church. But even one sick fucking child molester with a Bible can only get to so many kids. However the irrational fear of hell, artificial shame over sexuality, and the rampant misogyny and second-classes status imposed upon women; all of that can stay with people for a lifetime, and can be spread throughout an entire congregation in plain sight.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Human beings are good, says Dawkins, and even the sexual abuse they perpetrate is better than a religion that tells them they are not good. How he explains the desire for “good” men—priests or otherwise—to sexually abuse children is a mystery.

That's a misrepresentation, not that you'd know or care. But it's fairly easy to argue that a religion that shelters and enabled an army of pedophile priest, allowing them unsupervised access to a nearly endless host of potential victims, is quite a lot worse than any single child molester or act of sexual abuse.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  The Bible, however, does explain it. Men do evil because their hearts are evil (Matthew 12:35), and unless men are made new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), they will continue to do evil because it is their natural inclination (Romans 3:5–6, 10–11).

Uh, how do you figure.

The Catholic Church had an ARMY of pedophile priests, which they aided, abetted, and protected from prosecution.

There is no secular analog to this centuries old practice of protected child abuse.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines delusion as “something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also, the abnormal state marked by such beliefs.” The last clause is significant: intellectual and moral delusion have permanent effects on the mind and heart. Believing lies causes the mind to begin to operate abnormally and to exist in a state that is not healthy and perhaps even dangerous, both for itself and for others. This is what the Bible calls “sin,” and a core element of our sin is our delusion that God does not exist.

"Our" delusion? Huh, I didn't know you didn't believe either. Could have fooled me. Drinking Beverage

But seriously, go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious shitbag.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  The God Delusion was written by a science professor, and it should be stated clearly here, given how often atheism presents itself under the banner of science, that science is not to blame for atheism or any other symptom of human sinfulness.

'Sin' doesn't exist, and your belief that it does matches the definition of 'delusion', so there is that.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  In fact, many great scientists of the past were Christians, believing that God made the heavens and the earth and established the laws by which the natural world operates and which scientists investigate. Most of the “giants” of modern science were Christians. They pursued a rational understanding of the cosmos because they believed that God, who has a mind, had created the cosmos according to the principles of rational and mathematical operation that govern the human mind, which is fashioned according to the image of God (Genesis 1:27).

The number of people believing in something doesn't make it true; the world was no more flat back when nobody knew any better. Also your religion was one of the last ones to figure it out and has a history of actively fighting scientific discovery at every turn, so save the science-buddy act. It took the Vatican more than 350 years to admit Galileo was right, so fuck off.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Belief in God is no delusion. It is inherently and fundamentally rational, a logical response to seeing God’s handiwork (Psalm 19:1).

Except you cannot show it's any god's handiwork, let alone your god. All you can do is assert, the same as any other religion; and empty assertions are not evidence, nor is believing in them rational.

(18-09-2015 02:50 AM)Hesso Wrote:  Belief in God is the source of true wisdom regarding why human beings do evil things so often and so naturally, why we can work so hard to be good and still fail, and why Jesus Christ and only He is the spiritual hope for mankind.)

Empty assertions, no more founded in evidence than those found in any other religion. Utterly unconvincing, just more empty pandering that only seems reasonable if you already drink the Kool-Aid and don't question your faith. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-09-2015, 03:47 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)

We have a copy and paste troll here. I think even that retard Blowme has realised.(You are just saying that so that you can stick with your unbelief.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 03:48 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late Sc and Archaeology evidence for God)

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
18-09-2015, 03:48 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
(18-09-2015 03:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  How shall I be good, Hesso? Why are you ignoring my question?

Because he cannot copy-paste an answer for you. Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
18-09-2015, 03:57 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)

No the catholic church does not allow priest's to be gay,but to live in chastity,Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.

Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.

Divine Law

The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Reinterpreting Scripture

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

Natural Law

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

"I Was Born This Way"

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

The Ten Percent Argument

Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.

But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.

But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)

Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.

"You’re Just a Homophobe"

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"—that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals. Sometimes the charge is even made that these same people are perhaps homosexuals themselves and are overcompensating to hide this fact, even from themselves, by condemning other homosexuals.

Both of these arguments attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants. In doing so, they dismiss another person’s arguments based on some real or supposed attribute of the person. In this case, the supposed attribute is a fear of homosexuals.

Like similar attempts to avoid rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if a person were afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish his arguments against their behavior. The fact that a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments against handguns, nor would the fact that a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish arguments against handgun control.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the arguments against one’s position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

The Call to Chastity

The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence that homosexual behavior is against divine and natural law, as the Bible and the Church, as well as the wider circle of Jewish and Christian (not to mention Muslim) writers, have always held.

The Catholic Church thus teaches: "Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).

However, the Church also acknowledges that "[homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. . . . The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties that they may encounter from their condition.

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2357– 2359).

Paul comfortingly reminds us, "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1 Cor. 10:13).

Homosexuals who want to live chastely can contact Courage, a national, Church-approved support group for help in deliverance from the homosexual lifestyle.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 03:57 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
(18-09-2015 03:48 AM)Banjo Wrote:  BAN THIS TROLL PLEASE. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH..

[Image: you-seem-upset-112802419217.jpeg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
18-09-2015, 03:59 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
Heywood even you can see this is a copy and paste troll fest.

By the way, please change your signature to "Provoked insults". As it is it is dishonest.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-09-2015, 04:01 AM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2015 04:04 AM by Hesso.)
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)

How shall I be good, Hesso? Why are you ignoring my question?

The 10 Commandments List, Short Form
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hesso's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: