Revising Our Attitude To Sex as Christianity Fades

Lot and company flee Sodom & Gomorrah

Suspended twitter atheist troll "Rubicondior" is at it again posting nonsensical hyperbole by splicing surveys and statistics in order to conform with his inferences. In his post, "Revising Our Attitude To Sex as Christianity Fades," "Rosa" claims that Christianity is fading and that the "openness" of sexuality is increasing which he posits as a good thing. Are these claims true?  Let's see the facts: Christianity is Fading This is a claim many atheists like to throw around which is not true.  While there are churches that are closing and struggling to keep a congregation, this does not mean the religion they house is fading.  Many church buildings were built in the past to accommodate immigrants and others, so it is not uncommon to see 10 church buildings within a few blocks of each other.  With the introduction of abortion and contraception, future generations are getting smaller and smaller.  Because of this, the many church edifices that exist are no longer necessary because there aren't people to fill them up unless we reverse the irrational laws that allow abortion and contraception. In short, people are not having enough babies to continue next generations.

 This decrease in church attendance has nothing to do with religion itself, but due to social circumstances.  Many European nations are struggling to keep an economy because of this.  There aren't enough people to contribute to the economical system.  The United States of America is facing the same challenge. Without kids, who will continue a nation, a culture etc? Christianity is not going to disappear.  On the contrary, studies show that religion is increasing while atheism is on the decline.
I'm assuming that "Rosa" is basing his conclusion on a recent comment made by the church of England's leader. (see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/24/church-of-england-see-itself)  However, other reports claim the church of England to be "stabilizing." (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22426144) While the church of England may be struggling, this does not mean all of Christianity is struggling. Catholicism is still the dominant religion on Earth and has seen increases throughout the world, even in the United Kingdom. (see: http://www.nationalcouncilofchurches.us, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573452/Britain-has-become-a-Catholic-country.html)

 In my opinion, the church of England is struggling because of the way it waters down Christian theology and values as they have been taught by the Catholic Church since she was founded by Christ Jesus.  People want a religion that challenges them to change and go against their vices, not a church that encourages vices and immorality.  Who needs a church that doesn't believe anything is sinful anymore?  Who needs a gym that encourages gluttony and sloth instead of hard work, exercise, discipline and a change of bad habits?

 Attitude of Sex Revision
 "Rosa" relies on a survey (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2962035-8/abstract) to base his ideas that people are more open to "experimenting" and hence, there is more happiness and freedom.  Is this true?  Does looking at sex as a mere pastime where we find a partner of any gender to use as a toy make our lives better and "freer?"  Let's look at the facts: First, a survey is never 100% accurate.  Surveys can be sent to specific people to get specific replies. This can and will lead to bias.  I laugh at surveys that claim the majority of Catholics are against the Pope knowing that I and others were never given such a survey and that the ones who answered them were non-catholics or non-practicing catholics.  Conclusions are then made based on these biased surveys.  Similarly, any psychology student is taught that surveys are not 100% perfect, and that they are difficult to use when preparing an ANOVA statement with Tukey's HSD. For those who do not know the latter, they are statistical formulations used in studies and research to determine correlation, causation, increases, decreases etc. "Rubicondior" writes:

So, now our increasing rejection of Christian guilt-ridden censoriousness over sex has allowed the subject of sex out of the closet, we are becoming more adventurous, more willing to experiment and more likely to be sexually fulfilled. At the same time we are becoming more conscious of the need to be more considerate, more tolerant and above all more mindful of the fact that our sexual activities can actually be harmful to others. All in all, a kinder, more considerate and more caring society than that formerly imposed on us by an exclusively male, and often sexually repressed, predatory, even paedophilic, clergy.

Again, "Rubicondior" is posting nonsensical hyperbole along with religious hate.  No one is rejecting Christianity or any "guilt-ridden" ideas.  In fact, Islam in some cases is replacing Christianity in Europe.  Islam is far stricter with sexuality than Christianity.  (see: http://europenews.dk/en/node/73506)  So "Rubicondior" will find that eventually Britain will become more "sexually repressed" if Islam takes over completely and will miss Christianity. Moreover, being "sexually out of the closet" does not make one happy or fulfilled.  With the increase of this "out of the closet" behavior, HIV is taking over Europe faster than any religion. (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/aids-europe-hiv-infections_n_4347567.html)  There is obviously a correlation between "Rose's" "sexually out of the closet" phenomenon and the increase of HIV infections.  When sex is not respected and people are treated like sex objects, then increases of HIV and other infections will occur.  Moreover, when morals are set aside, evil takes it place.

Evil as we know has consequences.  "Rose" praises homosexuality as a good while studies show that homosexuals have the highest rates of mental illness and suicide rates. (see: http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx)   In conclusion, "Rosa" has no clue what he is writing about - as usual.  He must look at the entire picture before jumping to conclusions that 1) Christianity is Fading, 2) Sexual Licentiousness is a Good and is helping Humanity.  Christianity is not fading away, but is going through a generational change.  It is still the dominant religion on Earth and is seeing increases throughout the world. Sexual licentiousness is not a good.  The survey which "Rose" cites were done with samples of those who grew in the "sexual revolution" social phenomenon and therefore answered the survey with the only social understanding they know of.  Homosexuals have the highest rates of mental illness and suicide rates.  HIV is on the rise in Europe and throughout the world.  This means people will suffer physically and mentally; which means there is no happiness or freedom.  This "revision of sex attitude" has only imprisoned people physically and mentally.          

Sacerdotus -The Fraud Exposed

The blog post at https://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2013/05/sacerdotus-fraud-exposed.html, published on May 8, 2013, by an author named Bill Hounslow using the pseudonym Rosa Rubicondior, claims to expose an individual named Manuel "Manny" de Dios Agosto, allegedly behind the online persona 

@Sacerdotus

, as a fraud. The post accuses him of fabricating credentials, misrepresenting his past, and engaging in deceptive online behavior. Below, I’ll critically examine and refute key claims from the post, focusing on evidence (or lack thereof), logical consistency, and alternative interpretations, while adhering to a skeptical approach.

1. Claim: Manuel de Dios Agosto is

@Sacerdotus

The post asserts that Manuel de Dios Agosto, a supposed expelled seminarian from the Bronx, is the person behind the

@Sacerdotus

Twitter account and related online presence. It links this identity to various MySpace profiles and social media activity.

Refutation:

• Lack of Direct Evidence: The blog relies heavily on circumstantial connections—like similar usernames (e.g., "sacerdotvs" on MySpace) and overlapping interests (Catholicism, the Bronx)—but provides no concrete proof, such as official documents, IP address logs, or verified statements from credible sources tying Manuel de Dios Agosto to

  @Sacerdotus

  . Publicly available information alone, like a name in a newsletter, doesn’t confirm online identity.
• Assumption of Singular Identity: The post assumes one person operates all mentioned accounts without considering that multiple individuals could use similar aliases or that "Sacerdotus" (Latin for "priest") might be a common pseudonym among Catholic enthusiasts. No forensic digital analysis is presented to rule out coincidences or copycats.
• Alternative Explanation: The real

  @Sacerdotus

  could be someone else entirely, using the persona for unrelated reasons—perhaps a troll, a role-player, or a genuine seminarian. The blog’s author leaps to a specific individual without exhausting other possibilities.

2. Claim: Manuel Was Expelled from St. Joseph’s Seminary

The post cites a New York Catholic newsletter from Claudia McDonnell, claiming Bishop Garmendia announced Manuel de Dios Agosto’s admission to a Franciscan seminary, and asserts he was later expelled from St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers for misconduct.

Refutation:

• Ambiguity and Inconsistency: The post doesn’t clarify if the “Franciscan seminary” and St. Joseph’s Seminary are the same institution. St. Joseph’s in Yonkers is a diocesan seminary, not Franciscan, suggesting a factual mix-up. No expulsion record is provided—just an assertion. A newsletter announcing admission doesn’t prove later events.
• No Corroboration: No seminary records, statements from officials, or even dates of the alleged expulsion are cited. A single newsletter mention from an unspecified year (pre-2013) isn’t evidence of enrollment, let alone expulsion. Seminaries don’t typically publicize expulsions, so this claim rests on hearsay.
• Counter-Evidence Potential: Without access to primary sources (e.g., seminary archives), the claim is unverifiable. If Manuel never attended, or if no such person exists with that history, the narrative collapses. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, and it’s unmet here.

3. Claim:

@Sacerdotus

Fabricates Academic Credentials

The post alleges

@Sacerdotus

boasts of degrees from Lehman College and other institutions, calling these claims fraudulent based on a supposed honors list omission and the author’s disbelief.

Refutation:

• Weak Evidence: The blog mentions a “list of Lehman College honor students” from February 23, 2012, in The Bronx Journal, claiming Manuel’s name appears but questioning his graduation. However, honors lists don’t prove or disprove degree completion—students can graduate without honors. No transcript or registrar confirmation is offered to disprove the degrees.
• Speculative Dismissal: The author assumes

  @Sacerdotus

  lies because the credentials seem exaggerated, but this is subjective. People can earn degrees and still act pompously online—behavior doesn’t negate qualifications. Without evidence of non-enrollment, this is an argument from incredulity.
• Possible Truth:

  @Sacerdotus

  could have attended Lehman or other schools as claimed. The blog doesn’t investigate enrollment records or contact institutions, leaving the accusation hollow.

4. Claim: Psychotic Behavior and Obsession

The post paints

@Sacerdotus

as a “narcissistic fantasist” obsessed with Rosa Rubicondior, citing abusive tweets and blog posts as evidence of mental instability.

Refutation:

• Biased Framing: The author interprets

  @Sacerdotus

  ’s online activity as psychotic without clinical evidence. Heated online exchanges—common in ideological debates—don’t equate to mental illness. The “obsession” could be mutual, as Rosa dedicates a detailed post to

  @Sacerdotus

  , suggesting reciprocal fixation.
• Lack of Context: No specific tweets or posts are quoted verbatim with timestamps, making it impossible to assess their tone or frequency independently. Screenshots or links (functional in 2013) might have existed, but their absence in the text weakens the claim today.
• Alternative View:

  @Sacerdotus

  ’s behavior could reflect a zealous defender of faith clashing with an atheist blogger—hardly rare on social media. Calling it “psychotic” is a rhetorical flourish, not a substantiated diagnosis.

5. Claim: Public Information Confirms the Narrative

The post ends by saying

@Sacerdotus

himself provides the incriminating details through his own social media, implying self-exposure.

Refutation:

• Circular Reasoning: If

  @Sacerdotus

  is Manuel, and Manuel posted this info, it’s only “public” because the blog assumes the identity link. Without independent verification, this is self-referential—using the conclusion to prove the premise.
• Selective Interpretation: The blog cherry-picks posts (e.g., a MySpace entry about 9/11) to fit its story, ignoring that millions shared similar sentiments. Generic content doesn’t uniquely identify anyone.
• No Validation: No third-party confirmation—like a friend, colleague, or official record—ties these posts to Manuel de Dios Agosto. The “flood of claims” could be from an unrelated troll or a different person entirely.

Broader Critique

• Ad Hominem Over Substance: The post focuses on discrediting

  @Sacerdotus

  personally rather than engaging his arguments (e.g., about atheism or Catholicism). Even if he’s a fraud, that doesn’t invalidate his ideas—a logical fallacy Rosa employs.
• Unfalsifiable Narrative: By claiming

  @Sacerdotus

  deletes evidence when exposed, the author creates a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose scenario. Absence of proof becomes proof of guilt, which is intellectually lazy.
• Motive Questioned: Rosa’s tone suggests a vendetta, possibly fueled by prior online spats (hinted at in comments). This undermines objectivity—why invest so much in “exposing” one obscure figure unless personal stakes are involved?

Conclusion

The blog post fails to substantiate its central claims with hard evidence, relying instead on speculation, unverified sources, and leaps of logic. It doesn’t prove Manuel de Dios Agosto is

@Sacerdotus

, that he was expelled from a seminary, or that his credentials are fake. At best, it’s an unproven hypothesis; at worst, it’s a smear built on shaky ground. A skeptical reader should dismiss it for lack of rigor—claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If Rosa aimed to expose fraud, the mirror might be closer than intended.