This is why Islam will succeed: Most Catholics in US approve of fornication | Catholic Herald

Pew reports that 74 percent of Catholics have no objections to couples cohabiting – in other words 3/4 of all Catholics accept fornication!

The Catholic Herald reports today:

Nearly three quarters of Catholics in the United States are not opposed to couples cohabiting before marriage, despite the Church’s moral teaching.

A new survey by the Pew Research Center, released Nov. 6, reports that Americans as a whole are very accepting of unmarried couples living together, even if they have no plans to marry. Additionally, Pew found that a shrinking percentage of adults are getting married, and an increasing number of adults have decided to cohabit.

Only 14% of adults surveyed said they did not believe that it was ever acceptable for two unmarried adults in a romantic relationship to live together. An additional 16% said that they agreed with cohabitation only if there were plans for the couple to one day get married.

Of the people surveyed, 69% said they believed it was acceptable for an unmarried couple to live together, without any plans to eventually wed.

In 2002, the National Survey of Family Growth found that while 54% of adults between the ages of 18 and 44 had ever cohabited with a romantic partner, 60% had ever been married. By 2017, the number of adults who had ever been married dropped to 50%, while the number of adults who had cohabitated rose to 54%.


Categories: Degeneracy, Fornication, Islam, The Roman Catholic Church

295 replies

  1. stew and faiz probably will recall this discussion but it is like a theme in these spiritual adulterers

    Liked by 2 people

  2. “What is really interesting is verse 28 – “if you fear poverty, soon Allah will enrich you”. the reason for that was because Muhammad had conquered the Hijaz (the Arabian peninsula, especially around Mecca and Medina, and no pagans or idol worshippers were allowed. ……. So now, there is no revenue from the pilgrimmages, so, according to verses 28-29, they will allow the Christians and Jews to be in the Islamic state, provided they surrender and don’t fight/resist, and pay the Jiziye with humiliation, and they cannot evangelize or build new churches or even criticize Islam.”

    so how the jiziyah would have enriched the muslims ? the jews and christians were carrying hoards of wealth?


  3. plus, EVERY verse you quote , can you QUOTE 4 VERSES before it and 4 verses AFTER because your own hands will HUMILIATE you.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Since God is All-Knowing, He would have known that a war with the Byzantines was coming, and thus, He was reassuring the Muslims that even though they had lost one form of revenue, they would soon get a different form in the form of the jizyah and the spoils of war that they were sure to capture upon defeating their enemies. This actually proves that the Quran is from God, because it effectively made a prophecy that came true within 30 years of Prophet Muhammad’s death! Allahu Akbar!

    However, as far the jizyah is concerned, it would hardly have enriched the Muslims. Rather, it was taxation in general (such as land taxes) and the enormous amount of wealth that would be seized from the Byzantines and Persians that would provide the revenue for the expanding Muslim state. In this regard, the Muslim empire was no different from any other nation throughout history. They all collected taxes from their subjects! This will be discussed in more detail later.

    Temple then gave a sob story about how the poor Christians had to deal with the “fear of persecution” and that conversions to Islam occurred “over the centuries” (in effect, he admits there were virtually no so-called “forced conversions”) due to the “economic and social pressures of being ‘Dhimmi’”. This claim is common among Christian apologists, but it is nothing more than an over-exaggerated revisionism of actual history.

    While there were certainly periods of time when Christians and other groups were unfairly treated by some Muslim rulers (especially under the rule of the Umayyad dynasty, who ironically, also heavily taxed converts as well), this was largely the exception and not the rule. Let’s look at the example of the Egyptian Copts.

