Thursday, December 22, 2016

The Lie of Homosexuality

Homosexuality does not exist. Its as simple as that. I will get a lot of fire and rage for this post, but I welcome your debates, your wrath, so please, continue to read. Homosexuality is a concept constructed by humanity. There is no scientific proof for it. It is based completely on feelings, not fact. If someone feels attract to the same sex, it does not mean that they must be 'gay'. Homosexuality is a choice. A person cannot claim that they are a helicopter, even if they feel like one, but somehow we can let people identify themselves as homosexual, as if sexuality is a choice and not an intrinsic nature.

Homosexuality destroys human sexuality. Homosexuality cannot produce offspring. That is the SOLE purpose of the sexual act. Without it, human sexuality no longer exists, and no longer has any significance. To let people defile this pure and awesome power of procreation is an atrocity in itself. We CANNOT let it continue.

Human sexuality is the basis for the union of marriage. To let people who engage in homosexuality get married is even more atrocious because it taints the purity of traditional marriage. If marriage is simple something that two people engage in to enjoy the pleasures of their own sexuality, then how can traditional marriage continue when it is completely based, or should be, in the production of offspring.

Homosexuality contradicts human biological objective. Humanity exists as individuals for one purpose, to produce viable offspring. The 'evolution' of society has lost this knowledge. We CANNOT continue as a species if we condone the destruction of our sexuality, for the heart of humanity is the nature of its reproduction.

SEXUAL LOVE CAN ONLY EXIST BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN. To disagree is idiotic. As I have said numerous times before, human sexuality and sexual love are oriented in procreation. Therefore, homosexuality is a contradiction of human sexuality and as such does not truly exist. If you wish to disagree with me, please do by leaving comments below and I will make sure to accommodate your claims and refute your points until you see the truth.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Abortion and the Degradation of Respect for Human Life

Abortion is one of the most controversial issues of modern culture, the debate over the person-hood of the unborn child is one of contrasting views and vindictive words. I will not say softly these words to those who may see the human fetus as not having earned human dignity. ABORTION IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND COMPLETELY IMMORAL. There is no other possible logical way to view the issue. You may disagree with the bluntness of my statement, but it is the truth, and should be dwelt upon. I will proceed in this post to back my claim over the total inhumanity of abortion, but please feel free to debate my points by posting questions or comments.

Abortion kills. Its as simple as that. The human fetus, even the human embryo, is a living entity, and the act of abortion puts an end to the life inside the mother. This point CANNOT be debated. You may disagree with me about the person-hood of the fetus, but scientifically, the human fetus is a living creature.

Abortion kills a human being. The human fetus is a HUMAN one. It contains DNA unique to the human species, but even more, unique to itself. By aborting this unborn child, the mother is putting an end to the life of a human being, one with a completely unique set of genes.

Abortion kills an independent human being. The fetus is NOT PART OF THE MOTHER'S BODY. The mother's body consists only of cells that contain her specific chromosomes, with the exception of her sex cells, eggs, not embryos, all of which contain only half of her unique DNA. The fetus has completely separate genes, only half coming from the mother, the other half being the father's. But if its not you DNA, its not your 'body' period.

Abortion is an atrocity against human nature. It does not differ from INFANTICIDE. And any man, woman, or child who condones the murder of the helpless and innocent infant is a monstrous entity, one who's morality is not only compromised, but is absent completely. To look into the face of an infant, full of trust and innocence, and to put an end to the beating heart of that child. And to live in the society of today, where politicians like Hillary Clinton can smile upon abortion and even partial-birth abortion, an atrocity that should make you sick, is nauseating. How can we have fallen into such decay to not be able to recognize when human life begins.

Birth does not define person-hood. Birth is of no significance in the life and development of a child. The infant does not undergo any biological changes, but is merely introduced to a new environment.
LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. There is no debating this point. Scientists agree that conception, as the first and most significant moment of the development of the human embryo, fetus, and infant, is the moment at which life begins. The DNA of a child is decided at that moment, not at birth. Anyone who continues to defend birth as the moment of life should think about the claims of liberal doctors, who claim that due to the insignificance of birth, infanticide should be a legal form of abortion.

This satanic cry has become reality. Partial-birth abortion is such a sickening act of violence and cruelty that I must warn readers about the graphic nature of the following description of the atrocious act.

"According to nurse Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist “delivered the baby’s body and arms - everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp.” (from

 Reading this quotation should make you sick. How can we let this happen? How can we sit idle by while infants are mutilated just because we fear being called out? The human race is a failure. No one can claim that humanity has made great strives while atrocities like this are smiled upon! They are blatantly evil and vile things, they don't deserve to exist in all of human thought. We have embodied a dystopian society. And to make things worse, Planned Parenthood sells fetal tissue from abortion. This has gone to far. To deal in the flesh of the dead innocence is a crime that cannot be overlooked. How dare they DEFILE HUMANITY! I WEEP FOR THE DEATH OF THE PURE AND RAGE AGAINST SATAN TO STOP THE EXPLOITATION OF THEIR CORPSES.

We MUST fight this great evil, this bane of all human existence. We CANNOT continue as a species if we allow the MURDER of the purest of us! I hope you will not hang your head in shame of the degradation of our once great society. But instead go out into the world and make a difference. Change the world.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

If you have experienced an abortion and are suffering from the pain and trauma of it, I am sorry you had to read that, but my deepest condolences go out to you. You can find peace through penance and reconciliation if you regret your abortion. I urge you to seek help.

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Time, Memory, and the Existence of an Afterlife

An afterlife. The existence of life after its own ceasing. How can such a concept exist? How can such a concept coincide with reality. To understand the existence of this seemingly paradoxical existence, we must first take a deeper look at reality itself.

Memory, that is where lies the key to comprehending the incomprehensible. What is life? What is human existence itself, but a compilation of memories? In reality, though it may seem quite a simple thing, to exist, it remains a complex system. How can reality be pinpointed? How is time experienced? How can we define "now"? If we dwell on this last inquiry, we can come to the strange conclusion that time cannot be experienced in the present, or to rephrase it, we cannot understand time in the present. You may disagree. How can we not experience time? Am I not reading this blog at this exact moment in time? Am I not reading this sentence, this word, this letter at precisely this moment?

Time may best be explained in an analogy. Time is a dimension of spacetime, and as such, it experiences measurement and observation. We can define sections and lengths of this unknown quantity, but we can never fully understand it. Time can fit between to boundaries (between 1 and 2 seconds, for example) but we cannot pinpoint it. You can never in a single moment in time define the moment itself. By the act of attempting to observe the moment itself, it slips away. Similar to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in quantum dynamics, the act of looking upon time makes its measurement cease to hold importance.

Time moves faster than the speed of light. Light itself is measured against time, being the faster of the two, just as other quantities are measured against light. We cannot see that which moves faster than the light that conveys visuals to us. It is as such that we cannot see current time. By the time that we pinpoint a moment, it is no longer there. This acts as a segway to my next point. Though trying to pinpoint current time itself is like trying to catch a photon with our bare hands, we do experience time.

Memory grants us access to the dimension of time. All that we witness, all that we experience, has already occurred by the time we try to precisely pinpoint it, and as such, those memories, those experiences are memories themselves. You may be saying immediate experiences cannot possibly be
mere memory, they are so vivid, so real, so unlike memory. But these instantaneous memories are vivid because of their recentness, just as other memories are dulled and blurred by age, so are our instantaneous ones. The memory becomes a memory as time passes by, which in term becomes a memory itself, and so forth and so forth. Take a moment to try to comprehend these revelations, these insights into reality. The act of thinking itself cannot be fully experienced. Like memories of reality, we will soon forget these thoughts (or perhaps only remember thinking them). Now that we have defined this concept, we must look deeper into its implications.

If all experiences of reality are formed of memory, of the firing of synapses, then reality itself, existence itself must also be made of memory. The reality, if we can continue to use such a word even, that we experience is no 'reality' at all, but our own memories, being generated and reacted upon, or at least the perception of the physical world through memory. But if all life is memory, then what is life itself, but the reliving of memory itself? We can comprehend the existence our own existence, but by doing so, we cannot comprehend what our existence consists of.

Finally, we come back to the introduction to this post. An afterlife, the existence of existence after our existence has ceased. How can such a paradox be ever understood? Memory. Life. If we exist and can prove our individual existence (I can prove my own existence to myself, but am not capable of proving yours) and now understand that all human existence is memory, then we can come to the complex conclusion that an afterlife exists. Now, this my seem like a drastic leap, and as such we must dwell on it further. If, again, all life is memory, then how can there ever be the absence of life? If we die and lose our existence fully, then how can we 'experience' our memory, which we all experience after true events occur? This can form the conclusion, that there exists an afterlife. Or, to rephrase it, there is no version of reality in which human existence, or the existence of our conscious thought cannot exists. Thus, we never truly die. Yes our bodies may rot and our minds may decay, but our soul, or conscience, or whatever name you give our true being will continue on. Now what lies ahead? Who can ever tell, but those who have already ventured that far.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Saturday, December 10, 2016


Although this is actually my second post, I would like to provide a detailed introduction to my blog, Absolute Moral Truth ( | Moral Truth | ). I have created this blog in order to spread my ideas and beliefs involving theories of science, mathematics, religion, and modern political issues. My blogs are not intended to offend any specific individual or demographic, though some may be offended by the ideas I present. I am a devout Roman Catholic, but I do not represent the official stance of the Church on any of the matters that I choose to comment on.

 Please take time to comment on each post and request any desired topics for my next post. Remember to always be respectful, but use comments to debate me on my points or ask me questions. Thank you for your support and God bless you.

On a separate note, I will be signing off all of my posts with the phrase: Quod Erat Demonstrandum, which is a Latin phrase meaning "that which was to be demonstrated", and is often used as punctuation in a formal mathematical proof.

The Existence of God

Science and religion, at first glance they seem contradictory, but they have gone hand in hand for millennia. The example we will be using: the Big Bang Theory. Most view the big bang theory as parallel with Darwin's theory of evolution, proof against the theory of creationism, but who formulated this popular theory of universal origin? In 1927, Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, designed the concept based around the phenomenon of measurable expansion of the observable universe. In fact, this theory, if we assume that it is at least somewhat true, easily provides proof for the existence of God himself. This may be a difficult concept for most to understand, but the points I will present will be quite rudimentary.

First, assuming that the universe expanded from a single point in spacetime (the basis of the big bang theory), we can also come to the conclusion that the universe is not infinite at any given moment in time, that is to say that if the universe had an origin, then it must be finite at any distinct moment, even if its expansion appears to be limitless. What does this mean in terms of God? Well if the universe came into the plane of existence at a distinct and measurable moment in time, then some external and more powerful force must have caused this sudden birth into realty. In this post, we will define God simply as a being or entity with infinite power and the creator of the universe. As we said before, with the universe a definite force, an entity with infinite force must have caused its explosion into existence. Some may claim that the universe created itself upon the moment of the big bang, but that theory is poor speculation. If the universe that we have defined is finite, having begun at a distinct moment, then it cannot have brought itself into being, or it must have had some infinite distinction beforehand.

Now that we have seen that something must have created the universe itself, then we can define this unknown quantity as God, having been responsible for the universe's origins. You may claim now that this post has not proved the existence of God, merely that the universe was created by some infinite force, but if we continue to think speculatively about the implications of our claims, the truth becomes clear. Any entity capable of the creation of an infinitely expanding, though finite in size, universe must be, itself, infinite. Since we ruled out the possibility of the universe being infinite, and thus capable of its own birth, the creator of the universe, whom we have defined as God, must be infinite in power and limitless in capability. Thus, the existence of a finite universe proves the existence of an infinite God.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum