+AJPM+
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
With homosexuality, we come to the issue's root: what causes homosexuality? In all fairness, I don't know the answer to that question, but to be fair, so far no one knows the answer to that question flat out. But we can figure out the question by eliminating what the answer can't be. However, before we do that, we must look at what the possible answers are:
Option 1: It's genetic (or they're "born that way.")
Option 2: It's a matter of environment; another way of saying it is it's nurture.
Option 3: It's a personal choice.
According to a recent poll, the number of Americans who think people are born gay has gone up from 13% to 47%. However, the number of people who believe something doesn't mean the belief is correct (unless we're talking about the Catholic faith, in which case it's the other way around). So how do we test the first statement?
There are three ways to do this: either by identical twin studies, genetic studies or brain exams.
For identical twins, their genetic code is exactly the same, so if it were inborn (or if they were "born that way") then they should either both be straight or both be gay. However, there have been enough instances where one twin is straight and the other gay to show genetics can't be the reason.
So since two people with the same genetics doesn't show a connection, what about one person with one set of genetics? Again, no connection: that would imply there is such a thing as a gay gene but so far no scientists have been able to find one.
So born that way? 100% busted.
Next up we have environment. Now, I've come across evidence that suggests most gay people don't have a good relationship with their dads, but I personally don't buy that because you're saying people who grow up without their dads are going to grow up gay. Come to think of it, the environment argument in general doesn't work because you're saying either one circumstance or a combination of circumstances triggers homosexuality.
So environment is 100% busted.
That then leaves us with saying it's just a choice, but whoa onto those who do call it a choice, right?
Consider for a moment the ramifications if it turns out it is just a choice: that would then mean you can convince people to make a different choice or perhaps have them rethink their current position, but given the direction gay-rights advocates operate, when have they ever been willing to rethink their position on much of anything? Also, if it is a choice, then there is no reason or legal justification for overturning gay marriage bans because it then becomes a ban on a choice we as a society do not approve of.
Besides, we have dozens of cases of people who were once gay but now live heterosexual lives.
In conclusion then, until overwhelming evidence is given to the contrary, I'm going to say being gay is just a choice.
And no one better try any of that "I tried to be straight but it didn't work so it can't be a choice" nonsense. I bet there are far more people who tried to be gay but it turned out they were actually straight, which would put us at square one.
“the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.”- Ven Arch Fulton Sheen
Monday, June 9, 2014
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Friday, June 6, 2014
Who Injures the Sacred Heart? (Part 1)
+AJPM+
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
Today marks the first Friday in June, the month dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
For those who don't know or were never taught the origins of such an iconic Catholic symbol, allow me to give a brief history:
The first recorded use of the devotion came from St Bernard of Clairvaux and St Francis of Assisi, both of whom derived the practice out of devotions to Christ's wounds suffered during the Passion. However, the practice as it is understood today began in a series of visions experienced by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque. Part of the devotion involves taking Communion on the first Friday of each month for nine straight months; this is why you often see Catholics attend Mass the first of every month.
This much is well known, but what is not as well known is three particular groups of people that Jesus said to St Alacoque that greatly offend the Sacred Heart. In fact, in the official book on this subject--written by Alacoque's personal spiritual director St. Claude de la Colombière--she flat out says in plain language who these three groups are and why they offend the Sacred Heart so much.
Each Friday this month (except for June 27th, which is the Feast of the Sacred Heart) I'll be focusing on each of these groups. Let's start off of who the first group is:
The Jews
Now, before anyone writes or accuses me of being a Nazi or a racist or some other garbage like that, let's make one point absolutely clear:
There are two ways to speak of Jews: either by ethnicity or by the Jewish faith. I am not talking about nor do I concern myself with one's ethnicity. I'm multiracial myself and even if I wasn't, the NT makes it clear one's race is not a factor when it comes to salvation. Besides, there are groups for ethnic Jews who believe the prophecies concerning the Messiah do refer to Jesus, so I am not talking about Jew the ethnicity.
What I (as well as Jesus through St Alacoque) am talking about are the torments Jesus suffered at the hands of His fellow Jews.
Again, I must clarify that this has nothing to do with the so-called "blood libel" but consider for a moment what the Jews did before the Incarnation:
-they were the first to learn about the one true God
-they were the first to learn about the prophecies concerning the Messiah
-they were the first to have the covenant with God
-they were the first to have a priesthood and offer sacrifices to God
And what did they do with all this? Squandered it time and again. I don't have to go into each various verse; the faithless recorded in the OT is well documented.
Now, some will say "those verses are only meant to be a metaphor for anyone who falls from the faith and not just Jews by themselves."
First of all, up until a certain century, Gentiles did not know about Jewish writings. Second, one OT prophet said the word will be extended to the Gentiles; it must not have been extended to them at that point otherwise the statement wouldn't make any sense. Third, how do you explain all these indignities Jesus suffered during His life?
-being denied lodging shortly before birth
-having someone out to kill Him shortly after He was born, causing Him to flee to another country
-getting dragged like a criminal to His trial
-a criminal was preferred over Him
-was whipped half to death, spat upon, mocked, and denounced all during His Passion
All of these were either directly caused by faithless Jews or indirectly caused by their lack of faith.
Lest you think I'm going on an anti-Semitic rant, consider what faithful Jews did after His Incarnation:
-a Jewish man and a Jewish woman agreed to raise Jesus
-all the Apostles were raised Jewish
-Jews wrote the majority of the NT
-most of the early converts to Christianity were Jews
That last observation is the whole point: as long as Jews (or anyone, for that matter) keep offending the Sacred Heart by not entering into the Church the foretold Messiah established, they cannot achieve salvation.
And no, Jews cannot achieve salvation by continuing the practices laid out in the OT while Christians follow the NT; that's duel covenant theology and that has been dismissed long ago.
If it sounds like Jesus is being harsh to His fellow Jews, keep in mind this is the nicest part of the visions. Next Friday, we'll have a group that Jesus has even harsher words for.
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
Today marks the first Friday in June, the month dedicated to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
For those who don't know or were never taught the origins of such an iconic Catholic symbol, allow me to give a brief history:
The first recorded use of the devotion came from St Bernard of Clairvaux and St Francis of Assisi, both of whom derived the practice out of devotions to Christ's wounds suffered during the Passion. However, the practice as it is understood today began in a series of visions experienced by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque. Part of the devotion involves taking Communion on the first Friday of each month for nine straight months; this is why you often see Catholics attend Mass the first of every month.
This much is well known, but what is not as well known is three particular groups of people that Jesus said to St Alacoque that greatly offend the Sacred Heart. In fact, in the official book on this subject--written by Alacoque's personal spiritual director St. Claude de la Colombière--she flat out says in plain language who these three groups are and why they offend the Sacred Heart so much.
Each Friday this month (except for June 27th, which is the Feast of the Sacred Heart) I'll be focusing on each of these groups. Let's start off of who the first group is:
The Jews
Now, before anyone writes or accuses me of being a Nazi or a racist or some other garbage like that, let's make one point absolutely clear:
There are two ways to speak of Jews: either by ethnicity or by the Jewish faith. I am not talking about nor do I concern myself with one's ethnicity. I'm multiracial myself and even if I wasn't, the NT makes it clear one's race is not a factor when it comes to salvation. Besides, there are groups for ethnic Jews who believe the prophecies concerning the Messiah do refer to Jesus, so I am not talking about Jew the ethnicity.
What I (as well as Jesus through St Alacoque) am talking about are the torments Jesus suffered at the hands of His fellow Jews.
Again, I must clarify that this has nothing to do with the so-called "blood libel" but consider for a moment what the Jews did before the Incarnation:
-they were the first to learn about the one true God
-they were the first to learn about the prophecies concerning the Messiah
-they were the first to have the covenant with God
-they were the first to have a priesthood and offer sacrifices to God
And what did they do with all this? Squandered it time and again. I don't have to go into each various verse; the faithless recorded in the OT is well documented.
Now, some will say "those verses are only meant to be a metaphor for anyone who falls from the faith and not just Jews by themselves."
First of all, up until a certain century, Gentiles did not know about Jewish writings. Second, one OT prophet said the word will be extended to the Gentiles; it must not have been extended to them at that point otherwise the statement wouldn't make any sense. Third, how do you explain all these indignities Jesus suffered during His life?
-being denied lodging shortly before birth
-having someone out to kill Him shortly after He was born, causing Him to flee to another country
-getting dragged like a criminal to His trial
-a criminal was preferred over Him
-was whipped half to death, spat upon, mocked, and denounced all during His Passion
All of these were either directly caused by faithless Jews or indirectly caused by their lack of faith.
Lest you think I'm going on an anti-Semitic rant, consider what faithful Jews did after His Incarnation:
-a Jewish man and a Jewish woman agreed to raise Jesus
-all the Apostles were raised Jewish
-Jews wrote the majority of the NT
-most of the early converts to Christianity were Jews
That last observation is the whole point: as long as Jews (or anyone, for that matter) keep offending the Sacred Heart by not entering into the Church the foretold Messiah established, they cannot achieve salvation.
And no, Jews cannot achieve salvation by continuing the practices laid out in the OT while Christians follow the NT; that's duel covenant theology and that has been dismissed long ago.
If it sounds like Jesus is being harsh to His fellow Jews, keep in mind this is the nicest part of the visions. Next Friday, we'll have a group that Jesus has even harsher words for.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
The Myth of Gay Activist Tolerance
+AJPM+
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
(Update: Since this initial broadcast, Peter Labarbera did enter Canada eventually, but was first denied entry by customs officials for potential violation of their hate speech laws. It took an appeal to Canadian Border Services Agency and 24 hours before he was finally released.
Four days latter, he and another man were arrested on the University of Regina campus after distributing what the campus administrators considered "hate speech."
Two days later, Labarbera cancelled a scheduled appearance and decided to go back to the U.S.)
I don't know what's the most sickening part of all this: the fact that no one could be bothered to look at an opposing viewpoint, the fact that officials at a university are so dyed-in-the-wool politically correct they just can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with them, or the fact government officials are so afraid someone might be offended they detain a potential offender just as he enters the country.
There is no excuse for this: this is homofacism, plain and simple---the sodomy bastard child of atheism.
What is homofacism? Tune in tomorrow to find out.
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
(Update: Since this initial broadcast, Peter Labarbera did enter Canada eventually, but was first denied entry by customs officials for potential violation of their hate speech laws. It took an appeal to Canadian Border Services Agency and 24 hours before he was finally released.
Four days latter, he and another man were arrested on the University of Regina campus after distributing what the campus administrators considered "hate speech."
Two days later, Labarbera cancelled a scheduled appearance and decided to go back to the U.S.)
I don't know what's the most sickening part of all this: the fact that no one could be bothered to look at an opposing viewpoint, the fact that officials at a university are so dyed-in-the-wool politically correct they just can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with them, or the fact government officials are so afraid someone might be offended they detain a potential offender just as he enters the country.
There is no excuse for this: this is homofacism, plain and simple---the sodomy bastard child of atheism.
What is homofacism? Tune in tomorrow to find out.
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
So We're Letting Kids Make "Those" Type of Decisions Now
+AJPM+
The Angel Possenti:
While I was listening to this story, many questions swirled in my head…a good amount are questions that pop in your head right away but others form in the back…the type you don't think about in a conscious manner but they gnaw at your head all the same.
1. Since when do we let seven year-olds suddenly decide what gender they want to be? We don't let them think ice cream is better for you than vegetables but let's be honest: that's not a life changing decision but what gender you are is.
2. Does the doctor they interview seem to imply if your child wants to be the other gender, then parents should just go with it?
3. While the doctor interviewed is a medical doctor, he is not a licensed psychiatrist. So since he is not a psychiatrist, what weight does his opinion have?
4. While I do give them credit by admitting a true transgender case in someone that age is rare, wouldn't it have been a good idea to cite the DSM-V to see if parents do have an authentic case or at least steer people in the right direction?
5. Why do I get the feeling that people who are in favor of what the parents decided are going to come after me by saying how dare I suggest the parents impose their beliefs on their kid?
6. What about the child's sexuality? Yes, I understand the child is too young to know about that too, but has anyone stopped to think how the girl will understand herself later?
7. Speaking of sexuality, what about puberty? Sooner or later, it's going to be pretty obvious she's a girl and not a boy.
8. How sure are the parents on knowing this is what their daughter wants? Could it be this is nothing more than a child loving one ice cream flavor now but liking another one later?
9. Isn't it pretty obvious the child is controlling them and not the other way around?
10. Would it surprise anyone if this family turned out to be atheists and this is nothing more than typical atheist stupidity?
The Angel Possenti:
While I was listening to this story, many questions swirled in my head…a good amount are questions that pop in your head right away but others form in the back…the type you don't think about in a conscious manner but they gnaw at your head all the same.
1. Since when do we let seven year-olds suddenly decide what gender they want to be? We don't let them think ice cream is better for you than vegetables but let's be honest: that's not a life changing decision but what gender you are is.
2. Does the doctor they interview seem to imply if your child wants to be the other gender, then parents should just go with it?
3. While the doctor interviewed is a medical doctor, he is not a licensed psychiatrist. So since he is not a psychiatrist, what weight does his opinion have?
4. While I do give them credit by admitting a true transgender case in someone that age is rare, wouldn't it have been a good idea to cite the DSM-V to see if parents do have an authentic case or at least steer people in the right direction?
5. Why do I get the feeling that people who are in favor of what the parents decided are going to come after me by saying how dare I suggest the parents impose their beliefs on their kid?
6. What about the child's sexuality? Yes, I understand the child is too young to know about that too, but has anyone stopped to think how the girl will understand herself later?
7. Speaking of sexuality, what about puberty? Sooner or later, it's going to be pretty obvious she's a girl and not a boy.
8. How sure are the parents on knowing this is what their daughter wants? Could it be this is nothing more than a child loving one ice cream flavor now but liking another one later?
9. Isn't it pretty obvious the child is controlling them and not the other way around?
10. Would it surprise anyone if this family turned out to be atheists and this is nothing more than typical atheist stupidity?
Monday, June 2, 2014
Gay-Marriage Bakery "Logic"
+AJPM+
For the couple, they said they always believed they were in the right and it was important to pursue the case for future customers. "We've already been discriminated there," Mullins said. "We've already been treated badly.The commission also ordered the baker to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone.
The Angel Possenti:
So let me get this straight:
A gay couple goes to a baker to get a cake to commemorate their "wedding", he says no, says it violates his Christian principles, and instead of doing the reasonable thing (like go hire a different baker) they go whine to a "civil rights" group, he gets slapped with a fine, he still refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, the court forces him to bake cakes for gay couples against his principles and he decides to no longer bake wedding cakes for anybody.
You want to know what the real icing on the cake (so to speak) is in all of this?
The entire sequence of events took place in Colorado, and gay marriage isn't even legal in Colorado.
No surprise: atheists support all of this suing nonsense, and atheists are idiots.
DENVER - The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to the shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception in Colorado.
Phillips said he doesn't believe in gay marriage and he refused to sell them a cake.
"We would close down the bakery before we would complicate our beliefs," Phillips said after the hearing, according to CBS Denver. Phillips also admitted he had refused service to other same-sex couples.
A judge previously ruled a business owner cannot refuse service to a customer on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips appealed to the commission, but it upheld the decision.
That prompted Phillips to decide he would no longer make any wedding cakes. He said he would be fine selling cupcakes for a birthday party for someone who is gay but added, "I don't want to participate in a same-sex wedding."
For the couple, they said they always believed they were in the right and it was important to pursue the case for future customers. "We've already been discriminated there," Mullins said. "We've already been treated badly.The commission also ordered the baker to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone.
"The next time a gay couple wanders in there asking for a wedding cake, they won't have the experience we had.
"They will have a responsible experience and leave feeling respected."
(Here's the link.)
The Angel Possenti:
So let me get this straight:
A gay couple goes to a baker to get a cake to commemorate their "wedding", he says no, says it violates his Christian principles, and instead of doing the reasonable thing (like go hire a different baker) they go whine to a "civil rights" group, he gets slapped with a fine, he still refuses to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, the court forces him to bake cakes for gay couples against his principles and he decides to no longer bake wedding cakes for anybody.
You want to know what the real icing on the cake (so to speak) is in all of this?
The entire sequence of events took place in Colorado, and gay marriage isn't even legal in Colorado.
No surprise: atheists support all of this suing nonsense, and atheists are idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)