    During the initial period after the conquest of Egypt and up to the time of the Umayyads, Coptic Christians actually had another option other than paying the jizyah or converting. Since the tax could not be taken from monasteries and monks, joining a monastery would allow a person to avoid paying the jizyah. But by the time of the Umayyads, monks also began to be taxed. The Christian scholar Jurji Zaydan described it this way:

    “[w]hen the Copts found that conversion to Islam would not exempt them from poll-tax nor from its extortion by violence, some of them bethought of taking the monk’s robe, since monks were exempted from the poll-tax. The Umayyad viceroys, perceiving their object, proceeded to impose poll-tax on the monks, and became so vindictive that some wanted to enforce it on the dead as well as the living, by making the survivors pay poll-tax for their dead relatives. Many such incidents are reported for the Umayyad period…”[12]

    Later on, Umar II, one of the few just rulers of the Umayyad dynasty, reversed these policies. According to Zaydan:

    “[t]his process was carried on by the Umayyads, who overlooked the charted of Omar, until the Caliphate came to his grandson and admirer Omar II, who, amongst other instances of imitation of Omar I, wrote to his viceroys bidding them restore the provisions of the charter.”[13]

    The Umayyads were so corrupt that they even placed heavy taxes on converts to Islam! They even took the jizyah from converts and persecuted Islamic scholars such as Abu Haneefa (the founder of the Hanafi school in Sunni Islam) when they spoke out against such blatant violations of Islamic law. As Muslim author Dr. Nazeer Ahmed states:

    “[t]he Omayyads forgot the fraternal message of Islam and treated the new converts with disdain. Often, the converts were forced to pay the Jizya even after they had accepted Islam. It was against such discrimination that Imam Abu Haneefa (who lived through the Abbasid revolution) fought. In one of his dictums Abu Haneefa said: “The belief of a newly converted Turk is the same as that of an Arab from Hejaz”. But the Omayyads resented such reforms and Imam Abu Haneefa was jailed for his activism.”[14]

    And it was Umar II yet again who tried to reverse these unjust policies.[15]

    Moreover, it is frankly silly to claim that Copts converted to Islam to escape the jizyah, when the reality was that the jizyah was just ONE of the taxes they had to pay during the Umayyad reign and even during the early years of the Islamic conquests. According to Daniel C. Dennett, in his book Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam, every Coptic man (not women and children) had to pay:

    The poll tax (i.e., jizyah);
    A land tax;
    A tax known as the embole (which was paid in the form of crops);
    A tax to cover the upkeep of Muslims;
    A tax for the support of local officials.[16]
    He also noted that converting to Islam during the Umayyad reign did not exempt the converts from paying the jizyah, as already noted, a practice of the Umayyads that violated Islamic law.[17]

    But things were a little different during the initial conquest. Dennett explained that there were different agreements in Egypt, based on the different situations in different cities. According to him, the Copts agreed to pay the jizyah at a rate of 2 dinars for every “adult able-bodied male” and 1 dinar for land, as well as a tax on produce and a payment for the needs of the Muslims (i.e., clothing, entertainment, etc.). But Alexandria, which had been taken by force, was simply annexed. Meanwhile, the Pentapolis “paid a fixed, annual sum, to be neither increased nor decreased”. Thus, there were different tax policies depending on different circumstances.

    Dennett also made an astute and interesting observation regarding the so-called “economic motive for conversion”. He stated that:

    “[i]f in Egypt conversion had freed a man from all tribute since the beginning of the Arab empire until after the death of Abd-al-Aziz in 703, and if after the census of ibn a-Habhab in 725 conversion freed a man of his poll tax but not his land tax, then it follows that the economic motive for conversion was stronger from 640 to 703 than after 725. We should therefore expect more conversions before 703 than after 725. The facts, however, indicate exactly the opposite. The only mention of conversion in Severus before 703 is the statement that al-Asbagh compelled by force many persons to become Muslims…

    In three passages, therefore, mentioning conversion in this Christian authority [Severus], the two passages which ascribe conversion to an economic motive fall at a time when…conversion freed a man only of a poll tax, not of tribute.”[18]

    So there really was not much “economic motive for conversion” after all. Temple, like most Christian apologists, made a silly argument based on hyperbolic emotional arguments rather than facts.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. “The historical research principle of embarrassment points to the truth of it.”

    no it doesn’t. it is just a made up criteria because there is no eyewitness SOURCE .
    embarrassment is not reliable because adultery could be embarrassing to you, it may not have been EMBARRASSING to the anonymous person who thought even gods prophets could become weak and do adultery. your level of embarrassment vs theirs is completely unknown.

    this criteria cannot “point to the truth ” of any fictional story which has embarrassing details in it.

    this criteria could be hiding an even MORE embarrassing problem and the author lessened it by having david repent of his adultery.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. “The historical research principle of embarrassment points to the truth of it.”

    here is the contention. you do not know the theological views of those who believed that a prophet who was again and again in “contact” with almighty could slip and sin.

    all i need to do is ask you is hypothetical about jesus in the garden of eden and his “flesh nature”

    god is able to prevent adam from FREELY choosing not to sin, agree or disagree?

    god is able to prevent jesus from freely choosing not to sin, agree or disagree?

    god is able to prevent david from freely choosing not to sin, agree or disagree (INTENTIONAL sins such as adultery which require stoning to death in bible)?

    satan is too much of a competitor for god and he is able to do what god is unable to prevent.

    now you will say some pagan nonsense that “you have exalted the prophets”

    no, we have exalted God , because He is the CAUSE/reason for the prophets not to sin.

    God knows that people could easily use argument against him that even his prophets which he was in “contact” with regularly were slipping and doing DISGUSTING filthy sins and they were no role models to follow. Why even send such LAWS on adultery when the very best slipped and sinned?

    ofcourse crosstians understood this so they made jeser in “sinless lamb”

    and his flesh actions like calling women dogs, trashing tables, killing tree and innocent pigs as “loving and sinless”


  7. temple wrote :
    Mark 7:19 is clear on the food laws.

    but that seems to be a big problem .

    the law of clean and unclean goes back in time. one can argue that god is kosher and prefer kosher sacrifices

    Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate; 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.

    Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, 9 two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after seven days the waters of the flood came on the earth

    20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, the Lord said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.

    it makes absolutely no sense that the diety who was kosher and liked the odor of dead clean animals developed a taste for BACON “in his flesh”

    so what drove mark to say “all foods were clean” ? was he hanging around with bacon eaters ? since mark seems to be a gentile writing for gentiles, then it make sense why he would make his jesus sound gentile friendly . why make things difficult for pork eaters ?


    • btw, noah did not offer a sin sacrifice , but a thanks giving or gratitude offer. will ken temple offer yhwh a pig sacrifice to show his gratitude?


      • birkat hagomel

        so ken how will you be showing your birkat hagomel to yhwh? since “all foods are clean” and torah laws pertaining to gratitude offering = ETERNAL , then is pig on the menu?


    • “Mark 7:19 is clear on the food laws.”

      no, it is some gentile pagan who made his jesus into gentile pagan. he CONTRADICTED thousands of years of TRADITION (divinely revealed) .

      yes, and the food does reach the heart just like the odor of the animal reaches yhwhs heavenly nostrils.
      its spiritual as well as physical. jesus came to CONTRADICT well established divinely revealed tradition.


      • quote:
        The short answer to why Jews observe these laws is: because the Torah says so. The Torah does not specify any reason for these laws, and for a Torah-observant, traditional Jew, there is no need for any other reason. Some have suggested that the laws of kashrut fall into the category of “chukkim,” laws for which there is no reason. We show our obedience to G-d by following these laws even though we do not know the reason. Others, however, have tried to ascertain G-d’s reason for imposing these laws.

        In his book “To Be a Jew” (an excellent resource on traditional Judaism), Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin suggests that the dietary laws are designed as a call to holiness. The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control, requiring us to learn to control even our most basic, primal instincts.

        Donin also points out that the laws of kashrut elevate the simple act of eating into a religious ritual. The Jewish dinner table is often compared to the Temple altar in rabbinic literature. A Jew who observes the laws of kashrut cannot eat a meal without being reminded of the fact that he is a Jew

        ken “all foods are clean” temple, why yhwh came to CONTRADICT thousand years of divine tradition?

        i am just asking about JEWISH yhwh “in the flesh” here, not about a pagan gentile like you.


      • “The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism. Imposing rules on what you can and cannot eat ingrains that kind of self control”

        jesus went further and told ken temple to pluck his eye out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: