Den Fisch betrügst du nicht." Fischerweise, Schubert, 1826.
(Give up your foolish trick'ry this fish you cannot cheat.)
For those homosexuals themselves and their straight friends who appear to understand their homosexuality, it is extremely hard to accept that man and woman are the only two sexes created by God. They may be asking or putting into question that truth saying, "What if there are other genders that exist apart from man and woman?" As an analyst it is so inconceivable that other genders exist because gender identity can only be distinguished upon seeing human features that were classified as to that of man (ex. penis or Adam's apple as commonplace features) and as to that of woman (ex. vagina and unusual amount of breast as commonplace features) which can be empirically observed even at a glance and it is an infallible truth about what composes a man and a woman.
Now we go on to the super hard part of any human drama: which is the gender identity of anyone who may not classify himself as man or woman or both. It is a bitter stupidity for me that this worst drama ever is not a problem where matter of factly it is, both on these homosexuals themselves and to straight people such as myself.
As a self proclaimed actor, I am able to act as a gay person (my friends can testify to that) and make my voice effeminate like a common out and proud gay does. Upon introspection, I thought I will pass a gay test if ever one exists, except that I do not and never will have a love and affection or crush towards men unlike what I have towards women.
So introspectively speaking, I may assume a gay expression and proclaim to the world that I am indeed gay as far as my feelings I feel is concerned towards men of the same gender. Feelings! That's the very word! To homos and their not-so-bright straight friends, gender can be identified based on feelings which I strongly believe as a stupidity indeed an animal or a mosquito could never commit.
Like the one I said in the first paragraph, gender is observable and infallibly speaking, it will always be. At the hearing of the voice; at the sight of built of the body, of the legs, of the buttocks, of the arms, of the neck, of the waist, of the back, of the chest, of the shoulders, of the face, of all the hairs of the person, of all the person's muscles and how proportioned are these to the body or the amount of these on a given body part or the used muscles on the wrist down to the hands together with the bones, of the complexion, or any unmentioned that comprises a human body - after having these together as a complete image within even on a singular eye - one can arrive at the answer about what a person is, even at a glance or hearing of voice, within a half of a second or so, that what he sees or hears are the constitutions of either of a man or of a woman. But if the circumstances is devious, as an observer and analyst such as myself could never be deceived nor an ordinary seeker of truth, if one changes into another everything about his gender, even if it appears perfectly operated, still, very sooner or later the original gender will be revealed, even to the point of a sharp investigation of the properties of the person that must always remain hidden by the use of clothes.
Gender identification is the collection of facts of the human body part and this includes the sexual organs which were two matters so singular to each differences yet almost speaks everything about the one who has only one of these two. That is why a gender indentity based on feelings is a stupidity and a delusion and you are obliged to believe so if you have many things to do with your life I mean, if you want to stop becoming ignorant, stupid. But why cannot we or should I say never we should accept feelings that may contribute to the gender identity or sexual orientation of a person?
Well it is because, aside from the common sensical fact that feelings can never change anything on your sexual organ into its opposite equal which is too hideous to conceive, it is also hidden or cannot be seen in any way so as to check and even correct if it may turn false. Yes, it can never be seen but it can be observed. Observation of mine arrives at a conclusion that homosexuals' feeling or the feelings that make them homosexuals makes them sexual machines which devours on the desires of the flesh, and what identifies them is their hunger for a sex void of parental responsibility on future offspring and what embodies their whole lifetime is sex. What I mean is that homosexuals are narcissist in general and their narcissism means love of or sexual desire for one's own body. The other meaning of narcissism which I had before has this meaning: it is an undue dwelling of one's own self or attainments, which is apparently different from the narcissism of homos.
Here, if one inordinately loves himself or likely to harbor a sexual attraction to his own body, there is a greater probability and no doubt that he too will be sexually attracted to persons who have the same sex like his.
All in all, the crux of homosexuality is the unseen feelings that were regarded as indicators of gender apart from man and woman. But as I said before, homosexuality and the two genders can and only be observed from an a posteriori standpoint. That's where the detection of the problem lies. This point which I am speaking of is where we must all meet. It must be understood that homosexuality is a disorder, a havoc of identity of a personality. Don't get me wrong for I have acquaintances and friends who were not loyal to their sexes but I do not consider them as homosexuals because they were only effeminate men. Nevertheless, they still have a disorder on their part.
So these disoriented feelings that tells that a man who feels he is more or less a woman or a woman more or less a man suggest a fact in a plainsight that the GENDER of a person may not end to the person per se but may be extended to another person where feelings or sexual attraction of his lands. Conceive that stupidity in your minds. Who would have thought that gender could be extended? Understand this with common sense because it ain't hurt unless you never had it.
Moving on, I am greatly dissatisfied by an association of psychologists (and psychiatrists?) in America and their findings on homosexuality which is not a mental disorder according to them. I am not dissatisfied by the result saying it is not a mental disorder; I am dissatisfied by how they implore or use experimental science in this singular but complex problem. Experimental science deals with accuracy or exactness as much as possible if mathematics is one of its languages. Then if mental disorders were detected and classified methodically by experimental science of any branch of science, why appear to settle for a result which is against this visible problem of homosexuality? Is it just because it is not a mental disorder according to your concensus? I am not pushing that we must consider that it is a mental disorder, but nevertheless, it is a disorder only not mental as these scienctists say so. I am just pointing out so obvious a fact that were neglected especially by them that there is a problem intimate to the homosexuals, and answers or results or solutions as of now were so confusing like these homos, which is and never will be in the vocabulary of science.
Secular scientists' findings in a number of disciplines is beginning to show that some form of theism is the default wiring of human beings. (Flickr/Luis Calçada)
For some, "God doesn't believe in atheists" is just a clever (nor not-so-clever) jab directed against the faithless in our culture. But based on the findings of secular researchers, the statement may not be so far from reality.
"[A]theism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think," Vittachi cites avowed atheist Graham Lawton as writing in New Scientist. "They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul."
Even atheists hold to several tacitly religious concepts, including the existence of an immortal soul, according to Lawton. The article also cites another atheist researcher who demonstrated that all people engage in internal monologue, regardless of whether the person to whom their thoughts are directed is actually present.
Equally demonstrable is the intrinsic human tendency to believe in divine justice. Vittachi describes both religious and non-religious persons as possessing the innate sense that "If I commit a sin, it is not an isolated event but will have appropriate repercussions." This sense of cosmic justice is credited for the popular belief in "karma."
This idea, he writes, is played out on a number of differently levels—including narrative literature, where even atheist authors invariably write stories that "exist to establish that there exists a mechanism or a person—cosmic destiny, karma, God, fate, Mother Nature—to make sure the right thing happens to the right person."
Even the staunchest nontheists are not exempted from such habits, according to the writer. "If a loved one dies, even many anti-religious people usually feel a need for a farewell ritual, complete with readings from old books and intoned declarations that are not unlike prayers," Vittachi writes. "In war situations, commanders frequently comment that atheist soldiers pray far more than they think they do."
According to the writer, atheists tend to exhibit the same sociological, psychological dependence on the intangible as religious folk do, even if the former reject the existence of anything supernatural. "Statistics show that the majority of people who stop being part of organized religious groups don't become committed atheists, but retain a mental model in which 'The Universe' somehow has a purpose for humanity," says Vittachi.
While Vittachi attempts to connect all these theistic proclivities to an evolutionary source, missing one key bit of evidence: it is the biblical Christian worldview, not the secular humanist worldview, which accurately predicts a human bent towards belief in God.
In Romans 1:18-23, the apostle Paul writes that "what can be known about God is plain to them"—that is, all men—and that "his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." He then goes so far as to state that all such people "knew God" (v. 21). The implication, thus, is that man innately assumes the existence of his Creator until he convinces himself to think otherwise.
This biblical teaching is not unique to Paul. Proverbs 9:10 says, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding," echoing the same sentiment of other Old Testament passages. In essence, one cannot truly possess wisdom and knowledge if one denies the essential fact of existence: that the transcendent God is the ultimate measure of reality.
While Vittachi may be a few steps short of walking down the aisle at the next altar call, the findings he describes lead to one critical conclusion: perhaps it is atheists, not God, who truly do not exist.
This article was originally posted in this link: http://www.charismanews.com/world/44633-scientists-atheists-may-not-exist-seriously
Very interesting article I say. Atheists may deny the existence of God because of the absence of evidence = evidence of absence (of God). However, few (or maybe many) atheists do not observe the empirical evidences that can be drawn from no other than the man himself. They themselves commit a very capital mistake when the empirical evidences for the existence of God in the universe were never to be found by them, yet, they do not in any way see that if God created the universe, of course humans were created by God and therefore man can be seen as evidence by all means.
The news came to me from Facebook that Marian Rivera hailed again as queen, the most sexiest woman by FHM (For Him Magazine) Philippines which is a marketer of men's magazines which what I call "more prostitutive than beauty pageants like Binibining Pilipinas and less pornographic than the mainstream pornography."
But I do not care about her winning nor do I care about FHM as they kicked-off a victory party yesterday, Wednesday, July 9, 2014.
What I care is the degradation that women get here from these men's magazines and the lost manliness of men who consumes these materials where women were dressed undressed for the sake and promotion of women empowerment, freedom, and health consciousness but doesn't care to the hiding perversity and the most daring reason I know why men buy it - for the entertainment of their fantasies and the consummation of their lustful desires after owning them.
Not that I'm not for women empowerment, freedom, and health awareness. But such materials I believe with certainty that it womanizes men and making women to feel like men. It turns everything perversely on what concerns both sexes. I say it womanizes men when they losing their manly identity by patronizing such materials, a source of happiness to them seeing women almost naked but these same men will kill those who looks lustfully to their girlfriend or their wife. Such hypocrisy is ever committed when they protect what is dear to them but will always on the move drooling for almost naked women especially featured on men's magazines.
I say it gives women a feel to be men when they are worshiped by men who became women because of their perversity. It voices out the equality of both sexes that men is no superior than women as if getting almost naked in these magazines makes them equal. Yes, men and women are indeed equal but different in responsibilities. These magazines talk about women empowerment when in fact the power women really have is to become examples of what is true beauty in living chastity. It destroys that true women empowerment when these women are powerless to protect themselves from evil, perverse men who are only after their almost naked bodies. I never thought that such flesh scenery will make women empowered, nor it gives freedom to them. As if to be free from clothes will give women the freedom from the chains of men, enslaving women by these magazines.
Nowhere also on earth that I knew that to have a big bouncing breast with a good inch of cleavage and a curvy waistline makes women healthy. Nor to show a generous amount of flesh makes them healthy. I never had a memory from almost naked models on the cover magazines that they're having a healthy food with them while naked; nor taking a food supplement almost naked. Never did I see an almost naked woman raising a barbel on the cover of men's magazine, showing that she is really into a healthy lifestyle, but even if she is in a work-out, it is so unnecessary to get almost naked just to show you're healthy while on exercise.
So these magazines doesn't really help women but rather destroys them. And these magazines doesn't help men either in any way. It destroys what true love really is. It destroys what it is to be a man, and to be a woman as well.
I call everyone to stop patronizing such materials.
For those who work in this industry especially women, don't stop on getting almost naked. Because this is the only place where there's so much money and exposure. At the same time, this is the only industry that makes you dignified. So respect it gives to you.
To men, continue to patronize men's magazines. This is the only way you can treat yourselves from a hard days work. This is the only way you can receive love for these magazines will love you back. Having these magazines just shows that you do not receive true love or you are most likely unlovable, unwanted, or unloved. Maybe in this saddening and the temporal happiness these magazines give you, you can say you're manly after all because it's a men's magazine.
May these magazines teach you how to become really a man and how to really love.
